Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Articles by Josh

The trio of quotations listed below called attention to the growing popularity of what conservatives are now calling the "flypaper" theory of our presence in Iraq.

The thinking goes something like this. These guerilla engagements we're seeing in Iraq may not be such a bad thing. What we're doing is attracting all the terrorists to Iraq (i.e., like "flypaper") so that a) they won't be attacking us in America and b) we can fight them there on our own terms. As Andrew Sullivan put it early this month, "Continued conflict in Iraq, in other words, needn't always be bad news. It may be a sign that we are drawing the terrorists out of the woodwork and tackling them in the open."

Now I can imagine a number of problems with this approach -- moral, tactical and strategic.

But isn't the main fallacy that there isn't some finite number of "terrorists" out there whom we can draw to one place, kill or arrest, and then be done with it? I mean, let's be honest: Is there really any shortage of these dudes? Are they gonna run out?

Do you remember Afghanistan? Not this 'Afghanistan', but the last 'Afghanistan.' The US-Pakistan-backed jihad against the Soviets made Afghanistan into a sort of jihad Club-Med where young Saudis could go for a few weeks or months of firing guns and fighting for God. (Of course, some stayed on rather longer.)

The idea is supposed to be to drain the swamp, not create a new swamp and spend all your time swatting all the mosquitoes that come to hang out and breed.

As a reader (Tom R.) wrote last night in an email to TPM, the "flypaper" theory makes about as much sense as a public health director saying "By creating a dirty hospital, we're going to create a place where we can fight the germs on our terms."

An interesting progression ...

But doing it as the Bush administration now intends is something like going outside and giving a few good whacks to a hornets' nest because you want to get them out in the open and have it out with them once and for all.

"Practice to Deceive"
Joshua Micah Marshall
Washington Monthly
April 2003

Being based in Iraq helps us not only because of actual bases; but because the American presence there diverts terrorist attention away from elsewhere. By confronting them directly in Iraq, we get to engage them in a military setting that plays to our strengths rather than to theirs'. Continued conflict in Iraq, in other words, needn't always be bad news. It may be a sign that we are drawing the terrorists out of the woodwork and tackling them in the open.

"Bring Them On"
Andrew Sullivan
July 3rd, 2003

Separately, Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, commander of coalition ground forces, told CNN that "we still have a long way to go" before eliminating resistance.

Iraq had become "a terrorist magnet," drawing some anti-American extremists from abroad to "a target of opportunity."

"But this," General Sanchez added, "is exactly where we want to fight them."

"U.S. Must Act on 'Murky' Data to Prevent Terror, Wolfowitz Says"
International Herald Tribune
July 27th, 2003

Are we all straight now on what the plan is?

Is Dick Morris a closet proponent of the Judis-Teixeira thesis? Look at this line from his July 23rd column in The Hill ...

Bush seems to have no firewall to arrest his drop. His ratings seem to depend on yesterday’s news. Because the empowerment of the Republican Party in all three branches of government masks the demographic shift to the Democratic Party, when things get rough, there is nothing to hold up the ratings of a Republican president.
John, Ruy, seriously, give the guy a call. He's changed sides before!

I just re-read the Rice piece in the Post again and it's really pretty devastating. You read it and it's hard not to come to the conclusion that Rice is either really incompetent or really ... well, less than honest in a few of the answers she's given on the Niger debacle. Or maybe it's fifty-fifty? In any case, it ain't good.

The only serious beef I have with the article is that the authors -- Dana Milbank and Mike Allen -- mocked a line I'd been planning to mock for several days. But they mocked it in a sufficiently understated manner that, if you'll indulge me, I'm going to try to get a little more mileage out of it.

Back during Steve Hadley's ritual sorta-kinda defenestration last week, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, who was there to oversee the event, piped in to dispute one of the alleged instances in which the CIA tried to warn the White House off the Niger claims.

He said ...

