Greg Sheridan is a very important and serious strategic analyst for a very important and serious newspaper.
The Bush speech represents neither the eclipse nor the triumph of the fabled neo-conservatives. Rather, it represents the liberation of American policy following the departure of former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Liberation of American policy? Honestly, you couldn’t find a more poorly written and un-serious piece of analysis on the Bush escalation plan anywhere.
Update: The Oz sent Sheridan’s op-ed to the blog world and he’s copped an absolute hammering with 115 comments so far. It would have been interesting to see him engage with commenters……..I dare him. I’m also wondering who was that mysterious Kristine K that linked to LP in the comments thread. Nice work.
Yeah, Rummy was really holding back the lunacy.
“Finally, ol’ stick-in-the-mud Don’s gone – now let’s really fuck shit up!”
I could maybe take his comments a little more seriously if Sheridan had spent the last 2 years pounding on Rumsfeld’s head on issues of strategy and policy.
As opposed to meekly trotting out the neo-con’s talking points each week – which this appears to be another pathetic example.
Oh yes, Greg loved Rummy in the old days. Here are a couple from over a year ago, now hidden behind News Ltds. archive paywall.
And.
Now?
And.
Et tu Brute?
I particularly liked the way it took him only two sentances to go from:
To “Bush has given US strategy at least a fighting chance of success.”
If you want actual serious analysis, the single most important paragraph (as spotted by Kevin Drum amongst others) in the whole speech was undoubtedly this:
Patriot missiles are designed to intercept tactical ballistic missiles. The only possible place in the region from which they would be launched is Iran. And the only reason they would be launched at US forces, or anyone else, is if the USA or Israel attacked Iran.
So Sheridan, probably on the basis of the stopped watch theory of correctness, has actually got one thing right. Bush is either planning to attack Iran, or trying to convince the Iranians that he will. The rest of the analysis is of Sheridan’s usual standards as chief media liason for the conga line of suckholes.
I was wondering about that rather strange reference to Patriots myself Robert.
Although they’ve undergone numerous upgrades since GW1, at that time they had a success rate of 10% or lower (despite all the media hooha about how successful they were at the time). And this was against relatively unsophisticated targets like Scuds.
Despite all the sabre-rattling I can’t seriously believe that the US military would recommend an attack on Iran. Still, stranger things have happened.
The US military raided the Iranian consulate in Northern Iraq today.
Thanks for the link. Now they’re pissing the Kurds off as well. All seems to be going to plan:
Seems like reflexive filler blah as in:
In my previous place of employment I was required to liase with clients and offer a high standard of service
“The US military raided the Iranian consulate in Northern Iraq today.”
Goading the Iranians into attacking first would be expedient
MOSCOW, Jan 9 (KUNA) â Former Russian Black Sea Fleet Commander Admiral Edward Baltin said Tuesday that the presence of so many nuclear submarines in the Arab Gulf waters pointed to likely plans for a US attack against Iran…
âThe presence of the submarines indicates that Washington has not abandoned plans to launch a sudden attack against Iran,â? the admiral said.
http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=940826
Definitely on to something there Anthony:
Mr Sheridan, providing his excellent analysis just after the brilliant victory over Iraq in 2003.
Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor
THIS incredible military victory vindicates not only George W. Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard. Above all, it vindicates the military judgment and strategic vision of US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Make no mistake, Rumsfeld is immensely enhanced by this victory and he will use it ruthlessly to push his agenda of military reform and a more assertive US posture in the world.
All of the media analysts and many of the military analysts should hang their heads in shame. Everything they told us was wrong.
…
The Australian. Canberra, A.C.T.: Apr 11, 2003. pg. 5
I am surprised that Greg Sheridan actually has readers. Perhaps I should become one?…. Nah…
All points are valid, ie, that Sheridan has changed his story etc etc.
But so is his quoted statement in the post at the top of this thread.
Does he mention anything about this being the last roll of Bush’s dice, and that the public, both domestic & in Iraq, are sceptical of the outcome?
All we can do (as observers, with a stake in the outcome) is hope to god that this latest push works, that the US has sent enough troops, & will make a difference.
Carrier groups and patriot missile batteries aren’t “filler”. Deploying such weapons – and publicly announcing it – are a message in big letters to somebody, and the only somebody it could be is Iran.
I do wonder about the effectiveness of the new-generation Patriots, but, heck, if they keep going down this road we might get to find out…
Seriously, I can’t see either the US or the Israelis actually being dumb enough to try air strikes, but the stupidity of the present US administration has known few bounds so far.
Greg Sheridan on the Arab street in 2002:
link
Larvae. Scott Ritter in his latest (rather poorly written/subedited) book “Target Iran” blames the Israel lobby in Washington for the Iran brinkmanship. It’s worth a read, albeit it’s a trifle scary one (try something lighter if you’re prone to nightmares).
âThe US military raided the Iranian consulate in Northern Iraq today.â?
Dear me. Imagine the outrage amongst the Iranians — “But, but, but… our consulate! It is inviolate diplomatic ground! The cheek of it!”
I was under the impression that Patriot missiles were blundering, inaccurate and not very worrisome; the most impressive thing about them is their name. I don’t think any of this indicates a coming attack on Iran; isn’t it a lot more likely that it’s just to put pressure on them to dial down their interference in Iraq?
“This incredible military victory vindicates not only George W. Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard…”
Strictly on points, it WAS an incredible military victory (well, not literally ‘incredible,’ more like ‘predictable but still impressive’.) I mean, really. The Coalition did in about 2 weeks what the Iranian Army could not do in a blood-soaked 8 years. Sorry, but that’s pretty impressive in my book. It’s the aftermath that was and is the fuck-up.
FDB: “Yeah, Rummy was really holding back the lunacy. âFinally, olâ stick-in-the-mud Donâs gone – now letâs really fuck shit up!â?”
Come on, be fair. In the cold light of things, the ‘lunacy’ is being caused by the Iraqis themselves, not the Americans, on an all-but-wholesale basis. There’s plenty to criticize, not the least of it being the decision to uncork this particular bottle of poison in the first place, but let’s at least be accurate when we point those fingers.
As for all this hand-wringing about a sudden secret strike on Iran, how quickly we forget the long, ponderous drumroll that led to even the Iraq business: the endless negotiating, maneuvering, the warnings and UN diddling and so forth. Do you really think that with all that noodling on the international stage as a precedent, such an enormous undertaking would come as a bolt from the blue, with the suddenness of, oh, say, f’rinstance, an Islamist-hijacked jetliner murdering folks?
Indicating the military threat level Iran really possesses.
Yep, it was a predictable march into Baghdad JPZ, fighting a dads army softened up after 12 years of sanctions.
But it was really only the first battle……they defeated an army that was largely not there and are now losing the subsequent streetfight that really matters.
I’m impressed.
“Indicating the military threat level Iran really possesses.”
Oh, for pete’s sake, Phil, no one’s terribly concerned about the ‘military threat level’ of Iran as such; it’s nukes in the hands of an unschooled and potentially unpredictable player with a lot of kooky grudges in a volatile region, that has people concerned.
With sharp distinction-making like that on yr side, whether you’re impressed or unimpressed, small wonder if nobody takes you very seriously.
Dude, you’re the one who claimed an incredible victory, how is that serious? You want distinction? Well you can’t just claim the first shot as victory and land your jet on the aircraft carrier to the cheering and adulation of the usual suspects, everyone knows it ain’t over till the last helicopters leave the embassy.
And we all know about nukes matey, but any reasonable assessment tells us that the tech to do the business is a long way away. It is a manufactured issue to suit current circumstances, just like WMD. Remember them?
You can see the build up JPZ, this is not out of the blue, remember “axis of evil” and let’s not mention two carrier groups, patriots, nuke subs etc………..actually, the bolt from the blue moment passed when the PNAC guys published their project papers.
Someone told me that a post WWII UK government destabilised the government of Iran so that the
oil companies could have unfettered access to oilShah of Iran could take power.Another person told me that the US supported this despotic Shah of Iran to the extent that a resistent space was created that eventually led to Khomenie and the current islamist regime.
Is this true?
History can’t repeat itself! Surely not?
Did the UK, US and various oil company ‘policies’ way back when actually lead to the US’s current problems with such troublesome priests?
Crikey!
The Israelis are not so much “dumb” as unwilling to take the chance of Iran nuking them. And that is why they would definitely undertake a first strike well before iranians have anything remotely like a N weapon. Their intelligence is second to none albeit the Iranian facilities are well dispersed.
It is unlikely however that Iran has nucelar weapons AT THIS POINT IN TIME or that it has the SS rockets weaponised. There have been problems with obtaining enough fissile U235 in that they haven’t had sufficient time to cascade sufficient number of centrifuges that could concentrate the 20kg of material needed for one Hiroshima sized device.
The Israelis would know this. But then they don’t want the Iranians to even to get to first base, as I said.
The Americans are desperate to prevent the Israelis from launching an airstrike and this is behind their sabre rattling. it is unlikely that the US would launch a strike themselves but they need causus belli just in case. My contention is that they need a trigger or two up their sleeve.
This is going to be a major issue in the near future, no matter what happens in Iraq that in hindsight will be seen as a mere sideshow.
“The Coalition did in about 2 weeks what the Iranian Army could not do in a blood-soaked 8 years …
Indicating the military threat level Iran really possesses.”
Discussion of a possible American attack on Iran has arisen before at LP, and I have been assured that:
a) Iran possesses no serious military threat to anyone; and
b) Iran has loads of excellent Russian kit which would swat the USAF out of the sky, and then take out US carriers and anything else they felt like sinking in the Gulf. And then the Iranian army would swarm across the border and deal a defeat to US ground forces.
Umm, which is true?
Incidentally, the mention of Patriots in Bush’s speech could simply foreshadow their deployment to Israel as part of an effort to persuade Israel not to strike Iran.
Phil: “And we all know about nukes matey, but any reasonable assessment tells us that the tech to do the business is a long way away.”
‘A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single something-or-other.’
– Rodney Dangerfield, or maybe Lao-tse, I can never tell them apart
“It is a manufactured issue to suit current circumstances, just like WMD. Remember them?”
Yep, I remember them. And my bet is that some colonel in a basement in Syria is resting his brandy snifter on a crate full of them right about now. But that’s neither here nor there, since it would lead me to a bogus defense of things that I’m not really rarin’ to defend anyway.
“you’re the one who claimed an incredible victory, how is that serious? You want distinction? Well you can’t just claim the first shot as victory… everyone knows it ain’t over till the last helicopters leave the embassy.”
Och, semantics. None of this is really quite what I was saying at all, but it’s not a terribly earth-shaking matter. I suspect this is one ball of yarn that’s not worth either of us sending forth our kitty to scratch at. But still, all this talk about ‘victory’ and ‘it ain’t over til…’ does remind me of a good old joke…
Q: How many graduate students does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Define your terms.
To wit: ‘It ain’t over til the last helicopters leave the embassy.’
Actually, though, it ain’t even over then, is it? You guys need to learn to keep your eye on the ball. In fact, it’s finally ‘over’ when your sworn enemies, who have long tried to globally outflank you and have repeatedly proclaimed your imminent demise, have in fact gone belly-up themselves, and your former adversaries are now falling all over themselves to sell you low-grade manufactured goods, high-grade catfish (so I’m told), and inferior-quality coffee beans.
Trade deficit with Japan: sign of victory, I’d say.
Trade deficit with China: victory over Communism in Asia.
Trade deficit with Vietnam: (giggles)
When (or really, if) they’re ever finally busy in Iraq making Nokias, voting, and day-trading instead of shooting each other, you and I can relax and have a cocktail together, and hopefully we’ll get to talk about art or bicycles or something we find interesting and not worrisome.
Come on. Any journalist with any experience knows that Greg Sheridan is a totally compromised tool of US foreign policy and Rupert Murdoch’s commercial interests. His every utterance is an apology for neo-conservative interests. That he has been able to get away with printing this nonsensical PR bilge for so long is the great wonder. No-one with any professionalism in the media takes him seriously. He is a hack, a whore, a has-been, an excuse for a journalist. He would not be there without his paymaster.
Paulus, LP is not a monolith, let alone the borg, we do not speak with one voice, these are my views. And anyway, where exactly have I made those comments?
“Strictly on points, it WAS an incredible military victory (well, not literally ‘incredible,’ more like ‘predictable but still impressive’.) I mean, really. The Coalition did in about 2 weeks what the Iranian Army could not do in a blood-soaked 8 years.”
Oh j_p_z, j_p_z, j_p_z (shakes head in weary condescension) . The whole point of this fiasco was what happened AFTER the ‘mission accomplished’. I give up.
Spot on Christine. If only Bush would ‘give up’.
Mr Denmore, you are so right, I could not have expressed it better myself!
Mr Paulus. As the events are unfolding, it seems the US is not planning a frontal assault but as we say in rugger, going the niggle.
As far as âkitâ? goes, Iran possesses a serious conventional military threat but not a nuclear one. Itâs main threat lies in quite a range of locally made missiles, some of the older and smaller of which have found themselves in the hands of the HizbâAllah.
In the 1980s war with Iraq, Iran imported from N Korea about a hundred Scud-b and then lined up for some 500 scud c missiles.
Neither scud b nor c would reach Israel so after greasing extensively the Dear Leaderâs palm they bought Korean No Dong (a ballistic missile developed by the North Koreans with Soviet technical participation along with Chinese help and Iranian money). This eventually developed into the Iranian made series of Shahab missiles.
The current Shahab 3 and the yet to be deployed Shahab 4 missile can just reach Israel. The versions Iranians are working on now can easily reach not just Israel but Europe: the Shahab 5 or 6 (IRSL-X-4 ) has a Russian engine but the Russians wonât hand over the blueprints of it. It can carry a 750kg warhead. I think this is the âkitâ? that worries Israel and the US the most. I do not think the patriots would worry these babies with their fancy triconic warhead design.
Again, Iâm hearing âregime change”. The theory is that dealing with Iran would fix Iraq. Sounds like trying to punt your way out of trouble. Haigâs rationale for the Somme comes to mind.
To answer Mug Punter’s question, Eisenhower had the CIA overthrow the democratically elected Mussagegh government in Iraq in 53 and install the Shah. It was about TEH OIL mainly.
“Eisenhower had the CIA overthrow the democratically elected Mussagegh government in Iraq in 53 and install the Shah. It was about TEH OIL mainly.”
Not about having a client state in a critical position on the Soviet flank? Not about preventing Iran, and its resources, from falling into the Soviet orbit? Don’t know very much about the details of that issue (maybe the right answer to those questions is ‘No’ after all), but a quick look at a map, or a chessboard, makes me say Hmmm… Somehow, too, given the global politics of the time, I have trouble believing that the democratically elected Mussadegh gov’t woulda stood on its own for long without falling into somebody’s sphere. Messy things, these cold wars. Things don’t always go virtuously, simply because of an absence of one party’s vice. But, hey, ya never know.
Christine Keeler: “The whole point of this fiasco was what happened AFTER the ‘mission accomplished’.”
Well, yes, there’s that. I’m starting to think the phrase “strictly on points” has no meaning as a qualifier in Aussie English. My bad. Ah, the vagaries of kulcha…
“(shakes head in weary condescension)”
Ya gotta love weary condescension! It’s the moral equivalent of comfort food. Try some today!
Actually, the Brits had kicked Russia out of that part of the Great Game pre-war, j_p_z. A large motivation behind the US action was to oust the Brits from their oil concessions. Mr Eden was not happy.
I have followed the work of Lieutenant-General David Petraeus for some years, now, and believe it is on the back of his recommendations and his plans (tactics) that the US Administration are intending to adopt what is being referred to as this surge approach (not his words).
Basically, IMHO, I believe the LtGen is on a potential winner. From what I have been able to glean, his approach which is tactical, not strategic (will get to this later), is a very considered and, might I say, very adult way of dealing with an extremely complex and complicated set of problems brought about, in the main, due to the lack of ‘adult supervision’ to date.
However (and, sadly, there is so often an ‘however’ in any such situation), his plans address only about one third of the situation with the political and diplomatic issues which are the main drivers of the problems with which he is being confronted being left flapping in the breeze.
Where are the Coalition Partners on all of this, apart from saying ‘we will not be sending anymore troops!’?
Where are the effected countries in the region on all of this?
Where is the world community on all of this?
Again IMHO, I suggest it is time for some adult supervision (and behaviour) to support that which Lieutenant-General David Petraeus is trying to engender on the ground. Without such support, his plan can only, at best, achieve short term tactical outcomes, not long term strategic gains.
