Iraq in Miserable State, Ambassador Memo says

[Gregory Pratt]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1002690071

 

The Washington Post has obtained a cable, marked "sensitive," that it says shows that just before President Bush left on a surprise trip last Monday to the Green Zone in Baghdad for an upbeat assessment of the situation there, "the U.S. Embassy in Iraq painted a starkly different portrait of increasing danger and hardship faced by its Iraqi employees."

 

This cable outlines, the Post reported Sunday, "the daily-worsening conditions for those who live outside the heavily guarded international zone: harassment, threats and the employees' constant fears that their neighbors will discover they work for the U.S. government."

 

It's actually far worse than that, as the details published below indicate, which include references to abductions, threats to women's rights, and "ethnic cleansing."

 

A PDF copy of the cable shows that it was sent to the SecState in Washington, D.C. from "AMEmbassy Baghdad" on June 12. 2006. The typed name at the very bottom is Khalilzad -- the name of the U.S. Ambassador, though it is not known if this means he wrote the memo or merely approved it.

 

The subject of the memo is: "Snapshots from the Office -- Public Affairs Staff Show Strains of Social Discord."

 

As a footnote in one of the 23 sections, the embassy relates, "An Arab newspaper editor told us he is preparing an extensive survey of ethnic cleansing, which he said is taking place in almost every Iraqi province, as political parties and their militiast are seemingly engaged in tit-for-tat reprisals all over Iraq."

 

Among the other troubling reports:

 

-- "Personal safety depends on good relations with the 'neighborhood' governments, who barricade streets and ward off outsiders. The central government, our staff says, is not relevant; even local mukhtars have been displaced or coopted by militias. People no longer trust most neighbors."

 

-- One embassy employee had a brother-in-law kidnapped. Another received a death threat, and then fled the country with her family.

 

-- Iraqi staff at the embassy, beginning in March and picking up in May, report "pervasive" harassment from Islamist and/or militia groups. Cuts in power and rising fuel prices "have diminished the quality of life." Conditions vary but even upscale neighborhoods "have visibly deteriorated" and one of them is now described as a "ghost town."

 

-- Two of the three female Iraqis in the public affairs office reported stepped-up harassment since mid-May...."some groups are pushing women to cover even their face, a step not taken in Iran even at its most conservative." One of the women is now wearing a full abaya after receiving direct threats.

 

-- It has also become "dangerous" for men to wear shorts in public and "they no longer allow their children to play outside in shorts." People who wear jeans in public have also come under attack.

 

-- Embassy employees are held in such low esteem their work must remain a secret and they live with constant fear that their cover will be blown. Of nine staffers, only four have told their families where they work. They all plan for their possible abductions. No one takes home their cell phones as this gives them away. One employee said criticism of the U.S. had grown so severe that most of her family believes the U.S. "is punishing populations as Saddam did."

 

-- Since April, the "demeanor" of guards in the Green Zone has changed, becoming more "militia-like," and some are now "taunting" embassy personnel or holding up their credentials and saying loudly that they work in the embassy: "Such information is a death sentence if overheard by the wrong people." For this reason, some have asked for press instead of embassy credentials.

 

-- "For at least six months, we have not been able to use any local staff members for translation at on-camera press events....We cannot call employees in on weekends or holidays without blowing their 'cover.'"

 

-- "More recently, we have begun shredding documents printed out that show local staff surnames. In March, a few staff members approached us to ask what provisions would we make for them if we evacuate."

 

-- The overall environment is one of "frayed social networks," with frequent actual or perceived insults. None of this is helped by lack of electricity. "One colleague told us he feels 'defeated' by circumstances, citing his example of being unable to help his two-year-old son who has asthma and cannot sleep in stifling heat," which is now reaching 115 degrees.

 

-- "Another employee tell us that life outside the Green Zone has become 'emotionally draining.' He lives in a mostly Shiite area and claims to attend a funeral 'every evening.'"

 

-- Fuel lines have grown so long that one staffer spent 12 hours in line on his day off. "Employees all confirm that by the last week of May, they were getting one hour of power for every six hours without. ... One staff member reported that a friend lives in a building that houses a new minister; within 24 hours of his appointment, her building had city power 24 hours a day."

