US ELECTIONS AND IRAQ

Within the strategic framework of John Boyd (America's greatest strategist), the election of a divided government in the US can best be viewed as a strategic judo move:

• The previous government's moral cohesion was traded for
• potential improvement in our global physical connectivity (communication with allies, enemies, and internal audiences)
• and a chance to upgrade our mental connectivity (the ability to gather untarnished information and analyze the the efficacy of new solutions).

Non-cooperative centers of gravity

In short, the election merely codified what was going on behind the scenes in the US. Growing opposition to the war was building due to the effects of a combination of strategic paralysis and a lack of internal dialogue. Both strategic paralysis and a lack of internal dialogue can be linked to a decision to an inappropriate use of propaganda to shore up US moral cohesion (inappropriate in that it neither works over the medium/long term nor does it allow strategic flexibility -- both of which were needed in Iraq). However, this election -- despite the substantial benefits of deflating the previous government's propaganda bubble -- may not provide much other improvement to our strategic situation:

• Non-cooperative centers of moral gravity now have a voice in the Congress. As a result, the moral cohesion necessary for any lengthy or costly strategy has passed. Growing dissent will now have tangible effects.
• While improvements in physical connectivity (dialogue) with internal audiences has improved, it is likely to turn into a cacophony of half-baked ideas. Also, attempts at physical connectivity to external allies and foes (via Baker) will likely not result in any substantive change -- we are in too weak a position, particularly relative to Iran, to gain any substantial cooperation.
• Finally, improvements in information gathering and analysis will likely yield little since they are still looking at the situation in Iraq through the lens of political/regional state conflict and domestic political concerns -- assume that Baker's political ISG will trump any decisions generated by Gen. Pace's military counter-insurgency group.

What this means

Looking back, the current situation may have been inevitable given the new realities of 21st century warfare (see "Playing with War" for more on this). Looking forward, we can expect the following:

• The US will withdraw to bases in Iraq (a completion of a trend that began last year to limit casualties) and many (perhaps half) of the US forces in Iraq will be withdrawn over the next year. This will likely be the only policy change that all decision makers can agree on -- as long as it is presented under the cover of a "strategy" to make it possible. As a result, violence in Iraq will spike as unsupervised Iraqi troops are unleashed on civilians and guerrillas decimate isolated Iraqi units. It won't matter to most of the people in the US as long as US troops aren't involved.
• Iraqi oil production will completely collapse as the southern pipelines are severed due to chaotic violence. This reduction of 1-2 million barrels of oil a day will cause a return of $80 a barrel oil. Spikes above that price may occur as guerrilla attacks (both Shiite and Sunni) spill over into Saudi Arabia (see my new book "Brave New War" for more on trend lines in systems disruption). A big spike, due to a full take-down of a major Saudi facility or KSA government collapse, would have global implications. It would throw into disarray many developing countries, potentially including China.
• Iran will increasingly, despite ongoing conversations with the US (via Baker?), be blamed for the violence in Iraq and the KSA. Open conflict with Iran will continue to escalate due to this and Iran's development of nuclear weapons. The multiplication and tightening of triggers for this war -- from the complete resupply of Hezbollah's ATGWs/rockets which may ignite a new war in southern Lebanon to a pre-emptive Israeli or US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities to a US engagement with Iranian forces that escalates under its own steam -- will make it almost inevitable.

Comments

[Duncan Kinder]

Another point to consider is that the Afghan/Pakistani situation will continue to deteriorate.

As an aside, speaking as a person who lives in an area experiencing an upsurge in Amish immigration, they appear to be relatively buffered from the points John Robb is now making. Which suggests, in turn, that perhaps the rest of us have something to learn from them.

[ramsis]

john. Although I agree that the elections have the looks of a divided government i find it difficult to view it as a "strategic judo move". i think your right on the money with the likely scenarios that you point out as well. It's true that attacks in certain areas will drive an increase in price per barrel. its good to see that not everyone in america belives that gas prices and price per barrel were set in relation to the recent election. as if the world market oil prices are set and controled by the GOP. I also think that conflict with iran is now more likely than before. but i think that conflict will be more Israels than ours. we are showing the middle east that the will to fight has been exhausted and that Irans vision of an Israeli free region is now within their grasp.

[Isaac]

"...think that conflict will be more Israels than ours..." Perhaps the flashpoint... Hamas, Fatah, and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade have all recently formally declared the US to be a "legitmate target" due to our alliance with Israel. Technically, this is nothing new, nor is it surprising, but Beit Hanoun seems to have hit deep enough to provide for the more robust public posturing.

