|
Interesting set of interviews on Dateline (Aust-SBS channel) concerning the 'Surge' and effect that the war is having there. George Negus is probably one of the last highly respected independant journalists left in this country so, it's worth reading just for the smashing he can deal out so eloquently on someone who doesn't see it coming or is used to a more 'tame' journo's doing the cut and dried questions. Kimberly Kagan starts off all grins and false smiles from the start, by the end of it she's looking like she's got to go to the toilet in a very urgent hurry. Was worth watching just for that expression of pain, if it ever turns up on youtube or something watch it.
Archives - July 18th, 2007
Dr Kimberly Kagan & Michael Ware
The so-called US surge in Iraq, basically, an extra 30,000 troops, is aimed at pacifying the violence in Bagdad. But it has actually provoked another war, a war of words, in Washington. Daily, rebel Republicans are queuing up to dump on George W’s increasingly unpopular Iraq strategy. The dissident senators are urging a phased US withdrawal by April next year. Unimpressed, George Bush says he won’t budge until he hears a progress report from his commander in Iraq, due in September. So with a raging debate in Washington, all but non-existent here, Dateline took up the contentious surge issue with Michael Ware, CNN’s correspondent in Bagdad and war historian and leading neo-conservative Dr Kimberly Kagan in Washington.
GEORGE NEGUS: Doctor, thanks very much for joining us.Could we start by showing you a short montage that we put together which really amounts to a microcosm of the debate going on in Washington as we speak.
DR KIMBERLY KAGAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF WAR: That would be my pleasure.
GEORGE NEGUS: Great.
GEORGE BUSH, US PRESIDENT: I welcome a good honest debate about the consequences of failure, the consequences of success in this war. But I believe that it is in this nation's interest to give the commander a chance to fully implement his operations. And I believe Congress ought to wait for General Petraeus to come back and give his assessment of the strategy that he is putting in place before they make any decisions.
HARRY REID, DEMOCRATE SENATE MAGORITY LEADER: We are told good progress is being made. Wait till September. Good progress is being made. How many times over the last 4.5 years have we heard this? Too many to number.
SENATOR RICHARD LUGAR, REPUBLICAN, INDIANA: We have overestimated what the military can achieve. We have set goals that are unrealistic and we have inadequately factored in the broader regional consequences of our actions.
SENATOR JOHN WARNER, REPUBLICAN, VIRGINIA: It is the duty of the Iraqi armed forces, that is the basic argument, the Iraqi armed forces to take on the sectarian fight.
GEORGE BUSH: I understand why the American people are.. You know, they are tired of the war. There's... People are.. There is war fatigue in America, it is affecting our psychology I've said this before. I understand that - it is an ugly war.
GEORGE NEGUS: It would appear to is, doctor, as a relative outsiders, although we are part of the coalition of the willing that Republicans appear to be queuing up by the day to condemn the Bush Administration's policy towards Iraq, including the surge.
DR KIMBERLY KAGAN: It seems to me that it is too early to determine whether the new strategy, that the President really began in January, February and which has only been being implemented really for about two weeks, will succeed or fail. General Petraeus has requested until September 15 to make his initial report on the progress of the surge, and right now that is what the President is asking for.
GEORGE NEGUS: But the President himself in that grab there seemed a bit frustrated and befuddled himself. If he is acknowledging war fatigue, doesn't that show that there is some serious doubt within the administration, within the White House itself about what is going on.
DR KIMBERLY KAGAN: The President's speech last week was extremely strong. And I think although he understands and sympathises with the American people and the fact that they are tired with the war, his obligations are to make decisions about strategy in ways and with information that the American people do not necessarily have at their fingertips.
GEORGE NEGUS: But how can he make those decisions, those strategic decisions the way he has when as we look at the polls, 75% of the American population are now opposed to what is going on there and the Republican Party itself - the President's own party - appears to be split almost down the middle between those for and against. People like John Warner and Richard Lugar who are not exactly insignificant figures in American politics.
DR KIMBERLY KAGAN: No, they are not. But it still remains to be seen in the congressional voting whether or not the Senate will actually pass some of the resolutions that are intended in some way to regulate what the President can do during this surge.