 

-- The cable concludes that employees' "personal fears are reinforcing divisive sectarian or ethnic channels, despite talk of reconciliation by officials."

 

The final line of the Cable is: KHALILZAD

 

This is incredibly disillusioning to me.

I trusted the Bush Administration for some odd reason. I trusted them.

And I trusted the reporters who'd said good things about Iraq.

And Joe Lieberman.

And Hillary Clinton.

 

I supported the War because I believed we were making a respectable effort at fixing the country, post-war, and I can't quite look myself in the mirror and say that anymore.

I read this this morning, and felt as I did last year when my now ex-girlfriend asked me how I could justify killing to teach killing is wrong, and I felt that I had no intellectually honest answer. I haven't looked back since on the Death Penalty. (And please, let's not ignite a death penalty debate here. Take it elsewhere. I merely made an analogy.)

 

It -- this -- bothers me. A lot, and more than I can say. I feel foolish for having believed the things I did and while I'm not YET willing to turn on the War, I can't say I'm too terribly pleased with our actions.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Hey, there's still time to turn this thing around.

 

Just repeat this always handy and well-known ditty:

 

"Really it's the next six months that are crucial."

 

Then in six months, be sure to say it again.

 

Then again in another six months. . .

 

And then, snap, before you know it, our biggest problem is going to be what to do with all the flowers and candy.

Edited June 23, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[Rex Kickass]

One word: lockbox.

[Gregory Pratt]

The more I think of this war, of this news, the more furious I become with the Administration and what I consider its shameful handling of the war.

 

I know that, being a Liberal, I'm expected to feel this way already, but for some god damn reason I had faith in Joe Lieberman and the Administration, at least on this.

 

And I'm...well, I'm young. I've tried to take an idealistic and reasonable stance on the War, and I've tried to be fair to the Administration on this with every news, good or bad. But this is far too much for me.

[dasox24]

One word: lockbox.

Rex, may I just say that in my plan, the "lock-box" would be used only for Social Security and Medicare. It would have two different locks. Now, one of the keys to the "lockbox" would be kept by the President; the other key would be sealed in a small, metal container and placed under the bumper of the Senate Majority Leader's car.

 

The "lock-box" would also be camoflauged. Now, to all outward appearances, it would be a Leatherbound edition of Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas. But it wouldn't be. It would be the "lock-box".

[FlaSoxxJim]

Rex, may I just say that in my plan, the "lock-box" would be used only for Social Security and Medicare. It would have two different locks. Now, one of the keys to the "lockbox" would be kept by the President; the other key would be sealed in a small, metal container and placed under the bumper of the Senate Majority Leader's car.

 

The "lock-box" would also be camoflauged. Now, to all outward appearances, it would be a Leatherbound edition of Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas. But it wouldn't be. It would be the "lock-box".

 

I don't know what that was all about.. but I'll tell you this: "Don't Mess With Texas!"

 

[dasox24]

I don't know what that was all about.. but I'll tell you this: "Don't Mess With Texas!"

 

 

Governor Bush, I listened very carefully to the Vice-President's remarks, and I honestly do not believe he messed with Texas.

[minors]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1002690071

This is incredibly disillusioning to me.

I trusted the Bush Administration for some odd reason. I trusted them.

And I trusted the reporters who'd said good things about Iraq.

And Joe Lieberman.

And Hillary Clinton.

 

I supported the War because I believed we were making a respectable effort at fixing the country, post-war, and I can't quite look myself in the mirror and say that anymore.

I read this this morning, and felt as I did last year when my now ex-girlfriend asked me how I could justify killing to teach killing is wrong, and I felt that I had no intellectually honest answer. I haven't looked back since on the Death Penalty. (And please, let's not ignite a death penalty debate here. Take it elsewhere. I merely made an analogy.)

 

It -- this -- bothers me. A lot, and more than I can say. I feel foolish for having believed the things I did and while I'm not YET willing to turn on the War, I can't say I'm too terribly pleased with our actions.

 

 

I am sure you are dissapointed and that is all I will say.