[ramsis]

yes i have heard of the recent declarations but unfortunatly our resolve to help anyone in the region, that we deem allies has as much weight right now as a U.N resolution. the recent rants by palastinian militants are most likely fallout from election results that they view as a weakning grip on american foriegn policy in the mid east.to them and many others the results have pretty much proven that the american public no longer will risk "lives and treasure" to protect its intrests in the region and that might eventually mean Israel as well.If history repeats itself (and it most often will) the new shift in power in congress will result in a cutting off funds for the wars in iraq and possibly afghanistan also(as happened in the 70's). this may leave Israel to slug this one out alone once we are out of the way. I do hope that we would at least logisticly provide Israel with support but that will remain up to our Elected Officials decide. yikes

[Eric_P]

If violence spilled over into Saudi Arabia, do you think that the Shia militias could help the Shia majority in the Eastern province of the KSA? Especially since that is where most of the oil is.

[adam]

An interesting Guardian article on the options that Iran has (and the ones that the UK/US don't have):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1947837,00.html

Eric P,

Thats the way the betting is going but (and I do have to emphasise the but) the Shi'ites in Eastern Saudi are not the majority and are neither well armed nor well organised. There are also some cultural issues that would get in the way of mutual assistance.

On the other hand John will rightly point out that you don't have to be a majority or well armed to blow an oil well to bits. Bit of a puzzler to be honest and I've got bets each way.

[Azr@el]

What's so sad is not that all of this happening, but rather that everyone, save those who were entrusted to the task, saw this coming. I believe therein lies the inherent strength of democracy; that 300million minds are better than a few scalps sitting in washington. When a leader is obstinate and so full of himself and his own righteousness how do you expect him to take advantage of all the wisdom that lies around him? How do you expect such a leader to tutour anyone else in democracy?

I believe armed conflict with the iranians is no longer in the cards. This election should be viewed as the american public signaling that the nuclear aspirations of the iranians are not cause enough for the u.s. to kick off the third world war.( with all due respect to newt gingrich, we ain't there yet nigga)

[shloky]

Eh. Iran is not off the table. Inertia and Israel complicate the mix.

[adam]

Shloky and Azrael,

I'd like to believe that the US elections changed US foreign policy to Iran. But sadly I cannot. This is for three reasons - 2 are good and 1 is just plain cynical.

First the Neo-Cons and Israelis who still more or less control US foreign policy on Iran really want this war and are still shilling for it. From their perspective the success of the Iraq invasion proves that military force can achieve certain goals.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15606.htm

Second because the Iranians are close to getting a nuclear power station working (a somewhat different fish from a nuclear weapon). The fact that there is no actual evidence of a nuclear weapons programme is - incredibly after Iraq - still besides the point.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=83142224-cc75-49c0-981b-2d2be83ea35c&k=19127

And finally the one for conspiracy theorists. Like Iraq, Iran is moving away from using dollars in its petroleum dealing.

http://www.khaleejtimes.ae/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/business/2006/November/business_November418.xml&section=business&col=

I still think that there will be a US attack on Iran, probably via the methods that John Robb explained here a while back. I suspect that ultimately my belief in a US attack is because I think that it would be mad and foolish. As I think Bush is both it seems a dead cert.

[arash sotoodeh]

Adam, if I may add, Iran´s President/gov is also not really behaving as if they want to prevent a war. Correct me if I am wrong. seems Iranian gov. has some joy at sacrifying the country for nothing, the airheads there at work are just nothing but criminal, and still many Iranians have faith in them. So I agree the next war will be in Iran, also I do not HOPE so. Arash

[ramsis]

arash i agree. for all the critics of the U.S and Israel in regards to Iran it troubles me that the constant provocations spewed daily by the Iranian gov go unscrutinized. since when is it ok for a country to make it their stated goal to wipe another state of the map.I mean how would we react to being refered to as a one bomb state? is israel not supposed to take that seriously? should america just ignore it as well? war may be inevitable with Iran but that will have more to do Irans actions and provocations. I don't know if the U.S will be willing to join in Israels defense but I do hope that they at least stay out of their way. the biggest problem that i have seen so far is the "international community" and their inability to let this play out. no one says a word to the Iranians constant meddling in regional affairs or their aspirations of another persian empire under the guise of "islamic revolution". but no its america and their support for a country that just wants to exist thats the problem.

