Setting the Mideast on fire

Retired U.S Army Colonel Pat Lang, the former head of Middle East intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) at the Pentagon, discussed the situation in Gaza with CNN's Wolf Blitzer. Key points: American foreign policy has gone down the wrong track: invading Iraq blew the lid off, weakened America's influence, and damaged the U.S. military's capability to intervene elsewhere in the region. The U.S. must step up diplomatic efforts with Iran, Syria, among others. IOW, see what you get when you trust Republicans with national security? One giant clusterfuck.

Watch the video. Transcript below the fold.



BLITZER: How worried should the -- concerned should the U.S. be that what has happened in Gaza -- Hamas taking over there, getting rid of Fatah -- could spread and then happen on the West Bank, as well?

LANG: Well, I think it's a possibility. I mean the fact of the matter is that, however, unpleasant it is to us, the Palestinian people, in elections that everybody says were pretty fair, in fact, elected these guys to run the parliamentary government. And, in fact, it's very difficult to choose other people's leaders for them, in the long run.

So I think maybe American policy has been on the wrong track in this. You know, no matter how much we might -- how much we may dislike these guys, they have offered a truce to Israel over -- for a 10 year period, and we ought to be looking at that as the best alternative of a group of bad alternatives.

BLITZER: Earlier today, Saeb Erakat, a well-known Palestinian figure here on CNN, a Fatah member, suggested that outside forces were instigating this Palestinian-on-Palestinian violence. And he also said this.... Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAEB ERAKAT, CHIEF PALESTINIAN NEGOTIATOR: We are determined not to allow what happened in Gaza to happen in the West Bank. And we stand tall with this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Suggesting it's part of a bigger regional problem. And a lot of experts, as you know, see the hand of Iran, maybe Syria, in a lot of this mischief.

LANG: Well, with regard to what he said about the West Bank, they were determined to not have this happen in Gaza as well. I think, you know, as you've been saying today, in fact, there's a major stress being put on the region by the fact that the Iranians are seeking to realize what they think of as their place in the sun, expanding their influence, getting recognized as being a paramount power to Islam, things like that, on the other hand.

On the other hand, the United States government has its own agenda, seeking westernization and democracy. These two things are exacerbating local conflicts of this kind in a tremendous way. And the real problem in this region is between us and the Iranians, really.

BLITZER: How much of this current explosion of violence in Iraq, in Gaza, in Lebanon, a threat potentially between Turkey and Kurdistan in the North, is a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, getting rid of Saddam Hussein?

LANG: Well, the specifics of the invasion of Iraq, of course, set off a maelstrom inside Iraq as we took the lid off a jar full of competing factions that was Iraq. And now they're all competing (ph). But there's this larger problem involving the whole region, involved in the fact that we have been pushing the whole region to change in directions in which are not natural to them and which various people in the area seek to manipulate and make use of in order to advance their own particular interests.

So, in general, our policy in the region is not helping the cause of people. Things are being (ph) quiet there.

BLITZER: I asked the question because a lot of analysts have suggested that the U.S. now, given the situation in Iraq, is seen as weakened. And whenever the United States in that part of the world as season as weakened, others want to take advantage of that and score their own points.

LANG: I think it is true, in fact, that people see it as very unlikely that we are going to intervene on the ground anywhere in the region with ground troops because of the fact we are so absolutely committed in Iraq to the very limit of our capacity, as you've been saying. On the other hand, they also know that the United States remains vastly powerful in terms of air power, possession of a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons, things like this, and that this country is not something they can discount.

So we do have a lot of leverage in terms of that kind of implied power, plus the fact that there are a lot of things people want from us in terms of recognition and assistance in the credit markets and all kinds of things like that. We do have manipulating levers if we wish to use them.

BLITZER: If you were still at the Pentagon, what would you be advising the secretary of defense and other top officials?

LANG: Well, to the extent that Secretary Gates would let me, I would say that the Defense Department ought to say that we need to seek to engage especially the Iranians, but also a number of other groups around the area, in various things that involve our desires and their desires in such a way as reach some meeting of the minds that will bring the temperature down enough so that we can restore a status in which at least people are not shooting at each other.

BLITZER: You mean talking to Iran and Syria, among others?

LANG: Absolutely. Among others.

BLITZER: Who else?

LANG: Well, I think you need to talk to the Turks in particular as to what their intentions are with regard to our Kurdish clients. I mean, there's no doubt the Kurds are relying on us tremendously.

We've encouraged them to set up what amounts to a very autonomous state in the north. We owe them something to that regard.

There are the factions inside Iraq that involve the different Shia militia armies and parties, as well as different insurgent groups. All of these are groups are groups in which we can engage, and which we're starting to do now out in Anbar province with the tribes and some of the secular insurgents.

BLITZER: Pat Lang, thanks for coming in.

LANG: My pleasure.

(H/t to No Quarter)