[For those who didn't follow the link, Lugar basically presented the argument for cultivating allies around the world and working hard to stay on good terms with them. He didn't refer to the big ally blow-off that accompanied our invasion of Iraq, but you could read it between the lines.

[I think the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as a whole has been great on Iraq lately. Behind all the shouting and blaming, they're the ones who are now doing the tough and unattractive work of figuring out how to make the best of this mess that we've gotten ourselves into. I respect that, notwithstanding that two of the leading participants (Biden and Hagel) are senators I strongly dislike on other issues. (The word-gamer in me can't help noticing that the four senior members of the committee have identical consonant-vowel patterns in their name: Lugar, Biden, Hagel, Boxer.)

[A couple weeks ago I saw C-Span's coverage of one of the committee meetings in which these four were questioning a group of four Iraq experts. The questioning was refreshingly non-partisan, and you could tell that the senators were not playing for the cameras but were genuinely hungry for any decent advice that might help them formulate a better policy. I couldn't tell for sure, but it sounded like it was Biden who chose and invited the four. They were two liberals (Gen Joseph Hoar, Phebe Marr) and two conservatives (Anthony Cordesman and some guy from the Hoover Institute whose name I've forgotten), but they were uniform in their opinion that Bush's policy in Iraq is dreadful.

[Another thing they all agreed upon is that the idea of partitioning Iraq into three parts is foolish. I found this particularly interesting. I've debated this with our friend REG, who is keen on the partition plan, but I at least thought it was a serious plan to argue against. These four didn't even take it seriously at all. To them it was just a half-baked idea for armchair pundits who have no idea of what Iraq is really like. Their consensus was that in spite of the serious political fracturing in Iraq, it's still a single country, and to divide it up -- even if anyone could agree on borders, which no one can -- would only make things a lot worse.

[Thanks for clarifying your position on our little invasions. I don't recall drawing any conclusion about your support or opposition, but now I know. Regarding the CIA's relationship with Bin Laden, a little clarification is due. From your brief mention, I can't tell exactly what you mean to imply, but others make much more of this "training" than is warranted. The CIA was heavily involved in funding and training the mujahedin resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden was heavily involved in funding and recruiting the same force. Evidently, Bin Laden did do a small amount of fighting with the mujahedin, but his role was primarily organizing and recruiting.

[Given their parallel paths, it's probable that there was some CIA contact with Bin Laden, but to say that he was "trained by" the CIA is exaggerated and misleading. If he was trained at all, it was only indirectly along with others of the mujahedin. He certainly was never our protegé. Far more important is the fact that after the Soviets withdrew, many of the trained and armed mujahedin joined Bin Laden's new group. Thus al-Qaeda inherited much of the training and materiel that we provided.

[As long as we're on the topic, Saddam Hussein was not a protegé of American foreign meddling either, as many liberals like to claim. He found his way into power on his own. Once he was there, we had some interaction with him as we would with any foreign leader. It wasn't until after the revolution in Iran that we became closely allied with Saddam for a few years. That's the period that produced the photographs you sometimes see -- shaking hands with Rumsfeld and so forth -- but Saddam had been in power for many years by then. We certainly didn't create him.]

11:14:22 PM  [permalink]  comment []  

10:22:35 PM  [permalink]  comment []