April 20, 2008 8:54

Weekend Book Club--Iraq edition

Posted by Joe Klein | Comments (32) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

For my fellow Iraq obsessives out there, two new and important books:

Regular Swampland readers know how much I respect the Pentagon analysis filed by Fred Kaplan of Slate. Kaplan's new book Daydream Believers is excellent and devastating, not just on the Iraq war, but also on the Bush Administration's fantastic devotion to anti-missile defense and its first term refusal to negotiate with the North Koreans. Kaplan is also terrific on the depredations of former Rumsfeld assistant Douglas Feith, who also has a new, rather obese book out trying to justify his lethal foolishness. I'd love to see Kaplan review it somewhere--a Cliff's Notes version of Feith's greatest whoppers would be a small, but essential, public service. But go, please, and buy Kaplan's book. His great work deserves attention and reward.

Patrick Cockburn's Iraq obsession puts my tiny 5-year jones to shame. He's been out there for two decades and really knows the place and the players, which makes his new biography of Muqtada Sadr essential reading, especially now. I haven't finished it yet--last few chapters to go--but it seems eminently fair and very well-informed so far and I decided to include here and now because of the events on the ground in Mesopotamia.

Speaking of which, I agree with Kevin Drum's assessment of today's New York Times piece about the mysterious Mr. Sadr...especially the part where Kevin confesses that he's not quite sure what's going on. My suspicion is that Sadr sees more hope in the October elections than in a military confrontation with the U.S. and Badr Corps right now. Also fascinating that the Iran seems, for the moment, to be taking sides with its more tradition partner--the Hakim Shi'ite faction--and against the militias that Crocker and Petraeus, Bush and McCain were so convinced were Iran's cat's paw in Iraq. It's always good to remember that while the Sadr family stayed in Iraq during Saddam's reign, the Hakims lived in Iran and their militia--the Badr Corps, now melted into the Iraqi Army, were organized and served as part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps.

It's a classic policy conundrum: Sadr is more anti-American, but Hakim is more pro-Iranian. Short-term Sadr is a real problem--especially those Sadrist elements that are lobbing mortars into the Green Zone and setting bombs to kill American troops. Long term, though, the Hakim faction may be crucial in the further empowerment of Iran in the region.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

Reader Comments (32)

Florida:

Also fascinating that the Iran seems, for the moment, to be taking sides with its more tradition partner--the Hakim Shi'ite faction--and against the militias that Crocker and Petraeus, Bush and McCain were so convinced were Iran's cat's paw in Iraq. It's always good to remember that while the Sadr family stayed in Iraq during Saddam's reign, the Hakims lived in Iran and their militia--the Badr Corps, now melted into the Iraqi Army, were organized and served as part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps.

So basically, Bush, McCain, and Petraeus are helping the Iraninans. How awesome is the Bush/McCain strategy?!?!?!

Posted by Florida | April 20, 2008 10:28 AM

53_3:

Isn't it kind of surprising how trying to tout the "horse race" in Iraq is becoming increasingly similar to touting the one going on for the Democratic nomination?

It's a very good "weather report", Joe, but tomorrow, the political "weather" will be entirely different.

Here's a picture for you:

Uncle Sam, in a scuba suit, amidst a school of VERY toothy fish, making a slow motion desperate leap at the nearest fish to hug...

Posted by 53_3 | April 20, 2008 10:31 AM

Paul Dirks

Joe, While were on the subject of the complexities of Iraq, would yuou care to comment on this piece:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/us/politics/19threat.html?_r=1&ei=5090&en=31622d97f8ca33e3&ex=1366257600&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1208610892-5kgXTxhfWsuMijfOUhGptA

Knowing the degree to which conflating different enemies to represent a single threat is exactly how we got hoodwinked into Iraq in the first place, it strikes me as vital that the same process not be allowed to repeat itself.

I hope you agree.....

Posted by Paul Dirks | April 20, 2008 10:36 AM

stuart_zechman:

Joe:

Thank you so much for keeping the situation in view.

I'll order Kaplan's book today.

Posted by stuart_zechman | April 20, 2008 11:12 AM

HH:

Chutzpah Joe has decided to unpack his bags and settle in for a stay in the reality-based community. No more panegyrics to General Petraeus and his wonder Surge. It is a pleasure to watch Chutzpah Joe dust off his disused intellectual equipment to cope with his sudden rediscovery of the Byzantine politics of the Mideast.

Nice job, Joe. It almost sounds like honest commentary.

Posted by HH | April 20, 2008 11:32 AM

TeresaKopec:

I'd also like to know what you think of the NY Times story today about how the Pentagon used ex-military men for propaganda purposes. I noticed Torie Clark wasn't on This Week today. Surprise, surprise.