[arash sotoodeh]

Ramsis, you know how thinks in Iran work? They gave 14 years childs in the Iran Iraq war keys and said this is your key for your house in paradise! That´s Iranian propaganda, and for some reason very effective. The simplicity of Iran´s system is often unknown to people outside Iran, while in Europe you will need collecting a lot of facts and emotionally effective pictures, the regime in Iran goes another way, they hang one or two persons, and say that ´s gonna happen to you when you not listen to orders, and that´s enough for suppressing whole Iran. In 2001 I was in Teheran and in an nearly empty bus I dared to go over to my aunt (busses are divided in man and women sectors) that was a little scandal, I was called back by the busdriver, and no one says anything. I had really the feeling a group of gangbangers is ruling that country. It´s all much simpler organized, I would say that´s invading Iran would turn the now gov. into a guerrilla group, and so they would keep they influence over the public,because the gov. has not really high structure. It´s hard to understand Middle Eastern structures, but I have too take distance from the view that what the Iranian Pr. talks is all just gestures and empty. Iran has grave inside problems too, poverty, and so on. Invading this country will end up in the same situation as in Iraq. But I see no other choice if Iran develops nuclear weapons, but is Iran doing that? In my view Iran is a collapsed country, with some rooters getting for their own what they can. So I think not that economical force will break the will of the "gov."
You are more then right Ramsis that the Iran problem is undervalued. That´s what I tried to point out. :) Arash

[Azr@el]

I've seen the article regarding iranian basij volunteers in the new republic

{{{These children who rolled to their deaths were part of the Basiji, a mass movement created by Khomeini in 1979 and militarized after the war started in order to supplement his beleaguered army.The Basij Mostazafan--or "mobilization of the oppressed"--was essentially a volunteer militia, most of whose members were not yet 18. They went enthusiastically, and by the thousands, to their own destruction. "The young men cleared the mines with their own bodies," one veteran of the Iran-Iraq War recalled in 2002 to the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine. "It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander's orders, everyone wanted to be first."}}}

I understand thru a friend that various pro-neocon elements in the blogisphere are pushing this item as a way to generate outrage against the iranians and help justify a military intervention to prevent from developing their scientific infrastructure. Their premise is of course that the iranians are barbarians and can not be trusted with any dual-use technology. However i see this article aiding the opposite argument; that iran may be the wrong hornet's nest to jab a stick into. Lebanon held back 30,000 idf troops with less than 1500 iranian trained hezbollah, i've google earth'd iran , it looks like there's nothing but mountains, jungles, cities, half a million troops under active duty, 300,000 ready reserve, a national reserve of close to 7 million ex-conscripts with some military training and god knows how many basij militia who are either too old or too young to serve in the regular formations.

I'll reiterate, this war doesn't look like it'll get off the ground; the neo-cons may want it , but ultimately washington is about every getting a piece of the pie, not just one minority viewpoint, and the way iran is most people realize that any victory there will be a pyrrhic victory; the military even victorous will never be able to control the iranians and their losses will make iraq look like a training accident, the markets will suffer due to global energy instability and congress will be faced with another unpopular war/insurgency on it's hands.

The other option is limited air strikes; i got a gut feeling the iranians, the ones who rolled across minefields to clear them so their main line forces could connect blows on the iraqis, won't be very impressed by a few bombs going off here and there, imho.

[adam]

Arash,

You aren't wrong. The Iranian president (Ahmadinejad) is definately pushing his position forwards, much to the irritation of the US, the disquiet of the EU and the open humour of the Russians and Chinese. He's an Iranian version of an American neo-con who has been arguing for nuclear power (not nuclear weapons) for Iran for donkey's years.

Whether that makes his country worth bombing or not is another matter entirely.

On the other hand as my old boss used to say "make hay whilst the sun shines". Ahmadinejad's currently got a window of opportunity that he's hoping to exploit, Bush had one for the war in Iraq and we know how well that worked. On the other hand Ahmadinejad is smarter than Bush. Fun fact: Born poor he came in the early 100s out of 400k students in his year. He also has a PhD in traffic management. He's obviously the anti-Bush.)

As for the war the justifications started in the Telegraph the other day. Con Coughlin was one of the Iraq / Al Quaeda linkage specialists. According to the British Journalism Review (vol 11, 2000) he's a front man for MI6.

Compare a)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=YYBH3OREXQ1TLQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/11/14/wiran214.xml

to b)
http://www.amazon.com/Saddam-King-Terror-Con-Coughlin/dp/0060505419

He's also the journalist that broke the George Galloway story that lead to massive damages against the Telegraph.

