William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[Tom Odom]

While I agree that the only applicable defintion of "victory" that means anything in Iraq is restoration of the state---in other words putting it back to where it was when we started--I also believe the likelihood of that happening is small.

But Lind in his ever present push for 4GW theory now proposes putting Al Sadr in charge as the man most likely to succeed is stunning. Whether you find it stunning in its brilliance or its stupidty is up to you.

I would pick stupidity and suggest Lind link up with Diana West.

Tom

[SteveMetz]

While I agree that the only applicable defintion of "victory" that means anything in Iraq is restoration of the state---in other words putting it back to where it was when we started--I also believe the likelihood of that happening is small.

But Lind in his ever present push for 4GW theory now proposes putting Al Sadr in charge as the man most likely to succeed is stunning. Whether you find it stunning in its brilliance or its stupidty is up to you.

I would pick stupidity and suggest Lind link up with Diana West.

Tom

I can't figure out the motives of people like Lind and Luttwak with his "kill them all and plow salt into the earth" counterinsurgency strategy.

West I can understand--she knows she isn't trying to actually influence policy but is just trying to sell papers. So like Michael Moore, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc., she realizes that utter nonsense will appeal to some.

But Lind (and Luttwak) I would think actually want to be taken seriously by policymakers. Writing stuff like this erodes that possibility. What worries me is that while most people who are in a position to influence policy realize that West, Coulter, Limbaugh etc are entertainers and not policy analysts, there are people who take Lind (and Luttwak) seriously.

[Steve Blair]

While I agree that the only applicable defintion of "victory" that means anything in Iraq is restoration of the state---in other words putting it back to where it was when we started--I also believe the likelihood of that happening is small.

But Lind in his ever present push for 4GW theory now proposes putting Al Sadr in charge as the man most likely to succeed is stunning. Whether you find it stunning in its brilliance or its stupidty is up to you.

I would pick stupidity and suggest Lind link up with Diana West.

Tom

No! They might reproduce then...

I think Lind got a taste of the policy thing during the maneuver warfare push and really liked it. After that he's just been playing the "see what Generation I have TODAY" game.

[jcustis]

I need an emoticon that is holding its head in its hands...shaking.

It's no so much because I disagree with Lind on the Al-Sadr thing (and I do), but it's the fact that this is what the war has come to. We have begun to grasp at straws because there are so few options remaining.

I liked the analysis, and Lind may be spot on that a Christian invader may never be able to restore institutions in Iraq that have any chance of lasting. That is, not unless we develop a predisposition to violence and heavy-handedness that bends opponents and bystanders to our will, and in turn setting us back on that Catch-22 cycle.

[Old Eagle]

I like the final paragraph where he ponders the effect on the presidential debates if one of the candidates were to back his proposal.

Waiting with baited breath ...out.

[tequila]

I'd love to see a poll where we find out just how many presidential candidates could identify who Muqtada al-Sadr actually was, or what religious sect he was from.

I'm betting we'd see a pass rate under 50%.

[Merv Benson]

Metz said:

But Lind (and Luttwak) I would think actually want to be taken seriously by policymakers. Writing stuff like this erodes that possibility. What worries me is that while most people who are in a position to influence policy realize that West, Coulter, Limbaugh etc are entertainers and not policy analysts, there are people who take Lind (and Luttwak) seriously.

Unlike West and Coulter, Limbaugh actually supports Gen. Petraeus and the counterinsurgency strategy he is implementing in Iraq. He wants to see the military be given a chance to succeed. I am not sure what you would find wrong with that.

[Granite_State]

I'd love to see a poll where we find out just how many presidential candidates could identify who Muqtada al-Sadr actually was, or what religious sect he was from.

I'm betting we'd see a pass rate under 50%.

I think if you asked them to give you more than three or four sentences on him, you'd be under 25%. The rhetoric you see from virtually all of them, even in places like Foreign Policy, is incredibly simplistic and even stupid.

[Ski]

You noticed that as well?

I can tell you that he has met with at least one Presidental candidate.

Take that as you will.

I like the final paragraph where he ponders the effect on the presidential debates if one of the candidates were to back his proposal.

Waiting with baited breath ...out.

[Granite_State]

You noticed that as well?

I can tell you that he has met with at least one Presidental candidate.

Take that as you will.

I'm guessing idle speculation will not be rewarded with a name?

[Ski]

You seem like a politically tuned in type of dude, I'm sure you can add one plus one together to figure out who this might be...