Posted by TeresaKopec | April 20, 2008 1:35 PM

JimNY:

"Chutzpah Joe?"

HH, you sound like one of those Fox News 'Fair and Balanced' "journalists". Say, this isn't Shepperd WotsHisName incognito, is it?

How about a little civility when you disagree with someone instead of this snarky, tiresome name-calling that is still so lamentably in vogue these days? Chutzpah Joe...give me a break.

Meanwhile, for those interested in staying on topic, why isn't anyone but Keith Olbermann and to a lesser degree Tim Russert on Meet the Press this morning talking about one alarming statement by Hillary Clinton in the last debate: her promise of "massive retaliation" against Iran or anyone else who attacked any country in a hypothetical "umbrella" of Mesopotamian allies? And wot about her defense of an imperial presidency in which military generals and advisors are there solely to advise...then take orders from the Clinton in Chief?

Troubling concepts, and that oldie-but-goody phrase - massive retaliation - reminds me of that great hit of yesteryear, the Cold War.

Fox News Flash: Iran has just lobbed a Scud MK VII 2000 missle at Egypt...dive under your desks, children, President Hillie is about to kick butt!

As Russert asks, is she proposing that whenever there's a conflict between middle eastern nations we will leap into the fray? WTF? Why isn't anybody jumping on this in favor of lapel pins and fictional sniper fire?

Posted by JimNY | April 20, 2008 1:45 PM

Paul Dirks

Why isn't anybody jumping on this in favor of lapel pins and fictional sniper fire?

Because not everyone here is old enough to remember when destroying all life on the planet was considered a viable foreign policy option.

Posted by Paul Dirks | April 20, 2008 1:50 PM

Cincinnatus:

No comment about Pentagon MSM psyops? Remember Joe, when you went apesh!t about the MoveOn 'General Betrayus' ad?

Really? Nothing?

Posted by Cincinnatus | April 20, 2008 2:51 PM

HH:

Chutzphah Joe has earned this nickname many times over. His standing as an expert in all matters derives mainly from his relentless declaration of his expertise. He is part of the "So Wrong For So Long" crowd but thinks that this reinforces his position as a national treasure. In short, he is a shameless, myopic, and discredited scribbler who has confused recidivism with journalism.

Joe's latest flirtation with the reality-based community may be a good sign, since he always tries to be on the winning side, but his character has not changed. The personal success of Joe Klein has always been job number one.

Posted by HH | April 20, 2008 2:59 PM

stringer:

I'll gladly read anything that takes Doug Feith to task for his continuing, failed attempts to justify his role in this war and his own stupidity.

Tommy Franks had it right when it comes to Feith, "The stupidest f***ing guy alive."

Posted by stringer | April 20, 2008 3:00 PM

Yoshi:

"In short, he is a shameless, myopic, and discredited scribbler who has confused recidivism with journalism."

The awards given to his column don't agree...

The situation on the ground is complicated and open to many different readings. I haven't seen anything in Joe's Iraq columns that is blatantly wrong. If anything, your characterization is rabid and full of partisan simplicity.

Posted by Yoshi | April 20, 2008 3:14 PM

HH:

I haven't seen anything in Joe's Iraq columns that is blatantly wrong.

Is that your standard for an award-winning journalist: no gross errors? FIVE YEARS after the Iraq invasion, Joe Klein now thinks that maybe it wasn't such a good idea, but he still doesn't have the balls to call for a withdrawal. This is insightful commentary?

Klein knew that Bush was a mediocrity from the earliest days of his administration, but would he endanger his precious "access" to the powerful by denouncing Bush when Bush was at the height of his popularity? Hell no! He was properly deferential. Now he joins the rest of the nominally liberal pundits in kicking the lame duck. What a profile in courage!

But what about those award-winning political insights? Here is a demonstration of Joe's acumen:

"Anybody who tries to take a really strong position on [Cheney] from the left or from the right seems kind of silly," Klein said of Bush's vice presidential selection on a "Meet the Press" panel. "We're all Clintonians now. Everybody is a Third Way Democrat or Republican, you know, and I think that that's one of the central problems that politicians in both parties face right now, is that there are no huge differences, or at least very few."

And then, after the election, Klein predicted that the result would be "a quiet, patient, and persistent bipartisanship," with no big tax cuts or Supreme Court ideologues. Klein suggested helpfully, "Bush could easily retain Lawrence Summers at Treasury and Richard Holbrooke at the United Nations."

Source: http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/001983.html

Lastly, how many prominent journalists do you know who have to publicly apologize for saying something "stupid" roughly once a month?

But perhaps I am too harsh. Please cite for me example's of Joe's writing or commentary in which he has added value to public discourse by contributing valuable insights or removing confusion. I am eager to see evidence of Joe's fine work.

