Oh, to have been a fly on the wall...

The meeting in London of Foreign Ministers that convened on May 2 has concluded, with the assembled diplomats voting to offer Iran a new package of incentives to increase IAEA transparency and curtail the nuclear program the nation is pursuing. The new offer is an update of the offer originally put forth in 2006 that was rejected by Iran. British Foreign Secretary Davic Miliband declined to disclose details of the package, but said it is aimed at showing Tehran "the benefits of cooperating with the international community."

The biggest diplomatic offer was broad negotiations with the world's major powers, including the first talks with the United States since relations were severed in response to the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

A diplomat in London, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the centerpiece of the new offer is international assistance for a civilian nuclear program and "a reminder to Iran that there is a good offer on the table." One European official said that the new offer adds "a bit" to the 2006 offer but that "there's a limit to how many incentives can be added."

The five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany, have been discussing a strategy that includes both sanctions and incentives to persuade Iran to roll back its nuclear program.

"We very much hope that they will recognize the seriousness and the severity with which we have approached this issue and that they will respond in a timely manner to the suggestions we are making," Miliband said, referring to Iranian officials.

In Washington, French Prime Minister François Fillon said Iran faces global isolation unless it engages with the international community over its nuclear program.

"We have to do everything we could to avoid finding ourselves faced with the only solution of bombing Iran," he said through an interpreter at a news conference, the Reuters news agency reported. "The only option is to pressure the Iranian government through diplomatic means, economic means and financial means."

I would love to have been privy to the talks. I can't imagine that Condi had a pleasant go of it. The rest of the world could care fuck-all about George Bush's legacy, and have no intention of stepping aside and saying "after you, I insist" and holding the door for Mad King George while he ushers in $200.00 per barrel oil. Diplomacy might not mean anything to these imperialistic, neocon goons; but it does to older nations with longer histories that have seen war on their own soil in the last century.

There's more: "Oh, to have been a fly on the wall..." >>

Hypocrisy alert: Shrub cares about diplomacy

Now, at the end of his reign, George W. Bush wants to hire 1,100 new diplomats:

The additional positions are part of an $8.2 billion request for State Department operations for the 2009 budget year that Bush will submit to Congress on Monday, according to documents described by officials.

That request would be $690 million, or 9.1 percent, above the current level for department operations, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the public release of the spending plan for the budget year that begins Oct. 1.

Other significant proposed increases include a 41 percent rise in spending for new embassy construction, from $670 million to $948 million, and a nearly 20 percent boost for worldwide security spending, from $968 million to $1.16 billion.

And, where was this concern for diplomacy five years ago, in February 2003?

There's more: "Hypocrisy alert: Shrub cares about diplomacy" >>

McCain the diplomatic simpleton

The Schmuck Talk Express™ says he won’t talk to the Irans and North Koreas of the world unless the talks would guarantee a U.S. win in whatever was under discussion.

Idiot. The whole give-and-take of diplomacy on controversial issues is that, unless your diplomacy is W’s diplomacy of the gun barrel, there is no 100 percent winning and 100 percent losing. And, his claiming that Kissinger always conducted his diplomacy this way is ludicrous. We all know just how much of what he wanted Kissinger got from Le Duc Tho.

I know that McCain is voicing aloud what passes for foreign policy of most Republican contenders for the presidential nomination. He’s theoretically smarter than the ilk of Rudy (I’m not really a dictator, I just play one in New York) Giuliani and Mitt (I have as many positions as Brigham Young had Mormon wives) Romney, which makes his willful knuckle-dragging stance all the worse.

There's more: "McCain the diplomatic simpleton" >>

Iraq appeals to Iran for help defusing the Kurdish crisis

As tensions ratchet up between Turkey and Iraq over PKK terrorists who find safe haven in Iraq from which to stage cross-border raids and kill Turkish soldiers, and the United States stands by helplessly, unable to even comprehend the scope of the clusterfuck created by the hubris of George Bush, Iraq is reaching out to Iran for help.

That's gonna go over like a pregnant pole vaulter.

On Wednesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki met with Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki and asked him to help present Iraq's positions at a regional summit meeting in Istanbul scheduled for Thursday. “The prime minister asked the Islamic Republic to present their full support to Iraq during the Istanbul meeting and also to participate in solving the border crisis between Turkey and the P.K.K.,” a statement from Mr. Maliki’s office said. The summit will be attended by representatives from countries in the region, including Syria, Iran, Iraq andTurkey. The United States will be represented by Condoleeza Rice, and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and a number of other foreign ministers are also expected to attend.

[keep reading]

P.K.K. terrorists have killed over 35,000 Turks since launching their most recent separatist terror campaign in the 80's. For perspective, consider that in 2 decades, the P.K.K. has killed ten times the number of Turks that America lost on September 11.

Turkey, tired of the terrorists who attack them finding safe haven in Iraq, hiding beneath the petticoats of Turkey's NATO ally the United States in the Kurdish north of Iraq, has massed troops on the border and announced that they will pursue Peshmerga and P.K.K. fighters across the border, engage them and kill them.

Iran has been sympathetic to the Turkish position, because the P.K.K. launches terrorist raids into Iran as well. But the situation is not that simple. Iran and Iraq are both Shi'ite majority countries, and the Iraqi government is Shi'ite majority (al Maliki spent many of his years in exile in Tehran).

