February 11, 2009 5:51 PM

US Envoy: 'Arrogance,' 'Stupidity' In Iraq

(AP)  A senior U.S. diplomat said the United States had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in Iraq but was now ready to talk with any group except Al Qaeda in Iraq to facilitate national reconciliation.

In an interview with Al-Jazeera television aired late Saturday, Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department offered an unusually candid assessment of America's war in Iraq.

"We tried to do our best but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq," he said.

"We are open to dialogue because we all know that, at the end of the day, the solution to the hell and the killings in Iraq is linked to an effective Iraqi national reconciliation," he said, speaking in Arabic from Washington. "The Iraqi government is convinced of this."

The question of negotiations between the United States and insurgency factions has repeatedly surfaced over the past two years, but details have been sketchy. One issue that was often raised in connection with such negotiations was the extent of amnesty the United States and its Iraqi allies were willing to offer to the insurgents if they disarmed and joined the political process.

State department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters Fernandez afterward said he didn't think reports of his comments were an "accurate reflection of what he said." Asked whether the Bush administration believed that history will show a record of arrogance or stupidity in Iraq, McCormack replied "No."

A senior Bush administration official questioned whether the remarks had been translated correctly.

"Those comments obviously don't reflect our position," said the official, who asked not to be identified because a transcript was not then available for review.

Fernandez spoke to the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera after a man claiming to speak for Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath Party told the network the United States was seeking a face-saving exodus from Iraq and that insurgents were ready to negotiate but won't lay down arms.

"Abu Mohammed", a pseudonym for the man, appeared to set near impossible conditions for the start of any talks with the Americans, including the return to service of Saddam's armed forces, the annulment of every law adopted since Saddam's ouster, the recognition of insurgent groups as the sole representatives of the Iraqi people and a timetable for a gradual, unconditional withdrawal of U.S. and other foreign troops in Iraq.

"The occupier has started to search for a face-saving way out. The resistance, with all its factions, is determined to continue fighting until the enemy is brought down to his knees and sits on the negotiating table or is dealt, with God's help, a humiliating defeat," he said. The man wore a suit and appeared to be in his 40s but his face was concealed.

"There is an element of the farcical in that statement," Fernandez said of Abu Mohammed's comments. "They are very removed from reality."

Still Fernandez warned that failure to pacify the widening sectarian strife in Iraq as well as an enduring insurgency would damage the entire Middle East.

"We are witnessing failure in Iraq and that's not the failure of the United States alone but it is a disaster for the region. Failure in Iraq will be a failure for the United States but a disaster for the region."

Although the actual identity of Abu Mohammed remains unknown, the interview adds to growing indications that Iraq's Sunni insurgents sense the tide may be turning against the United States and the Iraqi government it backs.

Fernandez's comments, on the other hand, join a series of sobering remarks by President Bush and the U.S. military in recent days.

Bush this week conceded that "right now it's tough" for U.S. forces in Iraq and on Saturday met with his top military and security advisers to study new tactics to curb the staggering violence in Iraq. Three U.S. Marines were killed also Saturday, making October the deadliest month for American forces in Iraq this year.

U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell said attacks in Baghdad were up 22 percent in the first three weeks of the holy Muslim month of Ramadan despite a two-month old U.S.-Iraqi drive to crush violence in the Iraqi capital.

On Wednesday, and again on Friday, Sunni insurgents believed to belong to al Qaeda in Iraq, staged military-like parades in the heart of five towns in the vast and mainly desert province of Anbar, including the provincial capital Ramadi. Some of these parades, in which hooded gunmen paraded with their weapons, took place within striking distance of U.S. forces stationed in nearby bases.

The parades proved to be a propaganda success, with TV footage of Wednesday's parade shown in many parts of the world, a likely embarrassment for the U.S. military as well as the embattled Iraqi government.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 34 Comments
by leemiller38 October 23, 2006 2:04 PM EDT
If Alberto Fernandez had added illegal, immoral and incompetent to the stupid and arrogant he would have covered the fiasco well. The word stubborn describes our current stay the course attitude, but maybe stupid covers that too.
Reply to this comment
by exusmcsgt October 23, 2006 11:24 AM EDT
janem4-

I spent 6 years in Texas while Bush was governor.I was appalled that he could convince a majority of Americans to vote for him. Winning in Texas for the Bush's is another thing.

Any product would be superior to a self-righteous moron.