There is a conspiracy theory out there that there was some protracted negotiation, or that this was information that was in a clandestine way being forced into the speech by various factions of the administration. It's simply nonsense.
Now, as I've said before a number of times, calling something a 'conspiracy theory' has become what amounts to the lazy man's way of discrediting an argument. In fact, I recently experienced this myself.

Just before the war, I wrote an article ("Practice to Deceive") which claimed that the administration wasn't leveling with the public about its real reasons for going to war. Out of nowhere a gaggle of giddy smear-meisters popped out of the woodwork accusing me of hatching a conspiracy theory and smearing all manner of upstanding gentlemen to boot.

Now, maybe I was right; maybe I was wrong. But it was never quite clear to me how any of this amounted to a conspiracy theory.

As it happens, one of these smackdowns came on the Wall Street Journal editorial page website. And, interestingly enough, last week the same folks ran an OpEd saying more or less exactly what I said four months ago. Only now they're celebrating the deception as key to success.

Why did President Bush play the WMD card rather than just level with the American people about the real reason for the war, asks Steven Den Beste. Simple, he says ...

Honesty and plain speaking are not virtues for politicians and diplomats. If either Mr. Bush or Mr. Blair had said what I did, it would have hit the fan big-time. Making clear a year ago that this was our true agenda would have virtually guaranteed that it would fail.
It's always bracing to see how quickly the party line can change, ain't it? It sort of reminds of Gene Genovese's line about getting kicked out of the Commnunist Party when he was in college "for having zigged when I was supposed to zag."

But, alas, I digress. Back to Mr Bartlett.

Bartlett was talking about the conversation between CIA officer Alan Foley and NSC staffer Bob Joseph about the uranium line in the State of the Union speech. Foley says the two haggled about the line after he raised the Agency's concerns with Joseph. (Bear in mind too that he apparently also said this before a congressional committee; thus, presumably, under oath.) Joseph, a lot less convincingly, says he has no recollection of Foley raising these concerns.

In any case, according to Bartlett, believing Foley rather than Joseph amounts to a buying into a 'conspiracy theory.'

Hey, weren't we going to get lunch?


Yeah, remember, I called. We were going to meet at noon at ...

Stop with your conspiracy theories!

In any case, if Bartlett is going to live up to true Fleischerian standards of press browbeating and intimidation, won't he have to learn how to pull off the bullyboy tactics without sounding like such a goof?

Sheesh! Sometimes a meme's time has really come. A couple hours ago I quoted a blurb in US News' Washington Whispers column about how Condi Rice might end up taking the fall for the recent intel unpleasantness. (And not a Tenet/Hadley style fall. I mean a real fall, as in losing her job.) I said that jibed with a lot of what I'd been in hearing in recent weeks and months, though I thought the complaints about Rice went far beyond the uranium flap. Now I hop over to the Washington Post website and see this article ("Iraq Flap Shakes Rice's Image") on the front page of tomorrow's paper.

"As White House officials try to control the latest fallout over President Bush's flawed suggestion in the State of the Union address that Iraq was buying nuclear bomb materials," says US News' Washington Whispers, "there's growing talk by insiders that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice may take the blame and resign."

Even I find such an eventuality a bit hard to imagine, but it actually jibes well with a lot of what I've been hearing over recent weeks and months. With Steve Hadley taking the latest rap for the Niger-uranium debacle, Rice has for all intents and purposes taken the rap without having herself uttered the words. As I wrote to someone who knows her earlier today, "Everyone's spin aside, the nuke issue was the biggest issue in terms of threat. And this was one of our best pieces of positive --- as opposed to inferential --- evidence. If she really didn't read the memo that was sent to her --- which I agree is possible --- it's inexcusable."

At the end of the day I think it's quite likely we'll find that the true pressure for pushing the uranium story came from the Office of the Vice President, pressure quite possibly exerted through Hadley, who is generally seen as a Cheney-man at NSC.