 

The more I think of this war, of this news, the more furious I become with the Administration and what I consider its shameful handling of the war.

 

I know that, being a Liberal, I'm expected to feel this way already, but for some god damn reason I had faith in Joe Lieberman and the Administration, at least on this.

 

And I'm...well, I'm young. I've tried to take an idealistic and reasonable stance on the War, and I've tried to be fair to the Administration on this with every news, good or bad. But this is far too much for me.

 

 

 

shameful handling??? we caught Saddam, killed Al-Zarqawi, have Osama rendered useless in hiding, brought Al-Qaeda to near complete distruction and stopped many attacks from happening here on the homeland. If Gore or Kerry would have been president we would have withdrawn on the war on terror, Al-Zarqawi still live and who know how many attacks on the homeland. I guess for people who expected a painless easy war we could have taken a couple nuke's over the terrorist countries and then we could have had the easy victory.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I am sure you are dissapointed and that is all I will say.

shameful handling??? we caught Saddam, killed Al-Zarqawi, have Osama rendered useless in hiding, brought Al-Qaeda to near complete distruction and stopped many attacks from happening here on the homeland. If Gore or Kerry would have been president we would have withdrawn on the war on terror, Al-Zarqawi still live and who know how many attacks on the homeland. I guess for people who expected a painless easy war we could have taken a couple nuke's over the terrorist countries and then we could have had the easy victory.

 

 

I shudder to think at the damage a pussy like Al Gore or John Kerry would have allowed to be inflicted on this country. Pussies like that want to sing songs and "give peace a chance" while Islamo-fascist terrorists plot and execute attacks on our country.

[Rex Kickass]

Yes, I remember John Kerry's sing "Give Peace a Chance" plank in his foreign policy platform well.

 

I think I remember it being next to George Bush's "Eat the Old" program proposal as a way to save money on school lunches.

[Gregory Pratt]

I am sure you are dissapointed and that is all I will say.

 

Nothing about me being....a hippie...?

 

shameful handling??? we caught Saddam, killed Al-Zarqawi, have Osama rendered useless in hiding, brought Al-Qaeda to near complete distruction and stopped many attacks from happening here on the homeland. If Gore or Kerry would have been president we would have withdrawn on the war on terror, Al-Zarqawi still live and who know how many attacks on the homeland. I guess for people who expected a painless easy war we could have taken a couple nuke's over the terrorist countries and then we could have had the easy victory.

 

I think that you lack nuance and subtlety if you believe that catching Saddam and killing Zarqawi mean that the War has been handled well.

 

Yes, I remember John Kerry's sing "Give Peace a Chance" plank in his foreign policy platform well.

 

I think I remember it being next to George Bush's "Eat the Old" program proposal as a way to save money on school lunches.

 

[kapkomet]

Yes, I remember John Kerry's sing "Give Peace a Chance" plank in his foreign policy platform well.

 

In 2004, he didn't say that, exactly, but he ran as the 'anti-war' candidate, and he's even more on that bridge now. In fact, so much so, that most of the Dems are distancing themselves from him because they think he's a tool.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Really now -- why does the Ambassador hate America so much?

 

And as for the war being handled well, even Nuke can attest to the lack of a post-war plan being set up by military planners.

 

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec24.html

The U.S. military invaded Iraq without a formal plan for occupying and stabilizing the country and this high-level failure continues to undercut what has been a "mediocre" Army effort there, an Army historian and strategist has concluded.

 

"There was no Phase IV plan" for occupying Iraq after the combat phase, writes Maj. Isaiah Wilson III, who served as an official historian of the campaign and later as a war planner in Iraq. While a variety of government offices had considered the possible situations that would follow a U.S. victory, Wilson writes, no one produced an actual document laying out a strategy to consolidate the victory after major combat operations ended.

 

Looking at the chaos that followed the defeat of the Saddam Hussein regime, a military officer's study says, "The United States, its Army and its coalition of the willing have been playing catch-up ever since."

