Jason Linkins

BIO

Jason Linkins

The Huffington Post

General Hayden Revises History In Iraq

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

March 30, 2008 03:42 PM


Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

About Jason Linkins

Jason Linkins is a Political Reporter at the Huffington Post, covering media and politics. He's based in Washington, DC. Previously, he wrote for HuffPo's Eat The Press, and has also contributed to DCist and Wonkette.

We gave this particular moment some special attention on our Sunday Morning Liveblog today, but it deserves some special attention and scrutiny. We're speaking of the moment where Tim Russert asks General Michael Hayden is the recent violence in Basra is going to have an impact on the political reconciliation that was promised when the "Surge" was launched. Hayden's answer was to ignore all the various promises the American people were made in the run up to war and beyond - of quick battles, occupancies that would last mere months, cakewalks, missions accomplished, last throes, and imminent drawdowns - and insist that the current state of play is something that we were always told was going to happen. Naturally, despite his tendency toward having plenty of "gotcha!" style clips on hand to trip up his quarry, Russert couldn't even manage a thin breath of puchback on Hayden's obvious inveigling.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think this military activity in Basra is a setback for political reconciliation in Iraq?

GEN. HAYDEN: You, you know, Tim, this was something that we all knew we had to go through. This was inevitable. This had to be resolved. You just can't have the second major city in the country--economically, the most important city in the country--beyond the control of the government. And so, although, you know, there, there's a certain sense of--what's the right word, Tim?--disappointment in, in that--the fact that violence is increasing, we knew we couldn't get to where we had to be for the Iraqi state, for a modern democratic Iraqi state, without going through this.

Yeah. I have no idea who this "we" is that Hayden is talking about, but if they search their vocabulary for the right work to describe Iraq and can only come up with "disappointment," then they can't have been paying much attention.

[WATCH.]


 
 

Comments
66
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

Amazing. All these guys seem to be reading out of the same hymn...or is it a nursery rhyme book. So where was the famed Russertian query..."Well General, I'd you to look at these quotes from George and Dick and Paul and ....and yourself....that said that the surge was neccessary ...blah blah blah".

Oh well. I suppose Timmy doesnt want the general not to visit again.

I am getting to the point frankly where I believe the country deserves what it is getting by allowing these moronic liars to feed this crap to all and not be held accountable...and that includes members of congress. Today Basra, tomorrow Baghdad or will it be Mosul...and another set of effing excuses and lies.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:46 PM on 03/30/2008

well...at least I wasn't the only one paying attention this morning when he sat there and LIED through his teeth....8(

good to see it was noticed by others...8)

I was sitting there with my jaw hitting the ground and trying to figure out how they thought we were going to buy into this....8(

only other thing I noticed was that we have an ex NSA chief that is now heading up the CIA...8(

isn't it proof that now the military is running our country.....8(

I keep thinking that the American people will notice this and DEMAND a change...ya think!

it IS truly TimeforachangeNOW...

and I DON'T mean Obama!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:57 PM on 03/30/2008

I think I heard a likeness of that statement about always knowing..quite a while ago...but it wasn't this gd administration saying it...it was the people in the street were and are against this war. Anybody knowing anything about this area of the world should not have been shocked at this latest violence. So this Hayden wants to rewrite history...gawd. I have also said many times that someone needs to write an honest rendition of these war crimes and results and put them in a time capsule in a safe corner of some building....to be unencapsulated 30 years from now...or even earlier. Several of those need to be put in several places, several cities, several states. These bush/cheney clans should be known for their disgraceful ways..and the public needs to have the truth. NOT the presidential libraries...bush's will be a coverup.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:53 PM on 03/30/2008

ABOLISH this government on April 19th Patriots Day in the City of Philadelphia , Independence Hall 9am.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:50 PM on 03/30/2008

How will you manage that?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:41 PM on 03/30/2008

Take off those ribbons and he looks exactly like Elmer Fudd.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:40 PM on 03/30/2008

Just another member of the most rotten, corrupt and criminal administration in this nations history. No shame.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:57 PM on 03/30/2008

Why is the head of a civilian agency still wearing a military uniform? Who does he think he is, Mushareef? Hayden has no honor and integrity but Russert has even less.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:55 PM on 03/30/2008

By law, the Director or the Assistant Director may be a commissioned military officer (though never both). It's been that way since the CIA was established in 1947 and was also true of the predecessor Central Intelligence Group in 1946.