But if Rice goes it won't just be as a fall-gal for the uranium business. Because this unsightly view into the Bush NSC has only crystallized an increasingly widespread perception that she has simply done a poor job as National Security Advisor.

Mind you, it's no surprise that any National Security Advisor steps on a lot of toes and makes enemies. It's her job to discipline and force consensus -- if only operational consensus -- from the various ideological and organizational factions in the national security establishment. So the job requires slapping all sorts of people around.

But the criticism in most every case is that she's exercised little of that disciplining, consensus-forcing, BS-catching role. That shortcoming doesn't bear directly on the stuff we're seeing now. But it helped set the stage for it in a number of important ways -- a point we'll get to in greater detail in a later post.

The point is that many people from both sides of the administration's pragmatist-hawk dividing line criticize Rice in very similar terms: for not settling these ideological and inter-agency debates with any finality so that the execution of policy is not overwhelmed by continuing in-fighitng over just what it should be. One hears many stories of her presiding over meetings in the professorial manner of a seminar leader, asking interesting questions, and leaving the issue as unresolved at the end of the meeting as it was at the beginning. In essence, you hear many folks on both sides saying: Hey, choose our plan or choose theirs. But, for God's sake, you have to choose!

Department of scorecards worth pulling back out of that desk drawer.

This from The New York Times, March 22nd 2003 ...

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld declared today that the Iraqi government was starting to crumble as he laid out eight broad objectives by which the Bush administration would define victory.


Mr. Rumsfeld listed eight sweeping goals that the Bush administration sought to achieve in the war.


The first of the eight specific aims, Mr. Rumsfeld said, is to "end the regime of Saddam Hussein by striking with force on a scope and scale that makes clear to Iraqis that he and his regime are finished."

Second, Iraq's arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, and any program to develop nuclear weapons, are also targets, as the American military has been ordered "to identify, isolate and eventually eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, production capabilities, and distribution networks," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

Troops will then "search for, capture, drive out terrorists who have found safe harbor in Iraq," he added.

Next, he said, the allied forces will "collect such intelligence as we can find related to terrorist networks in Iraq and beyond."

The fifth goal, Mr. Rumsfeld said, is to "collect such intelligence as we can find related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction activity."

The United States also seeks "to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian relief, food and medicine to the displaced and to the many needy Iraqi citizens," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

Military forces also will "secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people, and which they will need to develop their country after decades of neglect by the Iraqi regime," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

Lastly, Mr. Rumsfeld said, the war effort is "to help the Iraqi people create the conditions for a rapid transition to a representative self-government that is not a threat to its neighbors and is committed to ensuring the territorial integrity of that country."

Add your own clever remark here and stir ...

James Baker update! As we noted in the post earlier this evening, the White House wants James A. Baker, Uber-Fixer-Maximus to take over running Iraq.

Now when I originally linked to the story in question at the Washington Post it was datelined just after twelve noon today. It was headlined with the news about the probable return of Baker ("White House Wants Baker to Head Iraq Reconstruction")and hinted on various levels that Bremer might be on the way out.

What the story actually said was that Baker would likely be asked to run the economy and the physical infrastructure in Iraq while Bremer would run the political side. Significantly, the story said it was unclear whether Bremer would report to Baker or vice versa.

For those who remember how ole' Jay Garner got the boot, that sort of 'transition' had an awfully familiar ring to it.

Now, just before nine I again checked the story. And it had changed -- a lot.

Now there's no James Baker in the headline ("Bush Considers New Overhaul of Postwar Iraq Administration"). And he's not even mentioned until the 5th graf, where it says ...

As part of an effort to beef up the reconstruction, the White House is considering asking several major figures, including former secretary of state James A. Baker III, to help with specific tasks like seeking funds from other countries or helping restructure Iraq's debt.
The new article is larded with lines about how everyone loves the job Bremer is doing (which, by and large, I think I agree with, given the constraints he seems to be operating under). And the second mention of Baker's name -- down in graf #8 -- says ...
An aide said Baker is on vacation, and he did not immediately return messages left at his law firm, Baker Botts LLP in Houston. Several administration officials predicted that Baker would not become involved, but said the White House might still seek "a Baker-like figure" to share duties with Bremer.
Here's CBS's pick-up of the original Post story -- though who knows how long it'll remain? Now, I've gotta ask: what happened here?

