Outlook: No Easy Exit from Iraq

David Rothkopf, author of "Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power" and a visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment, was online Monday, Dec. 11, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss his Sunday Outlook article on the Iraq Study Group and the difficulty of getting out of Iraq.

Even If We Leave Now, We'll Be Back, ( Post, Dec. 10)

The transcript follows.

____________________

Anonymous: Could Sec. Rumsfeld's recent trip to Iraq be considered a fact-finding trip, seeing as he is leaving office and his successor already named and approved? How much did this trip cost taxpayers? Nice to give him a farewell tour, but it must have cost more than a few bucks. Gates would seem more in need of a trip to Iraq.

David Rothkopf: The trip seems to me to be window dressing and costly window dressing at that. Having said that, we certainly have bigger concerns in the region than worrying about the last days of Secretary Rumsfeld's tenure. My sense is that Bob Gates will be a highly effective replacement for Rumsfeld and will help engineer a course change. Having said that, he has a big advantage...one that recalls a comment made by the sage former Secretary of Commerce Pete Peterson who suggested that the key to success in any job is choosing the right predecessor.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Do you believe the that the root of America's initiation of the Iraq war of 2003 was due more to broad geopolitical forces and U.S. interests in the Middle East than the ideology of the President and his administration?

From your opinion piece it seems that you refute that the Iraq war was a war of choice, but rather a natural next step, given the outcome of the first Iraq war and history of the middle east. Do you believe that the Iraq war of 2003 was unavoidable?

Your opinion piece seems to point in this direction, and as a result, lets the President off-the-hook.

David Rothkopf: No, the most recent war in Iraq was definitely a war of choice and it was a disastrously bad choice. There are many forces that draw us to the region and many complex issues which are likely to keep us engaged there and at risk of further conflict...but Iraq was not one of them or if it was it was decidedly secondary and entering there has depleted resources, distracted us from more important missions, inflamed the region, undercut our moral authority and made the real issues we should be grappling with more complex and dangerous.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Did you really mean to write: "the United States can help by empowering Iraqi soldiers and police-not with weapons that may one day be used against U.S. troops, but with body armor, transport vehicles, crowd-control tools, information technology, training and other assets?"

If the Iraqis do not have the kinds of weapons that could, at least theoretically, be used against U.S. troops in the future, they are not going to have the kinds of weapons needed to defeat the insurgents now.

The reluctance of the U.S. since 2003 to provide the Iraqi forces the kinds of weapons they used to have-planes, tanks and artillery-is a major reason why the insurgency has outstripped the ability of the Iraqi government to deal with it. Ironically, the mistake the U.S. has made is like that of Britain in the colonial era, when it developed the Egyptian and Iraqi armies to be support forces for British imperial strategy, but underequipped them, enraging many of their army officers (who later established nationalistic anti-British military dictatorships).

Looking beyond Iraq, the general strategy you propose, like the failed British strategy 50 years ago, seems strong on the idea of a western military presence, but tone-deaf about political winds in the region (you are wary about a Palestinian state, the return of the Golan to Syria, and engagement with Iran). Don't you think your policy could end up creating an anti-U.S... alignment in which secular, modernist Arab movements side with the fundamentalists for nationalistic reasons?

David Rothkopf: You are right that the Iraqis need the armaments necessary to defeat the insurgents. And they should certainly have the resources necessary to procure those arms. Having said that, I was thinking more of the political challenges here to arming them and suggesting that there was much we could do to help right now that would be politically achievable. As for the strategy I believe we need in the region, it is more akin to Britain in Malaysia than in the Middle East in that we need to confront and defeat terrorists while empowering the broader population and in so doing undercutting the terrorists' rhetoric and political positions. It is more complicated by far however, in the Middle East than in Malaysia. And the key is that we need to focus on a balance between strength and legitimacy, economic development and using the international system to rein in threats before they required use of force, promotion of moderates and toughness in the face of fundamentalists. There is no magic bullet here...but we need to work all these elements as part of a grander strategy than we have been recently.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: I thought we lived in a democracy where the voters just threw out the Republicans because they wanted us out of Iraq. Yet the ISG and the punditocracy including yourself seem to have dismissed "precipitous" withdrawal in favor of a new form of staying the course that may go on for 10-15 years. So please tell me why did we have the election?

