PLAIN TALK

PLAIN TALK
Leonard Horwin October 18, 2004 (310) 785-6600 tel. (310) 785-6644 fax plaintalk@linkline.com http://www.leonardhorwinplaintalk.com

Notwithstanding the halcyon enthusiasm of the Republican Convention for the purportedly favorable presidential results in the so-called “War on Terror” in Iraq, –it is apparent, –and was long before that Convention, that there is substantial probability that we will be unable to establish a government in Iraq with which the U.S. can deal.

1. Q: Why do we say that?

A: As recently as Thursday, September 16, 2004, The New York Times writes: “U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq’s Future: Civil War Called Possible –Tone Differs From Public Statements.” This article by Douglas Jehl reveals: “A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared by President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday.”

As revealed by the Los Angeles Times on the same date: “Intelligence Report Is Pessimistic About Iraq: A U.S. official says the classified estimate found that, at best, stability would be tenuous.”

Additionally, the L.A. Times of Friday, September 17, 2004 ran the following headline on its front page:

“U.S. Death Toll in Iraq at 52 this Month: Insurgents kill three Marines. In Baghdad, three civilians, two Americans and one Briton –are kidnaped from their home.”

“Unease Shatters Bush’s Optimism: The President doesn’t waiver, –but others do, as casualties mount and security withers.”

2. Q: Was that the first public notice of the foregoing situation?

A: No, and in fact, there have been earlier indications that the foregoing is the probable future. An example is Paul Krugman’s article on “Who Lost Iraq?” in the June 29, 2004 New York Times Op-Ed Column. This article reveals:

“The Iraq venture may have been doomed from the start–but we’ll never know for sure because the Bush administration made such a mess of the occupation. Future historians will view it as a case study of how not to run a country.”

The L.A. Times, Friday September 17, 2004, p.7 reported the following statement from Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary General:

“Annan calls U.S.-led invasion of Iraq illegal: ‘I have indicated it is not in conformity with the U.N. Charter. From our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal.”

3. Q: Is it highly necessary now to anticipate the probably inevitable, by preparing a new course for the U.S. relative to Iraq?

A: Yes. Because otherwise, the U.S. can repeat its enormously costly error in lives and otherwise in the Viet Nam War, –where (as in Iraq), – (see Plain Talks, listed below) by avoidance of a gamble to turn the dangerous situation around by an increase in troops and other avoidable commitments.

Just as in Viet Nam, we discovered (but did not act to avoid further commitment), –that we were in a Vietnamese civil war and ought not to complicate our losses further by additional commitments.

The result of the Viet Nam War was that the U.S. lost approximately 58,226 Americans killed and missing in action, and the then Johnson Administration was compelled by public demand, –that he not seek to continue his presidency, or insist upon totally unlikely American-led victory in the civil war against Ho Chi Minh.

4. Q: How does that example translate to the Iraq scene?

A: We are now at a point where our losses in Iraq are minimal for what they might otherwise be, if we try to force a reversal of events in Iraq.

That is the alternative, already implicit in the increasing reference to a probable national conscription of military manpower, to turn the situation around in Iraq.

Having in mind especially that our Iraq failure has become a guerrilla war including not only by Iraqis who have learned to hate us, but also by the terrorists led by such as Bin Laden, who, –by our misjudgment had caused the previously secular Iraq government to be pushed into alliance with the Islamic forces.

5. Q: How do we purpose to get out of Iraq without leaving a civil war behind us and irreparable damage to the reputation of the United States for reliability?

A: Whatever we do must be done promptly. We cannot expect to buy the United States out of this jam by economic commitments, for the double reason that those who hate us and wish to commit terror cannot be bought off.

But, they can be left with the clear knowledge from us that we will be open to exchange value for value received, –as specifically by trade, employment and other economic benefits. We can also facilitate borrowing by sufficiently stabilizing Iraq or a part thereof.

6. Q: What else can we do?

A: - Build friendlier bridges with Iran, and take advantage of its already existing very substantial relations with the Iraqi Shiite Muslims.

- Do everything in our power to prevent civil war in Iraq, without buying that consideration from the Iraqis, excepting only value for value received.

7. Q: What must we regard as top urgent?

A: Cease any attempt to be responsible for security in Iraq.

On the other hand, make it as clear as we can to the Iraqis that they can gain nothing from the Bin Laden or similar terror forces of this world excepting the permutations of terror, –deadly to a prosperous and peaceful Iraq.

* * *

List of Plain Talks referenced above:

- “The New Bin Laden” 12/28/2001

- “Enron Bankruptcy Catastrophic

Questions” 01/22/2002

- “A New Dimension?” 01/25/2002

- “The Enemy Within” 03/26/2002

- “Insight and Foresight” 04/02/2002

- “Behind the War Against Terror” 04/19/2002

- “The World War by & Against Terror,

The So-Called Mid-East Crisis” 04/23/2002

- “Measuring the Potential Candidates by

for their Fitness to Meet the Nation’s