Posted by HH | April 20, 2008 5:23 PM

Chucklehead:

"For my fellow Iraq obsessives"

This nutbag talks about Iraq like it's some kind of hobby or he's following the exploits of his college team. Makes me wanna puke.

Didja ever consider that maybe some of those brown people over there are Pro Iraqi and want the US out regardless.

Iraq obsessives, goddam I can't get over that.

Posted by Chucklehead | April 20, 2008 7:00 PM

stuart_zechman:

JimNY:

Not that I necessarily agree with this idea, but with respect to an Iranian invasion of one of its sovereign neighbors, i.e. Kuwait, isn't she basically proposing the rationale for the first Gulf War?

I'm suggesting that this isn't a terribly radical idea. Massive US-led multi-lateral retaliation in response to overt military aggression on the part of a hegemonic power attempting to physically corner the Persian Gulf oil market might arguably not be such a terrible idea, depending on the circumstances. "Retaliation" is not necessarily occupation. Moreover, a NATO-style alliance whose purpose was to lay out clear consequences for such aggression might be the best kind of deterrent to Persian hegemony, i.e. might serve as a structure from which open war might be avoided altogether. When Jim Webb talks about structuring stable relationships in that region using full-court press diplomacy, I can't imagine that he's that far off from what she's proposing.

This is all to say that such proposals should be argued on their merits, and not exploited in tabloid fashion (like Olbermann) for their simpleton's worst-case-scenario scariness factor--kinda like Obama's statements regarding strikes in Pakistan.

Of course, since it's Hillary's idea, that means that it couldn't possibly have any sense to it at all...at least until the primary is over.

Posted by stuart_zechman | April 20, 2008 7:43 PM

stuart_zechman:

...just to be clear, Keith Olbermann did not exploit Obama's statements about Pakistan using an unhelpful, tabloid style, largely because he functions for the most part in the manner of an Obama partisan, and as such the benefit of the doubt is usually extended to the Obama campaign.

Fox News Channel did exploit Obama's position statements in such a tabloid manner (and for partisan reasons), however.

Posted by stuart_zechman | April 20, 2008 8:15 PM

Malcolm:

JimNY:
"And wot about her defense of an imperial presidency in which military generals and advisors are there solely to advise...then take orders from the Clinton in Chief?"

I believe you can find a reference to the President's role as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces in something called the Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Posted by Malcolm | April 20, 2008 11:23 PM

Yoshi:

HH:

Just because somebody doesn't share your partisan views on withdrawal doesn't mean that he's ignorant of Iraq itself. It means he has his own opinion.

Few people (if any) denounced Bush at the height of his popularity. How could you? The country had just lost 3,000 people to the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil and the President was the figure to rally behind, the figure who was supposed to lead. Undercutting him then, with no clear reason, would just be dumb. Approval ratings were at around 90%. If you want to blame anybody for not criticizing Bush at that time, blame pretty much the entire American public. As for your Cheney thing, well, all I can say is nobody can tell the future.

This is a valuable, insightful column from Joe Klein:

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1220442,00.html

Posted by Yoshi | April 21, 2008 1:50 AM

HH:

Just because somebody doesn't share your partisan views on withdrawal doesn't mean that he's ignorant of Iraq itself. It means he has his own opinion.

Chutzpah Joe may have his own opinions, but he is careful only to share them with his readers only at opportune times. The "insightful" column you cite reports that Joe (two years ago) is clueless about what to do in Iraq, all the experts he consulted are clueless, and even Winston Churchill was clueless. What kind of contribution did this article make to the public's understanding of the Iraq war? Exactly nothing, because there is an argument for every position in it.

Joe's support for Bush persisted for years after the 9/11 attacks because he feared being tarred as a traitor, like the rest of the hear, see, and speak-no-evil cowards in the Beltway press. Now, with a trillion dollars and 4,000 American lives lost he still doesn't have the guts to call for American withdrawal, although he is now brave enough to denounce the war - AFTER the public turned against it.

Please explain to me how the writings of Joe Klein have helped American society in any way. He has been so wrong for so long that he is indistinguishable from the other worthless journalistic "insiders" who made clever quips as America rolled down the road to ruin.

Posted by HH | April 21, 2008 10:15 AM

Cliff:

Thanks for the article, Joe. This is kind of a big deal. Not surprising in the least, though.

Posted by Cliff | April 21, 2008 3:59 PM

hamada:

وصلات 1
وصلات2
وصلات3
وصلات4
وصلات5
وصلات6
وصلات7
وصلات8
وصلات9
وصلات10
وصلات11
وصلات12
وصلات13
وصلات14
وصلات15
وصلات16
وصلات17
وصلات18
وصلات19
وصلات20
وصلات21