Yes,
Bremer's task is impossible. Let us agree that it was predictably impossible,
before it was ever assayed. It is not as if we did the right thing and others
are making it impossible. We tried the wrong thing, despite warnings that it was
so, and now, indeed, it is proving impossible.
I had
dinner last night with some people from the State Department, in which we
reviewed our options for Iraq. I believe that some progress was made in their
thinking. There is an possible scenario that is actually pretty
attractive, in terms of being able to undo some of the political damage that the
US's Iraq policy has already incurred.
Re.
Nixon and Watergate: no need to speculate about whether there was a senior group
that effectively eased Nixon out. There was and it has been talked and written
about openly here for years. Is there such a group mobilizing re.
President Bush. Too early to answer the question, I would say, but what is clear
is that there is a growing and pervasive sense among a growing number of
Washington insiders that things are going off the track.
Keith,
I will be very interested in your observations of Blair and Bush microbehaviors
while the latter is there. Tone, timbre, volume and tempo of voice. Hand
gestures. Body movements. Facial expressions. Eye movements. Skin color changes,
muscle tension changes. And if you can relate this to the substance of
what is being said, that would be wonderful. I know this is asking a lot, but
you have already shown you are one of the better observers of these things, and
appreciate the communications and cognitive modeling importance that these
things have. The trickiest thing, from an observational point of view, is
tracking at the same time both these microbehaviors and the content of
their discussions or pronouncements. I will appreciate any information you
can pass back to me on this.
Best
regards,
Lawry
-----Original Message-----Hi Lawry,
From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue, November 18, 2003 10:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ed Weick; Ray Evans Harrell; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Hamer is not an Ambassador (was Re: [Futurework] Has Saddam won?
At 00:30 18/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Paul Bremer III it is. His rank is Ambassador, though he is not accredited to an Iraqi government. The rank gives him access to certain perquisites and general credibility.
Bremer is known as Jerry among those who know him, and among those who know him there at least one who has characterized him as 'shallow and self-seeking' -- but that was some years ago and Bremer, like all of us, may have grown and changed since then. I hope so: he has a near-impossible task.
He has an impossible task I would have thought. The present American attacks on "terrorists" are sheer PR jobs. Some terrible act of savagery is almost certain any day now if the Americans troops continue to be pushed as they are now. I think probably they're being accelerated now while Bush is in England to give the impression of heightened terrorism in Iraq. My reading of Blair's (facial) behaviour is that he is close to psychological breakdown. I may be totally wrong, of course, but I don't recall seeing any politician quite as stressed as I am interpreting Blair at this present time. Bravado for some speeches and some unsual decisions he's taken recently, and then followed on another occasion by extremely stressful symptoms. He's gaunt with worry. I think he's probably in a drugged state a lot of the time now. I also think that Bush is very heavily stressed and could also break down -- but this is written with much less confidence because I haven't seen enough of him on TV. But if either of them suddenly fall ill with some sort of 'diplomatic illness' I wouldn't be at all surprised. I also think (I've said this before but I feel it's worth repeating) that there must be a group at the top of the US administration who are watching events in the White House very closely and with very great unease indeed -- as they did with Nixon (and in his case, when the papers are released in due course, I think a group close to Nixon will be seen to have been very close to de-throning him on grounds of mental imbalance). Bush could easily start drinking again, I imagine, and go on a bender that will be witnessed by someone.
The US position in Iraq is collapsing, and the best thing the US can now do is declare victory and pull out. If it was done smartly (in both senses of the word) it might undo a substantial portion of the damage that our invasion of Iraq has created.
I think they're going to have to go -- and a lot earlier than their declared intentions by means of having elections in June. There is no way that Ayatollah Sistani is going to agree to anything less than a democratic election for a Constitution committee (which would be Shia dominated). Any sort of pro-American Provisional Government is quite impossible to concoct I would have thought without control breaking down immediately. I can't see any way out now except via a civil war and the emergence of some elite and perhaps even Saddam himself -- except possibly an imminent and complete transfer of all responsibility to the UN and a large enough international occupying force under an Arab or Third World general acceptable to the Shias.
This has got to be one of the most complex situations ever, with the greatest potential for a terrifying civil war, considering the number of weapon dumps that were apparently left when the Americans came in (and not gathered in by them). I think it will very much depends on what types of weapons were left, and in what numbers, and who laid hands on them. (I guess most of the dumps will have been in the Sunni triangle/Tikrit area.) Also, how many weapons will be sent over by the Iranians to help the Shias?
Let us hope that good sense will prevail.
There's little chance of that, I think. The whole situation is too taut. Almost any decision will be misinterpreted by one group or another.
Keith
Cheers,
Lawry
- -----Original Message-----
- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Weick
- Sent: Fri, November 14, 2003 5:05 PM
- To: Ray Evans Harrell; Keith Hudson
- Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Subject: Re: Hamer is not an Ambassador (was Re: [Futurework] Has Saddam won?
- Keith, you of all people, have it just a little wrong. I think you are referring to Paul Bremer III, no Hamer.