Love your work Petraeous… Well you know, what Horde? You are wrong. Petraeus is not on a potential winner. He is on a certain loser. Because it is too late. Why didn’t the US Administration put him in charge instead of the dipstick “speed is everything” Tommy Franks from the start? And then replaced him with the bureaucratically minded and plain stupid Ricardo Sanchez?
For an “adult” overview of Franks and Sanchez, read Seymour Hersh’s Chain of Command.
Thomas E. Ricks in Fiasco gives Petraeus credit for being one of the smarter US generals on the ground in Iraq. Petraeous has a PhD. His doctoral thesis was entitled “The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam”.
A counterinsurgency expert who admired the Brit tactics in Malaya, his sensible idea for conducting the war/police action in Iraq was not to aggravate the population mindlessly with the midnight knock while operating high speed patrols out of armed forts. But that is what was done.
I am surprised that Petraeous even asked for extra troops or took the job. Maybe it’s the career thing. Who knows.
One soldier who comes out of Fiasco even smarter than Petraeous is a lowly colonel – Col. H.R. McMasters, the commander of 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Tal Afar. He also has a PhD.
He upset the bosses by saying that “more troops could not have helped defeat the insurgency because U.S. forces inevitably create more problems than they solve”. His PhD thesis was, according to Wiki: “on the mistakes of the Vietnam War [and] is detailed in the book Dereliction of Duty… [which] alleges that U.S. military leaders of that era did not fulfill their constitutional duty to adequately challenge Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson’s deeply flawed military strategy. The book was widely read in Pentagon circles, and was reportedly influential for a number of generals who later criticized Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration’s conduct of the Iraq War.”
So I reckon McMasters ought to know what he is talking about. And I do not think he would have taken on the role now taken by Petraeus. That’s because he knows that Petraeous is on a hiding to nothing.
Incidentally, what is it with those PhDs? The only military with more PhDs was the SS. I don’t mean to make parallels of course, just sayin…
Response to Sir Henry | 13 January 2007 at 8:56 pm
Thanks for the history lesson. Agree with you entirely (on the history, that is) but what’s the point of history apart from learning the lessons from – you can’t change it!
No doubt there are huge risks here. But risks properly managed can be turned into opportunities. The bigger the risks, the bigger the opportunities provided the requisite level of competent management is applied.
No doubt that is one of the things that has been missing, to date and we may all very well debate till the cows come home as why this has been the case. Wonder we very well may . . . .
However, like all things in history, these things in the past canât be changed, no matter how much people want and try to do just that. But people should be able to learn from this history and this is what I think the LtGen is trying to get folks to do. However, he is going to need help and a lot of it from everyone, especially those who created and contributed to creating this mess of the mess that was there before â¦. and before â¦. and before!
Knowing full well that the naysayers are going to call this niave but â¦..
How about getting all those who have the wisdom of having been there before and earned their âelder statesman statusâ in the political cauldrons of their own countries to come together as a non-partisan group to pursue and encourage the implementation of cure to this canker on the face of our world, once and for all. After all, they all got their status (and their elder statesman gold cards) on the back of the hard working masses in their respective countries who, at the end of the day, just want to live their lives in peace, raise the kids and be free of such tyrrany as we are seeing pervading the world today.
Who are these elder statesmen? To name but a few – Bill Clinton, George Bush Snr, Nelson Mandella, Maggie Thatcher, Paul Keating, Malcolm Fraser (sadly, my memory and my knowledge do not extend to recall the elder statesmen of the countries in the Middle East Region, but all of them too). Now I am not advocating these particular persons are the right ones for the job – just examples. In fact the âelder statesmanâ world club should be cherry picked to form the best team for the task.
Sh*t, this could even be called âElder Statesman Diplomacy Aidâ or âPEACE AIDâ.
If the music/entertainment industries can do something like this, why not those whose profession it was to manage such things as international diplomacy and relations in the first place? While the LtGen and his troops are building relationships in Baghdad to engender peace, these folks could be doing the same on behalf of their âpeopleâ? regionally.
Hey, if successful, it might even be worth looking at this as a way to bring the long war to an end. Clearly those with their hands on the levers today need all the help they can get. Just, mayhaps, those with the wisdom that comes from being there before may just have learnt something from their experiences and if appropriately empowered/resourced to do so, could put this ‘wisdom’ to good use. Hell, it’s at least worth some consideration rather than the present propensity to sit on the thistle and howl.
Horde