GEORGE NEGUS: John Warner said the danger is that America is overestimating what you can achieve there, that you should be handing over to the Iraqis sooner, not later.
DR KIMBERLY KAGAN: It seems to me that it is premature to hand over security to the Iraqis. It is extremely difficult for a new, nascent force to take on the responsibilities of supplying themselves and fighting in a complex sectarian environment. And what we are starting to see is an extraordinary partnership forming on the ground between coalition forces.
GEORGE NEGUS: A partnership, doctor - if I could interrupt you there - a partnership that very few people really believe is working. You have said to say that the surge is failing is absurd, but should we see you as an objective analyst or an apologist because after all you and your husband, as I understand it, have actually been credited - if that is the word - with the architecture of this whole surge plan. Should we see you as a dispassionate observer or an apologist for the Bush Administration?
DR KIMBERLY KAGAN: I certainly hope that you will take my credentials and my Iraq reports on their own terms. That said, the surge that is being implemented on the ground is the surge that President Bush and Secretary Gates, General Petraeus and General Odierno have recommended. So the question right now is, is there a coherent military operation under way that we think might have the opportunity to succeed? And I think that General Odierno's core offensive, which is called Phantom Thunder, is actually an extraordinary operation. It is taking place all around Baghdad. It prioritises securing areas around Baghdad as a prelude to securing Baghdad itself.
GEORGE NEGUS: Doctor, you talk about the situation on the ground Last night I spoke to Michael Ware, the CNN correspondent in Baghdad. I would like you to have a listen to what he said, a couple of grabs of what he said, to ask and get your reaction to that. This is Michael Ware speaking to us last night from Baghdad.
GEORGE NEGUS: Michael, for your sins you've been there in Baghdad more or less since the outset of war back in 2003. How would you describe the situation on the ground in Iraq from a US perspective right now?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN BAGDAD CORRESPONDENT: Well, George, it's nothing short of dire. There's no other way to describe it. Right now the US military is adopting its new strategy and fighting for victory but that victory is very narrowly defined. What we are talking about is essentially just dampening down the violence in the capital, Baghdad. The reason for that being to give the political apparatus, this so-called Iraqi government, a chance to breathe and make political developments. But meanwhile the rest of the country continues to be aflame as does the capital itself. This is becoming a military sinkhole, costing the US around $2 million a week, on average something like three American lives a day. This whole war has radicalised this region instead of democratising it. And we are seeing the enemies that America came to target, principally Iran and al-Qaeda, emboldened as a result of this war and not weakened. And they consider it a good month when only 1,200 tortured and executed bodies are found on the streets of Baghdad. So it is pretty dire, George.
GEORGE NEGUS: Well, it has been six months of the so-called surge now by the US. Would you say the conditions in Iraq are any better or worse?
MICHAEL WARE: Well, the surge has been a slow wind-up and it finally came to its peak a few weeks ago once all the troops were here and the US launched a series of massive operations involving up to 50,000 combat troops and assets. It is essentially the largest offensive since the invasion itself. Now, they are trying to lock down the capital, that is having a minimal effect. They are trying to cut off the insurgents' supply lines. We have seen them attempt that before. I expect it will be no more successful than in the past. So the surge is having an impact but is it turning the tide of the war, is it buying that time for national reconciliation that the US Administration is desperately seeking? No, in those senses, it is not achieving that.
GEORGE NEGUS: Many of course are saying that if America pulls out, is it ready to pay the price? What is the price of pulling out, Michael?
MICHAEL WARE: You will see an expansion of Iranian influence. Already Iran has greater sway over the government here in Baghdad than do the Americans. You will see that consolidated. You will see Iraqi Shia militia with even increased support, funding and training than they are getting now from the Iranian armed forces. At the same time, you can't see America's Sunni Arab allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Jordan sit back and watch the advancement of a regional power they consider to be hostile. You could see regional skirmishes, if not border-scale conflicts. And one thing is for sure the blood will flow here in Iraq. Now, any of these factors could start to happen as soon as America gets below a certain threshold of troop levels. That will further destabilise the region rather than stabilising it like the war was supposed to do. And will ever weaken a sense of American power and American interests in this region rather than strengthen them. So they are the prices America is going to have to pay if it wants to pull out its troops at this moment.