Other Military DCIs:
RADM Sidney Souers, USNR January 23, 1946"June 10, 1946
LTG Hoyt S. Vandenberg, USA June 10, 1946"May 1, 1947
RADM Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, USN May 1, 1947"October 7, 1950
GEN Walter Bedell Smith, USA October 7, 1950"February 9, 1953
VADM William Raborn, USN (Ret.) April 28, 1965"June 30, 1966
ADM Stansfield Turner, USN (Ret.) March 9, 1977"January 20, 1981

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:40 PM on 03/30/2008

If someone invaded this country and occupied it, we would fight like the dickens to get them out of here. I thought these chaps said they were Christians? You know? Do unto others as they would have them do unto you? Moktada al-Sadr is not an Iranian agent. He is an Iraqi nationalist trying to rid his country of a foreign occupier. You hear it said that if the United States gets out there will be problems. Yes there will be. Theirs, not ours. You can not justify something that was rotten to begin with. No Bush, no Cheney, no Clinton can change that fact.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:41 PM on 03/30/2008

Most Americans, like most civilians everywhere, if occupied would just hide from the fighting as
best they could. And when the fighting was over they'd suck up to the victors. Most people don't
have the stomach to fight. The masses are just cattle.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:52 PM on 03/30/2008

Yea I'm "disappointed." Hey, but whats a couple of trillion dollars, 4000 American lives, tens of thousands of injured American Soldiers, millions of dead/wounded/displaced Iraqis and lost respect from the entire world? Just a "disappointment." You just want to beat this guy like a baby seal!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:01 PM on 03/30/2008

This man lied from the beginning of the interview to the end. Russert sat and listened and didn't call him on it once, just like the media did during the run up to the war. He actually expects us to believe that he and all the others knew nothing about and had nothing to do with the current action in Basra. This was a surprise sprung on them by the Iraqi government. He still talks about the WMD that Hussein had developed. Why is this delusional man in his silly uniform still allowed to sit there and try to brainwash the citizens of this country????

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:52 PM on 03/30/2008

The events in Basra have nothing to do with the "surge" or any other screwup Bush has made IN IRAQ. Again I will point out the nature of Al Sadr or Mooky as I like to call him. Mooky is an Ayatollah! He inherited the position from his father. He wears the black turban which indicates he is a descendant of Ali and Mohamed. That would be thru Fatima, Mohamed's daughter Ali's wife. He had no sons and Ali was a nephew. Now with that background Mooky is Shiite royalty and he can do what he wants to as long as he has the military or economic where with all to accomplish it. No Shiite will judge him, in fact they will die for him and they are doing it as we speak. He is also by the fact that he is an Ayatollah an ally of Iran,period. What is happening is the destabilization of Basra so our military can not use the port as the main jump off point to mess with Iran. Basra is more strategic than Baghdad. It is the gateway to the country and is on the border with Iran. I hope someone in the government can figure this out . It is a chess game and they have time on their side.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:50 PM on 03/30/2008

We have meet the enemy and they are our lying ignorant politicians who conspire with the wealthy to rape the resources of the world and to hell with the people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:54 PM on 03/30/2008

Our political and economic pigs know they rule children who will go along with whatever they
say or do. They have no respect for the people they rule. And the ruled deserve no respect.
No fight, no heart.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:01 AM on 03/31/2008

dogman; Amen.Truer words have never been spoken.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:06 AM on 03/31/2008

Russert only has follow-ups when the stakes are non-existent. For instance, he's always ready with a "gotcha" when it's a he said/she said, but when it involves actual policy, he's just another corporate eunuch waiting for his MSNBC check to clear.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:53 PM on 03/30/2008

It would have been far better if they had just let them have their civil war, and it would be mostly over at this point. Instead, it has not yet begun. Bush and Cheney won't be happy until they at least match the war dead in Viet Nam.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:24 PM on 03/30/2008

"I have no idea who this WE is that Hayden is talking about." ??? perhaps Bush and Hayden?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:20 PM on 03/30/2008

Maybe someone should ask him what more we 'know' we will have to go through before there is peace in Iraq, just to get a current benchmark on the administration's idea of the war. Interested parties, like the taxpayers would like to know.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:59 PM on 03/30/2008

An insurgency, on average, lasts 9 years. We've known that for a long time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:04 PM on 03/30/2008

Who the hell is this we you are talking about and where did you get this 9 years? Out of your personal methane gas digester?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 PM on 03/30/2008

Please list five insurgencies and their duration.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:39 PM on 03/30/2008

Successful Counterinsurgencies of the 20th Century:

Second Anglo-Boer War (United Kingdom [U.K.] vs. Boer separatists, 1899-1902).
Philippine Insurrection (United States [U.S.] vs. Filipino nationalists, 1899-1902 [1916]).
Greek Civil War (U.K., then U.S. and Government of Greece [GoG], vs. National Liberation Army [ELAS], 1944-1949).
Hukbalahap Rebellion (Philippine Islands [P.I.] vs. Hukbalahap, 1946-1954).
Malayan Emergency (U.K. vs. Malayan Communist Party [MPC]/Malayan Races Liberation Army [MRLA], 1948-1960).
Kenyan Emergency (U.K. vs. Mau Mau, 1952-1956).
France (France vs. Secret Army Organization [OAS], 1958-1962).
Venezuela (Venezuela vs. urban-based Armed Forces for National Liberation [FALN], 1958-1963).
Uruguay (Uruguay vs. Tupamaros, 1963-1972).
Oman (U.K. and Oman vs. Popular Front for the Liberation of Oman and the Arab Gulf [PFLOAG], (1964-1975)
Germany (Germany vs. Baader-Meinhof/Red Army Faction [RAF], 1970-1992).
Western Sahara (Morocco vs. Western Sahara Freedom Movement [POLISARIO], 1975-1991).
Senderista Insurgency (Peru vs. Sendero Luminoso, 1980-1995; vs. Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement [MRTA], 1996-1997).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:26 PM on 03/30/2008

As long as officers like Hayden infest the Pentagon, we are all at risk. Whatever happened to DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY? Did it die with an Old Soldier?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:40 PM on 03/30/2008

Old Soldiers don't die...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:42 PM on 03/30/2008

Did we always know that as long as we illegally invaded a sovereign country for no good reason, that we would have to maintain a standing army in order to stamp out the brush-fires of nationalist insurgents?
The reason i ask is because we DID invaded their country. Illegally

To the Sadrists and Sunnis among others, the occupation is the cause of the insurgency.
To the uneducated and misinformed Americans, the occupation must be maintained because of the insurgency.
Dear Mr. Hayden - Please meet the enemy.
Please meet the irrational cause for the continuation of the destruction of the Iraqi people and their country.
Did we not expect an insurgency when we attacked the Iraqi people with, lest we forget, shock and awe?
If America were invaded by a foreign power, shock-and-awe style, and a foreign military occupied our country five years later, would we not expect, even hope, that a bunch of revolutionary "insurgents", you know, Americans, would continue to strive to drive out the foreign invaders.
The complete fallacy of the Bush-McCain-Hayden cabal is that there can be a victory against the insurgency that we cause by our occupation.
End the occupation.
End the cause of the insurgency.
Let the people decide if their government is legit, WITHOUT the threat of the invaders killing off more nationalists.
Let's see if we can have some peace over there.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:00 PM on 03/30/2008

Well said! Plus, our heroes don't even bother to say what they have to offer the Iraqi people which OUGHT to convince them to side with us, comply with us, put up with us, be dominated by us and ultimately owe the whole structure of their future to our 'wisdom'. They don't even talk about it. They just act as if it were obvious that we are such good guys that every kind of Iraqi except the 'evil' ones will join up instead of joining the insurgents. Impeccable Republicanism.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:16 PM on 03/30/2008

Yours was the most brilliant comment I have read to date on HuffPo. And if I could figure what in the world RTOTrainer was smoking before he left his reply to you, perhaps I could figure out what in the world he/she was trying to say.

Peace.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:18 PM on 03/30/2008

If the occupation were the cause fo the insurgency, then the surge woulf have cauysed an increase in violence, not a decrease. The cause of the insurgency was deliberate unrest sown by the violent actions of AQI that made the Sunnis and Sadrists (in particualr, but not limited to them) beleive that the other guys were coming for them and they'd have to look out for themselves.

The surge changed that by demonstrating that we would take responsibility for their security and work with them to help them maintain it for themselves.

This week, it's still too early to judge precise causes, but my best guess is that Madhi Army factions, not happy with the additional 6 month truce took matters into their own hands. Al Sadr's recent statements calling for a returnt to truce and disassociating from those who do not are indications of this.

Sard's got nothing to lose by waiting. He's the most heavily armed single faction outrside the government (excluding the Coalition) and in the event of precipitous withdrawl he's pre-positioned to protect his interests and his followers. If no withdrawl, continuing to approve truces, allows his followers to get back to normal life and will be less inclined to rush to take up arms with out provocation.