 

"While there may have been 'plans' at the national level, and even within various agencies within the war zone, none of these 'plans' operationalized the problem beyond regime collapse" -- that is, laid out how U.S. forces would be moved and structured, Wilson writes in an essay that has been delivered at several academic conferences but not published. "There was no adequate operational plan for stability operations and support operations."

 

CS Monitor: US Postwar Plan Almost Non-existant http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0228/dailyUpdate.html

 

And Minors: How can Al Qaeda be almost in complete destruction yet we've stopped lots of attacks here? (If they're destroyed, they shouldn't have the power and ability to go forward with lots of attacks) I won't even get into the preventative detentions being the main conduit for radicalizing the population against the United States (since they arrested, treated miserably and later released many innocent people since most of the arrestees were innocent people)

[Gregory Pratt]

Really now -- why does the Ambassador hate America so much?

 

And as for the war being handled well, even Nuke can attest to the lack of a post-war plan being set up by military planners.

 

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec24.html

The U.S. military invaded Iraq without a formal plan for occupying and stabilizing the country and this high-level failure continues to undercut what has been a "mediocre" Army effort there, an Army historian and strategist has concluded.

 

"There was no Phase IV plan" for occupying Iraq after the combat phase, writes Maj. Isaiah Wilson III, who served as an official historian of the campaign and later as a war planner in Iraq. While a variety of government offices had considered the possible situations that would follow a U.S. victory, Wilson writes, no one produced an actual document laying out a strategy to consolidate the victory after major combat operations ended.

 

Looking at the chaos that followed the defeat of the Saddam Hussein regime, a military officer's study says, "The United States, its Army and its coalition of the willing have been playing catch-up ever since."

 

"While there may have been 'plans' at the national level, and even within various agencies within the war zone, none of these 'plans' operationalized the problem beyond regime collapse" -- that is, laid out how U.S. forces would be moved and structured, Wilson writes in an essay that has been delivered at several academic conferences but not published. "There was no adequate operational plan for stability operations and support operations."

 

CS Monitor: US Postwar Plan Almost Non-existant http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0228/dailyUpdate.html

 

And Minors: How can Al Qaeda be almost in complete destruction yet we've stopped lots of attacks here? (If they're destroyed, they shouldn't have the power and ability to go forward with lots of attacks) I won't even get into the preventative detentions being the main conduit for radicalizing the population against the United States (since they arrested, treated miserably and later released many innocent people since most of the arrestees were innocent people)

 

We caught Saddam and killed Zarqawi.

How can you say that we haven't "planned" or in any way back up that Gregory Pratt fellow when he says that the planning has been a disgrace?

[Rex Kickass]

In 2004, he didn't say that, exactly, but he ran as the 'anti-war' candidate, and he's even more on that bridge now. In fact, so much so, that most of the Dems are distancing themselves from him because they think he's a tool.

 

 

John Kerry did not advocate a withdrawal from Iraq in the 2004 election.

[YASNY]

John Kerry did not advocate a withdrawal from Iraq in the 2004 election.

 

John Kerry did not advocate anything in the 2004 election.

[Rex Kickass]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060623/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Iraqi government declared a state of emergency and imposed a curfew Friday after insurgents set up roadblocks in central Baghdad and fired on U.S. and Iraqi troops outside the heavily fortified Green Zone.

 

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered everyone off the streets of the capital from 2 p.m. until 5 p.m.

 

Iraqi and U.S. military forces clashed throughout the morning with attackers carrying rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades and rifles in busy Haifa Street, which runs into the Green Zone, site of the U.S. and British embassies and the Iraqi government.

[Gregory Pratt]

That is awful.

[Rex Kickass]

John Kerry did not advocate anything in the 2004 election.

 

He advocated reconstruction. He advocated reconciliation. He didn't advocate a firm timetable for withdrawal of troops in 2004. He didn't advocate leaving, but he did advocate a different course on the ground - focused on reconstruction and reconciliation to create peace on the ground. He did say, that had he known in 2002 what he knew in 2004, he wouldn't have voted to give the President the blank check that the President received.

 

Today, I'm no John Kerry fan. But in 2004, I can honestly say that although John Kerry didn't agree with the way we started the job, he did want it finished and finished the right way.