Even so, he's a useful tool in a march to war.

[opit]

It isn't just that it would take a horse's ass to attack Iran and Bush is all that and more : naval, coast guard and NATO navy craft are posted nearby. Since Blair is to let go the reins next year and Bush can't depend on the British past that point, I'd say the balloon is primed and ready.

[arash sotoodeh]

Thanks Adam, for the information.
First of all Ahmadinedschad is a horror for Iran, he brougt things back banished after Khomanaeis death, like all these public hanging and punishment.
I am not an expert on Iran, I just can say he has the attitude of the early Khomonaei regime, and that ended in a 8 year long war.
Azreal, I lost my art teacher at the battlefields of Iran, he has still his painting stuff with at the front, and he didn´t want to die and was not happy about that. I am myself experienced a bomb coming down 50 m to our house. I don´t know you are probably not from Iran, but I cannot believe you that people died "joyfully", and so was also the mood there back in Iran. but who dares there to talk openly about that. Arash

[Azr@el]

ad Arash
I was quoting an article that attempts to justify a new war, one that'll cost my nation more in blood and treasure then we are willing to spend. Whatever the shortcomings of the iranian regime, there corrections are not worth the life of a single u.s. soldier. My nation believes/believed that it is/was the the beacon of democracy to the rest of the planet, that by our example we would inspire democracy to take root in the hearts of all peoples. Forcing democracy down the throats of others by force of arms , it doesn't feel right, it doesn't feel american. Whatever the inequities of the iranian system they are for iranians to solve by themselves, and if any blood needs to be shed to affect those changes , let it be purely iranian blood. Forgive my rudeness, but if you do not consider a change in government in iran to be worth the sacrifice of your life, is your life so much more important then the life of the u.s. soldier that you would ask to stand in your place and render that service for you at the cost of his life? Our soldiers are dying and being mutilated in two wars as i type these words, would you ask that we send them to third, more deadly war? Dear sir, you ask too much of a nation that has given too much of itself as things stand now.

ad adam
Interesting comparison i found online a couple of months back:
president: Bush | ahmadinejad
education: college dropout | phd
war record: awol airguard | basij veteran
prison time: never |suffered torture
net wealth: 26 million | $20,000
previous job: baseball team| college prof.

think we can arrange a swap?

[ramsis]

i pray that you are sarcastic in your praise for ahmadinejad but if its a trade you seek perhaps try trading the freedoms you enjoy in west with the uh freedoms of the theocracy. for all the gratuitous insults regergitated from the george soros blogsite no one seems to care that life under ahmadinejad is far more oppressing than anything you can find in the patriot act.

[Azr@el]

ad ramsis
i am also sarcastic by nature and nurture.

p.s. i found this interesting tidbit on the modern war studies page, very illuminating with respect to iranian determination.
{{{We had many volunteer soldiers with us that day. There were two main Iranian groups at the front. Normally, the volunteers were armed with RPGs or automatic rifles, nothing more. They were not worried about dying, and when they were issued steel helmets they would not wear them. Because they were volunteers they were very effective. They were very cheery and happy, having volunteered to defend our country and the revolution. You have to remember that the revolution was only a few years old, and there were many people willing to defend it. The volunteers were willing to do anything. Usually every battle that we started was begun by the volunteers, and we would follow them. We were not the front-liners. The number of casualties they suffered was much greater than ours. The volunteers would clear the mines in front of us with their bodies. Even so, they were very cheery and always making jokes. In my last battle, by midday about 70 percent of the volunteers who were with us had died, and some of my tanks were on fire. It was a very sad day. We held the line, but took heavy casualties. Everywhere you looked you could see dead bodies lying on the ground.}}}

[Walter]

re: "Interesting comparison i found online a couple of months back:
president: Bush | ahmadinejad
education: college dropout | phd"

Bush is not a college dropout. He is a graduate of Yale and also has an MBA from Harvard.

At any rate, all this talk of Ahmadinejad's intelligence and education just underscores the fact that intelligence and education is not an antidote to religious fanaticism and does not necessarily lead to wisdom or even shrewdness in decision-making.

[Claymore]

This is not a failure for Republicans!

The new Democrats are not like their counterparts; they are either fiscally conservative, socially conservative, former GOP, or ex-military. Republicans have successfully reshaped their opponent.

Expect conflict between the new and old.