You ask "my party" to field a viable option. Being independent, there isn't much money left for "my party" after the hogs from the Repubs and Dems finish slopping at the trough.
Reply to this comment
by emhawks October 22, 2006 8:50 PM EDT
To heetseeker:
I respect your opinion & I hope & pray you're right. However, I truly believe the Bush adm. has crossed the bridge.I agree that to attack Iran while the outcome in Iraq hangs in the balance would definitely be the act of a madman; I think Cheney is almost there on that one. He's the one who is really in charge; he's our real President. Cheney is a brilliant person in many ways, but his brilliance has become twisted & perverted by his unquenchable desire for power & his greed.
Reply to this comment
by frankly6 October 22, 2006 5:53 PM EDT
Arrogance and stupidity? Add to that absolute dishonesty and you've got a clearer picture. Millions of people have been saying this for 3 long years including intelligence, middle east, and military experts. Did this information just reach the Whitehouse or is it election time?
Reply to this comment
by jn122736 October 22, 2006 5:36 PM EDT
The situation in Iraq reminds me of a picture postcard I bought years ago that pictured an obviously drunken cowboy riding his horse off a cliff. The horse was in mid air plunging head first off the cliff, the cowboy was rearing back with the stirrups pushed forward, the reins pulled back tight and yelling %u201Cwhoa you S O B whoa%u201D. That cowboy didn%u2019t realize he was going over a cliff either.
Reply to this comment
by heetseeker October 22, 2006 2:59 PM EDT
emhawks

I must say I cannot see the US invading/ attacking Iran anytime soon... even for this administration such a move would be a bridge too far... for very practical reasons we simply do not have the resources for it...

Furthermore... much as Iran's neighbours do not like its growing influence... to attack Iran whilst the future of Iraq still hangs in the balance would surely be the act of a madman and would inflame not only the middle east but a geographical area stretching from Indonesia to Morocco.... it is therefore simply not on...

Personally I think the administration's rhetoric on Iran is just that... an Iran attack is a no brainer...

Reply to this comment
by emhawks October 22, 2006 2:42 PM EDT
To peterbalwin & bluestardad:
I agree 100%! I think it is very possible that Fernandez could have been told to say what he did. As long as Bush/Cheney are in office, there will be no troop withdrawals ffom Iraq. They want to maintain control of the Mid. East oil fields by any means possible & the war is way too lucrative for them to stop now. I'm very concerned that if Bush/Cheney remain in office until '08, we will invade Iran ( even if we have a Democrat majority in Congress).
I also strongly believe that 911 should be re-opened & re-investigated. However, that is something else that will never happen as long as Bush/Cheney are in office.
For those of you who are interested, there is much info. available on the Internet about:
Project for the New American Century
The Carlyle Group
Bechtel
Brown & Root
Hallibuton
Saudi Binladen Group(SGB)
History of the Bush family involvement with bin Laden family.
Read the book "Crossing the Rubicon" by Micheal C. Ruppert.
Reply to this comment
by exusmcsgt October 22, 2006 2:08 PM EDT
heetseeker-

The deceit regarding Iraq originated in the administration's desire for bases in Iraq as a means of projecting American power in the middle east. The American public would have never backed a policy of hegemony, so Bush, et.al. veiled the motive with what they thought was a sure bet-that Saddam had WMD's.

When they got caught with their pants down, the motive shifted to regime change, still not admitting that it was all about permanent bases in the middle east.

Congress, by the way, pulled the plug two weeks ago on the funding for these bases, an action that got virtually no news coverage.
Reply to this comment
by heetseeker October 22, 2006 1:49 PM EDT
If the cap fits....

Let's say for the purposes of argument, that the comments of Alberto Fernandez were in fact mis-translated... but surely the question is... are they true? To deny the truth, does not make it a lie...

On the issue of Iraq this administration has been clearly arrogant and stupid (at the very least)...

Was it not this same administration that assured us that Saddam was in possession of WMD when the evidence suggested that he was not?... Was it not this administration that constantly dismissed the insurgency as "dead-enders" & "remnants"...

Was it not this administration (under its CPA sub division) that oversaw the bunkering & smuggling of Iraq oil & the squandering of hundreds of millions of dollars... Was it not this administration that oversaw (& in all likelihood instigated)the abuses at Abu Grahib....

Was is not this administration that only last year described the insurgency as being "in its last throes"...

On the issue of Iraq, this administration has not only been arrogant & stupid it has been deceitful, incompetent, lacking in integrity, lacking in humility, dishonest and dillusional...

Reply to this comment
by peterbaldwin-2009 October 22, 2006 1:48 PM EDT
Fernandez's contrite confession is atypically honest for an administration that is loathe to admit errors. Why did he do it? Because he was told to do it - in the latest chess move in the game to trick and fool the public once again. It is a Rovian ploy to engender hope among the masses that there has been a new Rumsfeld epithany, a turning point - kind of like Lucy, in Schultz's Peanuts, telling Charlie Brown that she would not yank the football this time, that his time she realy, really, sincerely means it. This time the big lie is not going to get much traction, though, because the people have been burned too many times. The tip off was a mere 30 minute meeting between Bush and his top general on the ground on Friday and a niney minute photo-op before bike riding. Nothing will change until the Republican Reichstag is crushed and the child Fuhrer is dethrowned.
Reply to this comment
See all 34 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook