Continue reading "Regional Security Conference, Baghdad "

U.S. and Iran May Steal the Show at Iraq’s Security Meeting

WASHINGTON, March 8 — On Saturday, Iraq will convene its “neighbors” meeting in Baghdad, which is supposed to be about Iraqi security.

But the big question everyone is asking is this: Will the United States and Iran finally end more than a quarter century of communicating primarily through emissaries, and talk directly to each other?

“If we are approached over orange juice by the Syrians or the Iranians to discuss an Iraq-related issue that is germane to this topic — a stable, secure, peaceful, democratic Iraq — we are not going to turn and walk away,” David Satterfield, the State Department’s special adviser on Iraq, said Thursday.

Critics of the administration say that given the grave issues at stake, that stance may be too aloof. “How immature is it that we have to pretend for American domestic political reasons that we’re going to get cooties from the Iranians unless they go to the bathroom first and wash their hands?” said an exasperated George Perkovich, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Are we a major power or not?”

So they'll be able to excoriate the administration should the two countries fail to kiss and make up.

Trouble is, Iran has already said "no"...

"Meeting with Americans on the sidelines of the Baghdad conference is not on the agenda of Iran, for the time being," said Mohammad Ali Hosseini, Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, in his weekly news briefing.

That's not in the NY Times report, of course. It was in the first link above.
Even Reuter's has a better report then the Times, and offers at least a sense of the significance of the event:

Speaking on the eve of an unprecedented Baghdad conference, Abdul Azziz al-Hakim, one of Iraq's most powerful leaders, said the meeting should boost the transition to elected government.
<...>
"We call on the regional and international countries to support Iraq because we believe it will reflect positively on international and regional peace," Hakim told tens of thousands of black-clad Shi'ite pilgrims in the holy city of Kerbala.

"We want every country participating in this meeting to enhance the achievements made in Iraq in the last four years."

Persistent violence has marred efforts to establish a stable and democratic government since U.S.-led troops invaded Iraq in March 2003 and toppled Saddam Hussein.

Meanwhile, the LA Times says

U.S. And Iran Have Been Talking, Quietly

The White House insists that the United States won't talk directly with Iran until Tehran suspends its nuclear program. But U.S. officials have been discreetly meeting their Iranian counterparts one-on-one for more than a decade, often under the auspices of the United Nations.

All done!

Continue reading "Re: Crack Pipe, Quagmire "

There's a goldmine of "gotchas" in the history of the Bosnia/Kosovo debate. Some congressional Republicans opposed the deployment:

Of equal concern is how long U.S. troops will remain in Bosnia. According to a press report. the "exit strategy" currently being discussed among Administration officials and NATO allies is to begin withdrawing some troops six to eight months after their original deployment. But what about the rest of the troops? And how many are some?
<...>
Before U.S. troops are committed to Bosnia, the Administration must deternine the mission and specific objectives to be achieved. In a war, the mission and objective is clear: to fight and win with the smallest number of casualties. However, in a "peacekeeping" mission such as the one envisioned for Bosnia, the missions and objectives could range from deterring and defending againstfany re-initiation of hostilities, to providing humanitarian and refugee assistance. Each mission carries equal risk for a soldier. A specific, defined and limited objective is absolutely necessary to avoid dreaded "mission creep."

If that sounds like the Democratic playbook for arguing against Iraq, that's because it is. And if you think the Iraq response isn't "payback" you're naive. (And if you think the troops deserve better, you're right.)

These should sound familiar too:

Bosnia raises a number of significant issues for Congressional consideration, which include:
* Identifying the U.S. national security interests that are at stake;
* Determining the number of troops to be deployed, how long they will stay and conditions for withdrawal;
* Defining the mission, rules of engagement, and command structure;
* Allowing Russian participation in the peacekeeping operation;
* Understanding how such deployment will impact the U.S. military's ability to fulfill other national security objectives (e.g., the ability to fight two nearlysimultaneous major regional conflicts, as identified by the Clinton Administration);
* Analyzing the implications of troop deployment upon current policies toward Bosnia, (including: U.S. participation in enforcing No-Fly Zone; impact on the Administration's arms embargo policy);
* Paying for the military operation; and,
* Ensuring Congressional participation (e.g., from consultation to authorization).

Like I said, a goldmine of "gotchas".