David Rothkopf: We do of course, live in a democracy and the voters did, clearly, indicate a desire for a course change. But we would make a terrible mistake to withdraw in a way that was as ideologically driven, unilateral and badly planned as the way we went in. And we don't control all the forces at play in the region...yet we do have substantial interests in the region...and as a consequence therefore, we can't just opt out without serious consequences. The result...lets get out of Iraq smart...and let's focus on the bigger issues as we should have all along.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: In a recent article in National Interest, Middle East expert Antony Sullivan described the neoconservatives, the people largely responsible for getting the US into the Iraq quagmire, as "fifth columnists." Do you agree?

David Rothkopf: I think they were misguided but I wonder about the characterization as fifth columnists. They were not subversively trying to advance someone else's view...they were trying to advance a view they thought was right. They just happened to be wrong. Also, let's not overplay their role...much of what went wrong in Iraq was due to good old fashioned bad planning by Rumsfeld and the bad instincts of the President himself.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Thanks for this chat. It sounds like one major obstacle to our troops coming home is training the Iraqi police and army. But the militias and the Mahdi Brigade and al Qaeda in Iraq seem pretty well trained. Could it be that the problem is we are just lousy trainers? And we don't speak Arabic. Couldn't we use that technique we used in Afghanistan and pay suitcases full of money to outsource the training? The militia trainers could train the Iraqis. After all the Sadr allied militia are allies of the Al Maliki government who ultimately want their country back and the U.S. out of Iraq. How is this a bad plan?

David Rothkopf: The problem goes beyond the training...though we would be much better off with more people who spoke Arabic and understood better the historical and cultural issues in play. The problem is also the political divisions within the Iraqi government and within Iraqi society are reflected within the nascent security forces in that country. So they are undependable and erratic in their performance. Also they are underfunded. We need to address all these issues simultaneously first...and that approach is more likely to lead to a sustainable situation that handing over training authority to one faction or another.

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: Why is it that the incoming Congress seems so wary of cutting, or at least reducing funding, for an overwhelmingly unpopular war? I do not believe that Americans have the patience for troop presence until 2008, as the ISG suggests, and the President remains stubborn. Didn't the recent election send the message that patience is running out?

David Rothkopf: Patience is running out and I think you can count on a Democratic congress to mete out funding a lot more carefully than the Republicans did. Having said that, getting out has a cost as does restoring our hollowed out and depleted military...so we will be bearing the high costs of this ill-considered war for some time to come.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: Monica Toft, a professor at Harvard, had an interesting article in The Post in which she pointed out that civil conflicts are usually not settled until there is a brutal, bloody war in which one side wins and the other side loses, e.g. our Civil War, Bosnia, Biafra, Vietnam, etc. Although there are other possibilities for the coming Iraqi Catastrophe (Rwanda, Turko-Iranian War, etc.), this scenario seems to me to be quite possible, and certainly more probable than an amicable resolution. Is anyone in the administration planning for this or other catastrophes?

David Rothkopf: I can't speak to what the Administration is planning for but the analysis is certainly grounded in historical facts and should be carefully considered in planning going forward.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: While the policy approach you suggest in the last paragraph of your article seems to make a good deal of sense, is there an organization that has the intellectual depth and resources to develop, as well as, the authority to sustain, a policy of "parallel containment?" Increasingly it seems that the Executive relies on the U.S. military to carry forth the details of our foreign policy - the larger picture seems to be sacrificed completely to the expedient, almost as if a State Department no longer exists. I question whether the military would have the capacity or capability of enacting a delicate and nuanced policy dealing over an extend period of time with an entire geographical area composed of many factions.

David Rothkopf: Personally, I have found many of the best and most far-sighted thinkers in the USG are in the military. Having said that, the US national security structure calls for a balanced approach among multiple agency via the NSC and part of the problem of the past several years is that the Cheney-Rumsfeld access has, with the blessing of the President, overwhelmed, ignored and at times, undercut the efforts of other agencies that would have produced a more balanced and effective approach.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: When it comes to the Iraqi military weren't we told by Mr. Rumsfeld during a House and/or Senate hearing way back in 2004 that there were 150,000+ trained troops? What ever happened with that? Was it a lie told during election season? Why hasn't the press questioned this administration about this?

David Rothkopf: It's a fair question...but many of our problems in Iraq are linked to Administration misstatements, distortions, errors and the like.

_______________________

Seward, Neb.: What does "Get out smart" mean? Did we get out smart from Vietnam, helicopter the embassy staff off the roof with Vietnamese clinging to the helicopter skids? It seems to me that is the likely outcome to the "go slow" withdrawal proposed by the ISG and others, not to mention the hundreds or thousands of additional American deaths and injuries that will result.