He's looking for a "heads I win, tails you lose" position and the hotheads in his organization are about the only thing that can mess that up for him and they are presently following such a course.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:59 PM on 03/30/2008

Wow, I had no idea.
Please RTO.
You present a false premise and framework of discussion to me.
That premise is your own creation, and thus it has the most value to you.
THAT the occupation of Iraq is presently and historically the cause of the nationalist insurgency is not really open to debate. If you read the positions and the pronouncements of various Iraqi militias and community-based armies, they are ALL opposed to the occupation of their country by the US military. Period.
When you hear them say they will not lay down their arms to an occupier army, I mean, that says it all.
There was no insurgency before the invasion and occupation.
These people did not come into being as anti-Iraqis.
They became anti-invaders.
Anti-occupiers.
And Anti-invader-supporters.
Kind of, you're with us or against us.
Your claim that the insurency was a response to AQI is plain ignorance.
While they all had a common enemy in the US military, the insurgents had a focus on the occupation and didn't attack any AQI actions until AQI attacked both the Sunni and Shia Iraqis.

If we are going to discuss Muqtada al Sadr's tactics, it is fine to relate his actions to current political undertakings, as he is working in that sphere as well.
But what is not possible, is to claim that Muqtada is anything but a strong leader of Iraqi nationalists who continue to oppose the invasion of their country.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:28 PM on 03/30/2008

There is a word for your post, BS. Nothing you said holds water. Go read the daily reports by Juan Cole and Informedcomment.com. He'll explain it to you and it isn't anything like your feeble attempt at an explanation. Anyone who thinks that increasing oppression through the use of unopposed military occupation is full of themselves.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:03 PM on 03/30/2008

Alot of the decrease in violence was due to monthly payoffs of former Sunni militia members, and Sadr's truce at that time.

To what extent does our occupation give rival militias and AQI a common enemy, and to what extent does providing security for the Iraqi government provoke anti-government attacks? Maliki said last July we could leave anytime, and his lieutenants complained we were treating Iraq like an experiment, cooperating with a gang of killers (Sunni warlords) to fight AQI.

Looks like Maliki figured he may as well use our firepower to fight his rival Shiites, as long as we're going to occupy his country. Why can't some military people see that getting involved in this internal fight makes reconciliation amongst Iraqis less likely?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:17 PM on 03/30/2008

Removal of the power structure would tend to increase the probability of violence as rival factions slug it out to replace the deposed regime. Occupation led to insurgency, that's just flat-out obvious, if not a tautology. Occupation didn't necessarily imply an increase in sectarian violence, but we screwed up and got that as well.

The surge, which was sold as an increase of troops to secure Baghdad, also included co-opting Sunni militias with money and weapons to root out foreign members of Al-Queda in Iraq. The surge also relied on Sadr's truce. Al-Maliki's recent pushing on the Sadrist for power consolidation reasons apparently revealed how important Sadr's truce was. It's afternoon in California and Sadr reportedly ceased hostilities, I think it's because he made his point. Oh, of the three elements of the surge I outlined, two of them did not require more American troops in country.

I also wonder what the guns and money for the Sunnis will do once Al-Quaeda is chased out.

As for us, we called in the bombers on Al-Maliki's side in a power dispute. (Incidentally, I'm hearing that Al-Maliki is closer to the Iranians than the Sadrists and by weighing in for him we help increase Iranian influence in the region, which I thought was the thing we were describing as real bad as we enlisted our allies during Cheney's recent peace trip.)

Meanwhile we keep shooting ourselves in the foot with golden bullets.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:47 PM on 03/30/2008

Which all begs the question "WHY DO WE REMAIN INVOLVED IN THEIR INTERNAL POLITICS."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:27 PM on 03/30/2008

If I thought that anyone here was open to an answer I'd try. So I'll just stick to current events.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:00 PM on 03/30/2008

Hey, RTOtrainer, the surge did increase the violence! Don't believe the hype. There was no reduction in violence. There might have been a pause in the violence, but there was no reduction of violence due to the surge. Many of the neighborhoods have been cleansed, many Sunnis had already killed Shi'ite. Now the Shi'ites are fighting other Shi'ites. That's not counting the insurgents against the Americans and the foreign 'terrorists.' But, the point, RTO, there was no reduction in violence. The surge didn't work. The answer is: where are the peacemakers? Until they come along Iraq will continue. I have yet to hear anyone call for peace (other than Cindy Sheehan). I have not heard leaders of the world call for peace. Tell all of us to cool it, and talk it out. Where are those people.

    Favorite&nbs