Admiral Leighton Smith, NATO Commander in Southern Europe, had concerns, too:

What we all fear is that we'll get in there and suddenly the mission will change. Then you get into a whole new ball of wax where, sorry, guys, we're not going to be home for Christmas [of 1996]. Maybe Easter."

He needn't have worried about that.

But Joints Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. John Shalikashvili demonstrated solidarity and resolve:

But he made clear the determination to keep U.S. troops in Bosnia "until mission is done, period," regardless of casualties.

"We need to be very clear that when we go into an operation like this, we must not fall into trap of saying after certain number of casualties we will leave, because that will just invite those who wish us harm or those who want us out of there to take us on as targets," he said.

And former President George H.W. Bush did too:

The White House welcomed support for Clinton's Bosnia policy on two fronts. Former President George Bush urged Congress to support the deployment of U.S. troops even though Bush said he had questions about "what our troops are expected to accomplish, and about when they can get out and come home." In a statement issued by his office in Houston, Texas, Bush said, "What is clear, however, is that it is in our national interest to maintain the integrity of the United States' credibility in the world."

White House press secretary Mike McCurry said Clinton understands that Bush has some concerns about the deployment, but "the president is grateful that his predecessor has issued a statement expressing support for our troops and for American efforts in Bosnia."

Although months later some "progressives" would express outrage...

...Clinton made the facile claim that we must send troops to Bosnia "because problems that start beyond our borders can quickly become problems within them." Among these problems, he cited "the spread of organized crime and weapons of mass destruction and drug trafficking."
<...>
He made the commitment without Congressional approval.

...he didn't need it. And off we went, in early December, '95.

"We had Christmas last night," said Army Capt. Tom Salo, a company commander in the 112th Special Operations Signal Battalion who expects to be in Bosnia for the next year. "My wife and children, we sat down and exchanged gifts, had Christmas dinner. We didn't have much time."

And though polls said "Most in U.S. oppose
sending troops to Bosnia", CNN pointed out the plight of the GI: Troops pack for Bosnia amid grumbling from Capitol Hill, and assured us that "U.S. troops wary, but willing" - to become "heroes for peace."

Calling them "heroes for peace" Clinton got a roar of approval from the 11,000 troops at Smith Barracks when he told them they "may respond immediately and with decisive force" if they are even threatened with attack in the Balkans.

*****

One year later

TUZLA, Bosnia--A cold wind from the hills blows through this war-ravaged city. Snow and ice are on their way, and for U.S. troops in this remote corner of Europe, so is another lonely winter far from home.

That wasn't supposed to be. When President Clinton sent U.S. troops to Bosnia last year, he said they would be home by this Christmas. But in a televised statement from the White House last month, the president said U.S. troops would be staying for at least one more year.

"Bosnia," said the president, "still reaps a bitter harvest of hatred" so the United States must stay to keep Bosnians from slaughtering one another once again.

Three years after that, Kosovo:

Are we back in Vietnam?

Saturday, May 15, 1999

By Dennis Roddy

WASHINGTON, May 15 -- The Pentagon announced yesterday that 12,000 American ground troops will be deployed to strife-torn Kosovo as part of a NATO peacekeeping force.

A Defense spokesman said the 14,000 troops would be home by July 4.

"There's no reason to keep 16,000 Americans away from our shores any later than Labor Day," said the spokesman.

President Clinton yesterday said the deployment of the 17,000 troops is "strictly temporary."
<...>
The president also announced plans to join the troops for dinner on Thanksgiving.

While many of the soldiers already are stationed at U.S. bases in Germany and in Bosnia, the balance of the 25,000 will likely deploy from Dover Air Force base in Delaware and will return from Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia by Christmas.
<...>
The administration also renewed its pledge to withdraw remaining American troops in Bosnia by the end of this year. Originally, they were to be home by Christmas 1995, but an unforeseeable spread in the Yugoslav conflict from Bosnia to Kosovo complicated plans, the Pentagon said.

"With their own defenses now weakened and weapons supplies choked off, the Serbs would never take on 65,000 U.S. forces," Cohen said. "Clearly, a further widening of the Yugoslav conflict has been prevented because the administration has shown, once again, that it can keep its word."

Now it's eight years later, and Clinton's promise is every bit as good as it was then.

All done!