GEORGE NEGUS: Surge or no surge, Michael, where to from here?
MICHAEL WARE: The coalition still isn't fighting this war. The troop levels they currently have aren't enough to do what they set out to do. And we're not seeing the balance provided in terms of real economic aid, a real reconstruction. We are not seeing that all-encompassing holistic approach that counter-insurgencies desperately need for them to be won.
GEORGE NEGUS: Just in the last few days, the US commander in Iraq - General Petraeus - put a minimum of 10 years on the insurgency. Are you as pessimistic as him?
MICHAEL WARE: No insurgency has never been defeated by less. This is a very slow fight here in Iraq. And we are seeing metastasizing, constantly morphing, reinventing itself. This war is going nowhere soon, George.
GEORGE NEGUS: That is a pretty straightforward comment from Michael Ware there. He says the situation is dire, the country is aflame, it is a military sinkhole and no, he doesn't believe that the surge is having the kind of impact that you are saying at least you hope it will have.
DR KIMBERLY KAGAN: Well, I would agree with Michael Ware that the situation in Baghdad is extremely dire. I don't think anyone looking at that situation would say that Baghdad is a pleasant place to be. But the question right now on the table in the debate in Washington DC is, is there a way of securing the capital in order to facilitate political negotiations? Is there a way of bringing down the number of dreadful casualties that Michael Ware has referred to? And is there a way to create space for the Iraqi political leadership to undertake their negotiations?
GEORGE NEGUS: John Howard has said that so far as Australia is concerned we will stay there until the job is done even though no-one is absolutely sure of exactly what that means. Hamilton Baker have advocated a staged withdrawal beginning early next year. Do you think that we will see a staged pullout begin of United States and coalition-of-the-willing troops in March or April of next year?
DR KIMBERLY KAGAN: I think that the idea of determining now when coalition forces will leave on the basis of a timeline rather than on the basis of conditions on the ground is an extremely dangerous policy to pursue because it emboldens the enemies of the coalition and of the Iraqi Government, who are in that circumstance waiting for the coalition to announce their withdrawal date so that they can in fact engage in undermining the stability of the government in Iraq. As long as these operations might lead to progress, then we should be having the debate on the terms of whether the national security objectives of the United States and of the coalition are in fact furthered by fighting terrorists and fighting militias and fighting enemy forces within Iraq in order to create a stable government. That is in fact the best ally that the coalition has in the war on terror.
GEORGE NEGUS: Doctor, thank you very much for your time. I guess we can say roll on September. Thanks again very much for giving us so much of your time.
DR KIMBERLY KAGAN: Thank you so much. It has been a pleasure to talk with you. Thank you.
Archives - July 18, 2007
Hugh White Interview
George Negus spoke with Professor Hugh White, head of the Strategic Studies Centre at the ANU in Canberra.
GEORGE NEGUS: Hugh, the debate is raging over the surge in Washington and even Republicans are jumping ship on the whole score. Why is the silence almost deafening in this country on the whole question of Iraq, let alone the surge at the moment? Why has it gone off our political radar?
PROFESSOR HUGH WHITE, HEAD OF STRATEGIC AND DEFENCE STUDIES CENTRE, ANU: Well, I think there are two parts to the answer of that question, George. The first is, of course, from John Howard's point of view Iraq has ceased to be the positive that it was even in 2004. That is, back in 2004 and earlier, John Howard's staunch position on Iraq was seen as consolidating his reputation as a strong national security leader. But particularly since last year, I think, the association with Iraq hasn't been a positive for him and he's been trying to turn down the knob on it a bit.
On the other hand, for Labor to overemphasise Iraq starts to raise questions about its commitment to the US alliance. And I think what Labor is calculating, what Kevin Rudd is calculating is that although the Australian public dislikes Iraq intensely, they still love the US alliance, and Rudd doesn't want to push his luck on that issue too hard.
GEORGE NEGUS: Softly, softly catchy monkey. I mean, it sounds to me like you are saying that both John Howard and Kevin Rudd are stymied by the debate and the indecision in America.