[Soxbadger]

Basically what you are seeing is the limitations of Democracy. (Republicanism if you want to be really technical. And by Republicanism, I mean a form of govt where there is not direct representation as in a Democracy, ie electoral college. )

 

In order for democracy to work, the people of the country must want it to work. This is why the model for democracy almost always follows a similar pattern, the people of a nation rise up against the previous form of govt (in most cases some form of monarchy or dictatorship), and through revolution win their freedoms. This is a very important step in democracy, because with out this step, many nations revert back to the previous form of govt.

 

Iraq though is following the short version of democratic revolution, which has been far less successful in long term success. Japan is one of the few countries where this form of transition has worked, going from monarchy during World War II, to democracy after World War II, but in almost all other cases this type of transition has only worked for a short period of time before reverting back to its original form, or turning into a different form such as a military dictatorship.

 

Without the support of the people for democracy, the form of govt just does not work. The entire principal of democracy is that the govt lays in the hands of the people, so when the people are to fractured the govt becomes fractured. When this occurs those who have power (in modern times military generals, classically wealthy elite), consolidate it and strip away what has been won. This is problematic for a democracy because in the end, the military is the only part of the govt with any real power.

 

And when the military colludes against its own nation, the nation is at the mercy of the military, and generally the most powerful general then becomes some form of dictator. The inherently limited power of the democratic govt makes it so that it has no real power without the military to enforce its power. Thus when a country is fractured, the military begins to take sides.

 

Iraq is some what of a different case study though. First note that Japan was permanently disarmed after World War II, making it so that there was no military that could overthrow the democracy. Second it is important to realize that the American intervention in Iraq has started the process of democracy. What we are seeing right now is democracy at its first stages. The Iraqi's are fighting for what they believe in, regardless of whether we agree with it or not, the landscape is much different than Iraq under Saddam. Because democracy promotes all viewpoints, it is inevitable in a new democracy that you will see acts of terrorism, violence.

 

The problem now is, the people of the US were not prepared for this type of revolution. Democracy is the only thing most American's know, at the beginning of the war many thought if you just give people the right to vote, they will be happy and everything will turn out good. When in reality most countries that have become democracies have atleast 1 time reverted back. Put in perspective, the US is the longest standing free society. Compared to France which reverted back under Napolean.

 

At this point there is nothing the US can do. Once Saddam fell we were in it for the long haul. If we leave now, the democracy will fail. Most likely it will be some where in the range of at minimum 5-10 years before there is any stability in Iraq. Each election will be another time where the govt becomes destabilized and when the time is ripe for overthrow.

 

When the US took 1 step into Iraq, this is the deal that we made with the Iraqi people. We told them that we would give them freedom, and it is now our responsibility to hold to that. For better or for worse, we can not take back what has happened. That is the test for war supporters, not whether they support it today, but whether 10 or 20 years down the line we are still willing to risk our own citizens lifes to ensure that Iraq has a democracy.

 

Sorry for the long post.

[Gregory Pratt]

No, SoxBadger, don't apologize, that was very good. I enjoyed reading that.

 

When the US took 1 step into Iraq, this is the deal that we made with the Iraqi people. We told them that we would give them freedom, and it is now our responsibility to hold to that. For better or for worse, we can not take back what has happened. That is the test for war supporters, not whether they support it today, but whether 10 or 20 years down the line we are still willing to risk our own citizens lifes to ensure that Iraq has a democracy.

 

That is the thing that bothers me, that is so disillusioning to me: I've been of the opinion that it's worth it. But everytime that the Administration is shown to have been dishonest over something or another, it cripples my faith in their ability to handle it.

Stories like the one from today and the one that sparked this thread do not help inspire confidence in our government to help theirs.

 

The problem now is, the people of the US were not prepared for this type of revolution.

 

Not to get into petty partisanship, but isn't that because the Administration by its own admission didn't even think there'd be an insurgency and fully failed to expect anything?

[Soxbadger]

1) This isnt about the administration anymore, its about the millions of people in Iraq who we are supposed to doing right by. The Administration, whether they are liars, negligent, or just honestly made a mistake, is nothing more than an extension of the American people. When the US decided to go to war with Iraq, there was popular support. So it is not just the administrations fault, it is the fault of every person who was a sabre-waiver. After 9/11 many American's were looking for a fight, and Iraq happened to be the most convenient fight.