Between noon and 7 PM we went from the likely sending out of Baker as viceroy to the possible appointment of "a Baker-like figure" to help out Bremer.

Something's fishy here. Did the authors -- Mike Allen and Glenn Kessler, two real pros -- get spun by some bad tips? That's hard to figure. Or did they get walloped by a tsunami of Bush spinmeisters furiously walking back the story? Or did the Baker boomlet at the White House really only last for half an afternoon? Is there a tug of war? And where's Bremer fit in in all this? And, while we're asking questions, how many neos with offices at OSD or at the corner of 17th and M Street suffered nervous breakdowns when they heard James A. Baker might be put in charge of Iraq?

Something worth knowing happened here.

Special Note to Post sources (you know who you are!): Your own TPM mug for whoever can send me a copy of the original piece. And even more TPM prizes for whomever can fill me in on the backstory.

Late Update: Another blog, "Uggabugga" (no, I have no idea how he came up with that name), has both versions of the article lined up side by side on his site.

Even Later Update: Is that your final answer? As of 12:50 AM, we have yet another version of the story ("Changes in Iraq Effort Debated"). Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. This one sheds a little light on the tug-of-war that likely led to the differences between versions one and two.

Can someone wake me up when we figure out whether this is comedy, tragedy, parody or farce? Now James Baker's going to take over running Iraq.

Yeah, that James Baker.

Some time over this weekend I want to get time to address in detail the defenses coming from administration advocates regarding the war.

For the moment, let me try briefly to address two of the more commonly-heard ones.

First is that captured in Charles Krauthammer's column this morning. Responding to the many charges of exaggerated or manipulated intelligence, the plea is essentially nolo contendere, no contest. Whether the intelligence was cooked or not, they say, we and the region are better off for having invaded when we did.

I think that for anyone seriously following events in the region, that judgment is still very much in suspense. The truth is that it's too soon to know with any certainty what the long-term results of all this are. But, however that may be, this strips down to an ends justify the means argument. Simple as that.

The means the White House used to get the country into Iraq are quite capable of being analyzed independently from the results of the invasion. Anyone who argues otherwise is really cynical in the extreme.

The other argument is that advanced by Dick Cheney yesterday in his speech at AEI. That was, essentially, this: knowing what we knew then we had no choice but to act.

I agree.

In fact, I said so many, many times in magazine articles and in these virtual pages. But Cheney's is only an attempt to retrospectively distort the debate to such an extent that the choice was one between doing nothing and launching the war with only one significant ally in March 2003. (And, no, don't even try to tell me about Poland and Spain.) Cheney is simply trying to pitch the ludicrous notion that everyone who doesn't drink the neocon Kool-Aid spends their spare moments teary-eyed over the rough shake Saddam got growing up on the mean streets of Tikrit.

I certainly hope no one will let him get away with this laughable dodge. To act, in this case, was not synonymous with going to war in March 2003. The key questions were a) timing, b) how we did it, and c) what inspectors were finding once in country -- because as I've said many times before, the initial reconnaissance by the IAEA gave good reason to believe that the Iraqi nuclear program was at best not very far advanced. And nukes were the central issue, as far as any imminent threat.

The challenges we're facing now stem from the fact that we dealt with the situation on the double-quick. And the fact that we dealt with it that way is inextricably linked to the issue of hyping and manipulating the intel.

The question is not whether there was any reason to believe there was a threat. There was. The questions were whether that threat was imminent and whether we dealt with it in the best possible way or the stupidest possible way.

Coming next, criticism aside, what's the best policy to pursue in Iraq today ...