I'm guessing idle speculation will not be rewarded with a name?

[Granite_State]

While I agree that the only applicable defintion of "victory" that means anything in Iraq is restoration of the state---in other words putting it back to where it was when we started--I also believe the likelihood of that happening is small.

But Lind in his ever present push for 4GW theory now proposes putting Al Sadr in charge as the man most likely to succeed is stunning. Whether you find it stunning in its brilliance or its stupidty is up to you.

I would pick stupidity and suggest Lind link up with Diana West.

Tom

To be fair, Lind didn't say America should (or more importantly, could) put Sadr in charge. He wrote: "The one chance of victory we have left is to get out of the way of al-Sadr and anyone else in Iraq who might be able to re-create an Iraqi state"...

Obviously Sadr is not a good guy, but from what I understand he is far more of an Iraqi nationalist than most of the Shiite parties, like SCIRI (forget their new name), which are closer to Iran.

Of course, if we had a real deal with Iran, that wouldn't be as big a plus. Surprised no one has mentioned Lind's talk of rapprochement, that seemed to me to be the boldest thing in the article.

[Abu Buckwheat]

Obviously Sadr is not a good guy, but from what I understand he is far more of an Iraqi nationalist than most of the Shiite parties, like SCIRI (forget their new name), which are closer to Iran.

Of course, if we had a real deal with Iran, that wouldn't be as big a plus. Surprised no one has mentioned Lind's talk of rapprochement, that seemed to me to be the boldest thing in the article.

Al-Sadr as an alternative? Really? Thats a new level of insanity I hadn't considered before. Al-Sadr is setting himself and the MM as the new Hizballah/Hamas of Iraq. He has spent the last year separating the MM from the government and playing tight with Iran. Iran is playing bth SCIRI and the MM but a well tuned and compliant proxy force in Iraq that ignores the central government and empowered with hard killing advanced weapons like EFPs is in their interest and has already yielded long term resuslts in Lebanon. Hala Jaber's Hezbollah-Born with a Vengence (1st Edition) really captures this strategy of enter, ignore, supply Charity, build trust then build an army.. the MM have it sort of backwards but they did stand up to the US army three years ago and that bought a measure of respect. Enough respect to be a deal-maker or breaker to PM Maliki. He is intending to go on his own with the IRGC supporting him, but will the Badr and SCIRI allow it ... MAS is not someone we should bank on.

[Jedburgh]

....Iran is playing bth SCIRI and the MM but a well tuned and compliant proxy force in Iraq that ignores the central government and empowered with hard killing advanced weapons like EFPs is in their interest....

Very good article in the Jul 07 Jane's Intelligence Review: Shia backlash - Anti-coalition Sadrist factions in Iraq, for those with access:

...Although many Iraqi Shia groups are highly suspicious of Iranian motives, they are also in desperate need of financial and logistics support, as well as training. It is notable that Tehran's military assistance comprises weapons that are principally for use against coalition forces and bases - stand-off weapons such as armour-piercing roadside bombs, sniper rifles and indirect fire weapons. Tehran has also sought to dissuade its clients from undertaking internecine attacks and has acted as an intermediary in recent clashes between factions in Basra and other areas of southern and central Iraq.

This focus on anti-coalition attacks has opened up new relationships between Iran and the break-away Sadrist militias that are opposed to Iranian influence. Instead of courting Moqtada al-Sadr to attain high-level influence over the Sadrist movement, the Iranians appear to be taking a grassroots approach to influence the smaller militias....

I also want to second Abu Buckwheat's recommendation of Hala Jaber's Hezbollah-Born with a Vengence.

[jcustis]

To be fair, Lind didn't say America should (or more importantly, could) put Sadr in charge. He wrote: "The one chance of victory we have left is to get out of the way of al-Sadr and anyone else in Iraq who might be able to re-create an Iraqi state"...

Obviously Sadr is not a good guy, but from what I understand he is far more of an Iraqi nationalist than most of the Shiite parties, like SCIRI (forget their new name), which are closer to Iran.

Of course, if we had a real deal with Iran, that wouldn't be as big a plus. Surprised no one has mentioned Lind's talk of rapprochement, that seemed to me to be the boldest thing in the article.

Oh, I'm all about rapprochment, but that's just the realist in me who knows we cannot wave a big stick around every time a gnat flies in our ear. Like using the honey vs. vinegar approach.