David Rothkopf: I mean that we need to plan a departure from Iraq that is not only sensitive to our interests in Iraq but our interests across the region and the growing threats that exist elsewhere that are even more important in the long term than those in Iraq. Should we be able to get US combat troops out of Iraq during the next couple years or redeploy them to other missions in the region? Yes. Maliki said six months. He is over-optimistic about his capacity, but in any event, trust me, you'll see plenty of significant movement before the 2008 elections...although I also feel we will have a presence in the region, and likely in parts of Iraq, for many years to come.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: The current spin in the media is that Chief of Staff Bolton is counseling the President to listen to his critics. What signs point to this being the case at all?

David Rothkopf: Bolton is smart, thoughtful and recognizes that the President's relevance turns on listening better to critics than he has in the past.

_______________________

Deja Vu?: Are we looking at Vietnamization all over again? If so, will the ultimate outcome be the same or will we continue to prop up the unpopular and ineffective regime when threatened with collapse/take over?

David Rothkopf: There are many similarities to Vietnamization...the complexities come when factoring in the issues in neighboring countries. We can't or shouldn't prop up regimes that actually inflame issues with other countries. Ultimate stability comes from an Iraqi political solution and we must ultimately be prepared to live with a result we don't like if we are inclined to leave...as we should be.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Sir - I am a fan of your book on the history of the National Security Council - "Running the World." What sorts of changes does the national security establishment need to make to better plan for the types of challenges we will face in the future?

David Rothkopf: Thanks. The changes that are most important aren't in structure they are in personnel and process. Presidents who seek a diversity of views and who encourage a process that gives them real choices historically get the most out of the system and do better. Those who are ideologically driven or resist analysis that challenges their deeply held beliefs do not.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Why has there been no serious inquiry into the fact that the Bush administration was drumming up support for invading Iraq BEFORE September 11, 2001? Are the reports that there was discussion of this prior to 9/11 inaccurate?

If these allegations are true, wouldn't that make a prima facie case for impeachment in that President mislead the American people about the reasons for invading?

David Rothkopf: There has been plenty of evidence that the Bush team was contemplating a foray into Iraq prior to 9/11. There is also plenty of evidence that they either misrepresented facts or misunderstood them in a troubling way. Frankly, any set of actions in which distortions and possible lies are used to predicate the expenditure of what might be a trillion dollars, the violation of international law and the deaths of perhaps 200,000-660,000 people warrants a serious look at legal implications. In fact, too much discussion of policy niceties does, I think, distract us from the real underlying issues of the morality of what was done in Iraq...and the culpability not just of the President but of all parties to our system including the people for what was done.

_______________________

St. Paul, Minn.: At what point is the Washington establishment going to start listening to the folks who were right all along about Iraq -- the people who said not to go in the first place? It seems the decision-making these days is all about those who said "yes" originally trying to make it right.

David Rothkopf: I think they're listening now...

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Would it help if we recognized the civil war raging in Iraq and took sides? If so, what side would it be most productive for us to back?

Also, what's keeping the Kurds from declaring that they want no part of this Arab Sunni/Shia nonsense and declaring an independent Kurdistan? Would Turkey invade the next day? Who would/should we support in that conflict?

David Rothkopf: I don't think it would help if we took sides. Quite the contrary. And yes, the Turks would not be comfortable with an independent Kurdistan although the lack of one is certainly hard to justify any longer (and almost 90 years after they were promised one).

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: Is there a way that we can redefine our role in Iraq, such as from one with a military presence to one that is based only on humanitarian assistance and economic development, that might defuse the anger our presence brings yet will allow us to help guide Iraq towards a stronger society without our military forces being involved?

David Rothkopf: We should certainly seek a more balanced involvement in Iraq and across the region...one that is more oriented toward the diplomatic, political and economic tools in our arsenal and one that seeks to restore our role as being a more constructive actor in the region. There is no way to eliminate the military component in a region where many factions and states are willing to take hostile and destructive actions that threaten our real and lasting interests. So, again...balance.

_______________________

Omaha, Neb.: Do you believe the U.S. can continue to fulfill its role as an international peacekeeper with an all-volunteer military?

David Rothkopf: Yes. Whether an all volunteer military is socially equitable is open to debate. Whether we should play quite the active role as an international peacekeeper as we have (without more international help)...also open to debate.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: You state that Hamas and Hezbollah must know that the U.S. is ready to take action. Are you suggesting that U.S. troops should be used if either of these two entities gain strength or become a threat to Israel?

David Rothkopf: Both groups are strong and a threat to Israel. Both must know however, that the US will work tirelessly to contain them and oppose their involvement in any recognized political processes until they renounce terror in word and deed. And, should they attack us or our assets, we should respond against them as we did against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (although more effectively close the deal if we ever get into such a situation again.)