PROFESSOR HUGH WHITE: That is exactly right. The debate in America has moved a long way. John Howard and other Government ministers have really failed to follow the debate in the United States. They are still talking about Iraq, when they do, in rather black-and-white terms - either you stay or you go - whereas in America now you've got this much more complicated, confused debate with Republicans aligning themselves with Democrats, different models on the table. All of that has really passed the Australian debate by.
GEORGE NEGUS: I talked to Dr Kimberly Kagan, whose husband is one of the architects of the whole surge idea, and she says to say that the surge is failing is absurd. Now as I understand it, you don't think the surge was ever going to work, isn't working now.
PROFESSOR HUGH WHITE: I didn't think the surge was ever going to work. I don't see any evidence that it is working now. That is not to say it is not having some effects in some locations but that is not good enough. What you need to look for is whether or not the US military can change the nature of the political situation on the ground in Iraq. I don't think there was ever a prospect that an extra 20,000 or 30,000 troops could do that. And although I think there have been some positive developments - as we have seen in Anbar province, for example - I don't think they have primarily been the result of the surge and I don't think the surge has yet made a decisive difference on the ground, and I don't think it will.
GEORGE NEGUS: Do people like yourselves actually postulate on how many troops they would need to go in there and clean up this insurgent mess?
PROFESSOR HUGH WHITE: Well, every case is different of course but if you look back through history, look at the kinds of situations in which external armed forces have succeeded in stabilising a very complex and troubled situation, as we see in Iraq, it is more like 5% of the population you need. So you would be talking about something like a million troops on the ground.
GEORGE NEGUS: A million? A million?
PROFESSOR HUGH WHITE: It is unthinkable. It is just unthinkable. I mean, the Americans don't have them but nobody has armies of that size any more. So I think even if you are optimistic and you halved that to 500,000, that is still way above what the US the capacity that the US has. That is one of the reasons why I have always been very gloomy about the prospects of any kind of military resolution of the situation on the ground in Iraq. And of course the politics remains as complex as ever, perhaps more complex than ever now.
GEORGE NEGUS: So with all this indecision and bickering going on even between Republicans in America, do you see, as an analyst, do you see any viable withdrawal option whatsoever?
PROFESSOR HUGH WHITE: Clearly the Americans have got to the point where they would very much like to get out of Iraq but they still have very important interests in Iraq. They are, I think, rightly concerned about the potential for Iraq to become another haven for terrorists and they are rightly concerned about the potential for a weak Iraq to become a target for Iranian influence, become a kind of an Iranian satrap, if you like. And I think the problem for America is that reducing significantly the levels of US forces there would make the internal politics in Iraq even worse. It would provide the opportunity for al-Qaeda to build up in Iraq as a base for operations elsewhere. And it would be an invitation for the Iranians to come in.
GEORGE NEGUS: Michael Ware from CNN told me that he felt that the danger of course of any sort of withdrawal - short-term or longer-term - was asking for trouble, that it would open up the whole thing to a regional conflict.
PROFESSOR HUGH WHITE: I think that is exactly right. One way of thinking about that is it becomes a little bit like sort of Lebanon on steroids. You've got a very weak state there with a lot of other neighbouring states with very strong interests involved and they will all try and get in and have their piece. But the reason why Iran is the most worrying is of course because Iran is the strongest of those states.
GEORGE NEGUS: Hugh, if you are quoted correctly in my research, you said "There is no law that says it has to be a happy ending." Does that mean to say that you still see this as a very unhappy ending?
PROFESSOR HUGH WHITE: I do, George. I don't think there are any good resolutions here. I don't think the United States can get out but nor do I think they can stay and make a real difference. So I think the real risk for America is that 5 years, 10 years, 20 years from now we could still see substantial American troops on the ground in Iraq, not able to stabilise the place but not able to leave.
GEORGE NEGUS: Hugh White, thanks for being gloomy but realistic. Thanks for your time.
PROFESSOR HUGH WHITE: My pleasure. Goodnight.
GEORGE NEGUS: Hugh White in Canberra, Dr Kimberly Kagan from Washington, Michael Ware in Baghdad and military analyst Hugh White three different views of George Bush's 'surge'.
|