- Ed
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Keith Hudson
- To: Ray Evans Harrell
- Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:49 AM
- Subject: Hamer is not an Ambassador (was Re: [Futurework] Has Saddam won?
- Ray,
- Hamer is Paul Hamer, the US Civilian Administrator in Baghdad, whom Bush has taken to calling Ambassador Hamer recently. This, of course, is a total misnomer because there is no legitimate government in Iraq to whom Hamer could be an ambassador to.
- Just as a rider to what I wrote below, I would expect that there'll be some relative quietude for a day or two while the Governing Council mull over the message that Hamer has brought back with him from Bush (which is: "What the hell do I do now? It's up to you guys to pull something out of the hat.").
- Of course, the Governing Council won't call for elections for a Constitutional Council in order to establish the ground rules for a General Election as Grand Ayatollah Sistani is calling for because it will produce a Shia majority -- and thus, probably a Shia government, which is the last thing that the Americans (or the Governing Council) would want. So they'll dither.
- There are, of course, spies on the Governing Council despite being hand-picked by the Americans. When Wolfowitz went secretly to Baghdad a week ago, he didn't stir from the Al Rashid Hotel for security reasons, not did he even meet with the Governing Council. But Saddam's rockets almost got him all the same -- only one floor wrong. When the Council's state of dither and full extent of Bush's dilemma becomes known to Saddam's henchmen and the other terrorist groups (though they have certainly already guessed this) then I think we can expect terrorism to be ramped up from then onwards in the Arab Sunni triangle.
- It is obvious that the American Army has been instructed to find and destroy Saddam at all costs (as they are also trying to do for Osama in Afghanistan right now). Bush is desperate for some success like this even though it will not help the main problem. Whether the troops succeed or not, it is sure that they will further alienate the Iraqi people in Baghad and environs by their activities. I cannot foresee anything that could stabilise the beginnings of civil war now except a fairly immediate announcement of an early General Election -- which, as suggested above, is exceedingly unlikely.
- Now that the US, UK oil corporations and LUKoil will not move in and start developing the oilfields in northern Iraq, Bush has absolutely no more arrows in his quiver. He is on a hiding to nothing. This is very apparent in his conversations and announcements (as with Frost today). He hasn't got a complete sentence in his head. He can only refer in a jerky sort of way about the support of his only friend in the world -- Tony Blair. Except for a few Republican Senators, I think he will soon have almost no support from anybody at the highest levels of the American government and administration except his own immediate circle. He will be impeached or dethroned pretty soon I would guess. There's no other way out for the credibility of America. Putin can get away with these sorts of antics in what is still a totalitarian state, but surely not in America! Or am I dreadfully wrong?
- Keith Hudson
- At 09:06 14/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
- Keith, who is Hamer?
- REH
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Keith Hudson
- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 2:17 AM
- Subject: [Futurework] Has Saddam won?
- During the invasion, or a little beforehand (I forget now), I ventured the possibility on FW that Saddam would be a president long after Bush is not.
- This is looking a little more possible now. At this moment I would love to be able to read the morning newpsapers in Baghdad because what at least two or three of them will be saying is that the Americans are about to flee Iraq (Ed: the Americans' hasty departure will be the only way in which Iraq will be similar to Vietnam!).
- Although this is not his intent, Hamer will be effectively handing over power to the Iraqi Governing Council this morning. They will not want to write a constitution because (a) it will delay elections for a government until at least the spring or the summer; (b) it will probably be impossible anyway. I think it is slightly more likely that the IGC will assume -- or try to assume -- the powers of a Provisional Government and rule by decree.
- But whether they do, or whether they fall out among themselves, I think this is when the civil war will start. That is, this morning. From last night, American troops are already desperately trying a last attempt to find and kill Saddam. It is possible that they might succeed. It seems slightly more possible that they will not. We are seeing TV clips in this country of American troops acting atrociously in rough-handling women and children in their own homes. But this will be a brief episode because they will be overtaken by events.
- I think from today we will probably see the beginning of the emergence of armed militias of all sorts -- Sunni, Shia and Saddam+Fedayeen+Arab tribes -- as the American troops retreat behind barricades in their compounds and are then shunted out of the country by helicopter. This will be the first time that RPGs will not be fired at American helicopters because they'll be in too much use between militias on the ground.
- Bush and Cheney have already been humiliated by the refusal of US and UK oil corporations and LUKoil to start oil development. His humiliation is about to be complete during the next few weeks. Goodbye George W. There'll be no library erected in your honour. Even in Texas.
- Keith Hudson
- P.S. Yesterday, on Pulteney Bridge in town, I was (courteously) accosted by four Americans who desired me to tell them where they could obtain a traditional pub lunch. In return, it was refreshing to hear what they thought about Bush, garnished by the fact that they were Texans! Yes, four live Texans in Bath! So I told them the old anti-Texan joke we tell over here that if they ever see a 50ft long red pantechnicon, ladders on the top, with bells jangling and roaring down the street, it was not a fire engine but a window-cleaner's van. We departed fom one each other in high spirits and I hope they had a fine lunch.
- K
- Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