From the New York Times:

Iraqi diplomats said they were worried that after the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, met with President Bush on Nov. 5, Turkey may take action against the Kurdish guerrillas, a step that could further antagonize Iraq’s Kurds.

“They are under a lot of pressure from the public, so we think they will do something,” said a senior Iraqi official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter. “We hope they will not.”

Mr. Erdogan has asked the United States to help the Turks take “concrete steps” to reduce the P.K.K. threat.

In Washington, Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon spokesman, confirmed that the United States military was giving “lots of intelligence” to Turkey in its effort to halt the rebel attacks.

As if the situation were not complicated enough, the American forces are still holding five Iranians that were taken into custody in January. Iran says they are diplomats, the United States insists they are members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. “The arresting of Iranian consular officials is a very big strategic mistake,” said Mr. Mottaki. Mr. Mottaki also expressed his displeasure at a comment made by General Petraeus that the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad was a member of the Quds Force, an elite unit of the Revolutionary Guard.

And I would like to point out, again, that Petraeus really hasn't done much, if anything, right. Last summer, he managed to piss Maliki off to the point that Maliki threatened to have the General recalled. Generals have to be politicians, that's how they get past the rank of Captain. But this is 4G warfare. They need to be diplomats. And lets differentiate right now: diplomacy and ass kissing are two completely different things. Petraeus has a handle on the latter, there's no doubt. But the former? Not so much.

There's more: "Iraq appeals to Iran for help defusing the Kurdish crisis" >>

Generals Have to be Politicians, But They Need to be Diplomats

The relationship between General David Petraeus and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Kemal al-Maliki is so strained that Mr. Maliki may ask Washington to withdraw the general.

Mr. Maliki, a Shi’ite, is a seemingly reluctant leader. He spent years in exile during the Hussein regime, and he vociferously protests arming Sunni insurgents under the guise of “fighting al Qa’eda.” His loud complaining has come to little – It has resulted in a pledge by U.S. forces to let al Maliki’s security vet the recruits. Aids say he complains bitterly about delivery delays of promised materiel.

And while he is at loggerheads with Petraeus, the United States forges ahead with the arming of Sunni Sheiks.

In short, al-Maliki is feeling put upon and unduly burdened, and not entirely without justification.

From Air Force Times

Petraeus says his ties with al-Maliki are “very good” but acknowledges expressing “the full range of emotions” on “a couple of occasions.”

U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who meets together with al-Maliki and Petraeus at least weekly, concedes “sometimes there are sporty exchanges.”

Al-Maliki has spoken sharply — not of Petraeus or Crocker personally — but about their tactic of welcoming Sunni militants into the fight against al-Qaida forces in Anbar and Diyalah provinces.

As for Petraeus, he really is facing a nightmare scenario. The Iraqi police and military forces are only nominally under the control of al Maliki, and in many cases those forces act not in the interest of the Iraqi government, but in sectarian – that is to say Shi’ite – interests. In addition, al Maliki has proven unwilling to cut his ties to fundamentalist Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who controls the Mahdi Army militia.

Meanwhile, Ambassador Ryan Crocker has his own issues with the stagnation of the political process. (Imagine. The Iraqi parliament is not bending over backwards to meet externally set benchmarks.) Crocker can not continue to insist that American G.I.’s are fighting and dying to give the Maliki government “breathing room” when al Maliki either can not or will not make an opportunity from it.

The ambassador, one of the State Department’s most seasoned Middle East diplomats, appeared to be genuinely fond of al-Maliki and profoundly understanding of the Iraqi leader’s troubles.

“We are dealing with existential issues. There are no second tier problems ... so there is a lot of pressure. And we all feel very deeply about we’re trying to get done. So yeah, sometimes there are sporty exchanges,” he said.

“And believe me I’ve had my share of them. That in no way means, in my view, strained relations. I have great admiration for Prime Minister Maliki, and I know General Petraeus does as well. And I like to think it is reciprocal. Wrestling with the things we’re all wrestling with here, it would almost be strange if you didn’t get a little passionate from time to time.”

Generals, who obtain flag rank and continue to advance with presidential and congressional approval, are politicians. Get your head around that fact. To advance to O-4 takes a degree of political acumen (well – it used to, and it will again) and to go beyond O-4 – you have to display the appropriate political ability; and you have a career.

That’s how it works, in a nutshell.

Generals aren’t just politicians. They are also perpetually fighting the last war. Newsflash fellas – Desert ≠ Jungle. (And by the way, it was stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid to deemphasize counterinsurgency after Vietnam like that was an anomaly, ya morons.)

I would like to say that that is all well and good; but I can’t because it isn’t.

All sides spoke with the critical September reports by Crocker and Petraeus to Congress clearly at the front of their minds — the need to make it clear to an increasingly hostile U.S. legislative branch that progress is being made and it would be wrong to start pulling out troops and cutting support now.

It will be a tough sell, but not for lack of getting their views before the public in advance of walking into Congressional committee rooms about seven weeks from now.

In 4-G warfare, what Generals really need are not so much political skills, but Diplomatic skills.

This is, apparently, not a gift that David Petraeus possesses or that the Army engenders.

Keep this in mind. September is right around the corner.

This is it. They do not get any more Friedmans.

There's more: "Generals Have to be Politicians, But They Need to be Diplomats" >>

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)

There's more: "Setting the Mideast on fire" >>