 

The problem occurred when very few if any WMD were found, no real significant ties to 9/11, etc. At that point the administration was in a bind, so they changed tunes to make Iraq about "freedom". That is very problematic on an international stage, because why was Iraq the only dictatorship that we were advocating the over throw of? There are far worse dictators, men who have killed hundreds of thousands to millions of people, and the US does not lift a finger.

 

The failures of today have nothing to do with how Iraq is being handled presently. There just is no way to handle this type of conflict. Not even the greatest President with the most competent adminstration could make any difference in Iraq. The people who are fighting, do not want America there under any circumstances.

 

2) Yeah they said it, but Im not sure why anyone would have actually believed it. If terrorists were so pissed off about flying planes over Saudi Arabia that they attacked the WTC not once, but multiple times, how do you think they were going to respond with us taking down "one of their own." (I mean that in terms of a muslim regime.) If anything the US should have known that by invading Iraq and putting US troops there it would create a breeding ground for terrorism. Instead of having to attack the US at embassies around the world, or travel across the globe to the US, they now had an area geographically close to them where they could attack the US.

 

And even more importantly, they can actually suceed in this war. There was no chance, no matter how many terrorists attacks, that US citizens truely would be dissauded from our style of life. Looking at history, the US in the last 100 years has been the sleeping dog. And every time the dog has been awoken, it has come out with a vengence. Compare that to Iraqi citizens who have only had freedom for a year, they have no ties to democracy, it means nothing. Every day that passes with more Iraqi deaths, they begin to wonder, "Was it maybe better the old way. Sure we do not have the same freedoms, but we had security, we were not afraid that on any given day we may be kidnapped in our own homes."

 

Even in the US you see this. Post 9/11 the govt has been increasingly eroding freedoms that used to be sacred. But it is being done in the name of "security". If US citizens do not care about losing freedom for security, how do we expect other countries to?

[Gregory Pratt]

Well, now we're beginning to differ, but I find what you're saying quite interesting.

[jackie hayes]

He advocated reconstruction. He advocated reconciliation. He didn't advocate a firm timetable for withdrawal of troops in 2004. He didn't advocate leaving, but he did advocate a different course on the ground - focused on reconstruction and reconciliation to create peace on the ground. He did say, that had he known in 2002 what he knew in 2004, he wouldn't have voted to give the President the blank check that the President received.

 

Today, I'm no John Kerry fan. But in 2004, I can honestly say that although John Kerry didn't agree with the way we started the job, he did want it finished and finished the right way.

You can not "advocate reconciliation" -- reconciliation is a goal; you can advocate actions that may lead to that goal, but not the goal itself.

 

It's an important distinction, I think. Not that the Administration has a good plan for reconciliation. They seem to believe that a couple elections will erase every difference, which is just silly. But this (reconciliation) strikes me as the crucial goal in Iraq, and I haven't seen one convincing path to that goal from either party. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any country with similar divisions that has achieved a peaceful, stable democracy in a transition period of less than 10 years. This underscores how difficult, how massive this task may potentially be. Until I see a plan that acknowledges that, I won't believe anyone in government is dedicated to finishing the job in Iraq "the right way".

[kapkomet]

You can not "advocate reconciliation" -- reconciliation is a goal; you can advocate actions that may lead to that goal, but not the goal itself.

 

It's an important distinction, I think. Not that the Administration has a good plan for reconciliation. They seem to believe that a couple elections will erase every difference, which is just silly. But this (reconciliation) strikes me as the crucial goal in Iraq, and I haven't seen one convincing path to that goal from either party. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any country with similar divisions that has achieved a peaceful, stable democracy in a transition period of less than 10 years. This underscores how difficult, how massive this task may potentially be. Until I see a plan that acknowledges that, I won't believe anyone in government is dedicated to finishing the job in Iraq "the right way".

It absolutely will take time, and Americans do not have the guts for it to work over the amount of time it will take to really make it.