_______________________

Boca Raton, Fla.: David,

I would agree with Seward, NE, about getting out smart. In Vietnam, it was helicopters off the embassy roof. In Iraq, it could be the highways to Jordan and Kuwait.

After leaving Vietnam, did we see the "domino effect" of neighboring countries falling to communism? A quarter century later Vietnam is becoming a major trading partner. So much for the "domino effect."

Your feeling is that if we leave Iraq, everything will become disastrous. I don't know if you have been to pre-war Iraq. I have and it seems to me that the Iraqis, like the Vietnamese, are pretty capable of figuring things out themselves.

So given that, why don't you agree with the voters. Its time to go.

David Rothkopf: Well, first of all, the situation is not about us containing a single opponent or a single ideology. It is about a complex region full of battling factions, weak governments, ancient divisions, rampant anti-Americanism, and ever shifting realities. Should we leave Iraq to the Iraqis to resolve? Of course, there is no other sustainable solution in that country. But even the Iraqis want us to withdraw in a sensible way...as swiftly as reasonable but in a way that is coordinated with their government. We owe them that. We invaded their country. We unleashed a hell that has consumed hundreds of thousands of lives. We have a moral obligation not only to our own troops to remove them from harms way as soon as possible but also the people of Iraq. Having said that, the point of my article was that most of the biggest concerns we have in that part of the world are outside Iraq and we need to manage our repositioning with regard to Iraq with our on-going needs in those other areas in mind.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Is there any plausible explanation of why changes are not deemed necessary in the State Department?

David Rothkopf: All government departments need to evolve and the State Department certainly is not immune from that requirement.

_______________________

Anonymous:"...but many of our problems in Iraq are linked to Administration misstatements, distortions, errors and the like."

That is precisely why any actions taken by this administration in regard to Iraq must be thoroughly questioned by the press and critics should be heard. Why should American soldiers continue to die for misstatements, distortions, errors and the like? Getting out now or getting out in X years is likely to have the same effect: chaos, so why continue to risk military lives and US treasure? This is a major catastrophe that has made the US and the world a more horrific and unsafe place. It is mind boggling.

David Rothkopf: I agree.

_______________________

Vancouver, Canada: What do you think about merging Arabic or Sunni Arab parts of Iraq with Jordan or Saudi Arabia to put an end to the escalating civil war? Will the Bush administration consider it as the last option?

David Rothkopf: It is not our call. We can't fall into the Imperial British trap of thinking the Middle East is ours to make or unmake.

_______________________

Dallas, Tex.: How much moral suasion would you say was involved in getting Gates to accept the Sec Def job. I just don't get the impression from his remarks and demeanor during the confirmation process that he was sitting in his office and A&M and wondering why the phone hadn't rung yet? Also, given his outright disagreement with the administration on the lack of success in Iraq could it be a case of the WH having to careful of what it asked for?

David Rothkopf: I don't think anyone in the White House will have to ask Bob Gates twice what he really thinks and I think they also will not find him willing to go along with ideas he finds problematic. But he is also expert at getting bureaucracies and inter-agency processes to work better. So...he will produce change, change for the better, and that had to be what at least many in the White House were seeking. Whether the Vice President or the President loves the outcome remains to be seen.

_______________________

New York: Why don't we hear more about the citizen flight that is occurring in Iraq? The absence of the moneyed and educated class is going to make rebuilding just that much more difficult.

David Rothkopf: Also true. It is a huge humanitarian disaster and we do have a moral obligation to help respond to it.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: Notwithstanding the ISG report, how can anyone realistically expect that an Iraqi military can be trained or improved in 6-12 months to crush al Qaeda, defeat the insurgency and stop a civil or sectarian war when the most powerful military in the world couldn't in do these things nearly 4 years? Hasn't decider Bush put the U.S. in the untenable position of either cutting it losses by getting out of the way of Iraqis fighting Iraqis and dishonoring soldiers that have given their lives for Bush's misadventure or continuing to borrow and spend money to kill, injure and displace Iraqis and to destroy Iraq's infrastructure until things somehow get better or Bush leaves office? Doesn't this offer substantial support that Bush in on the very short list for or is the worst U.S. president?

David Rothkopf: Certainly it is a difficult conundrum and once again, we are suffering somewhat from unrealistic expectations. It will, even if it goes rapidly, take longer than anyone wants for us to get out of Iraq. Having said that, it must be pursued so we can refocus onto more critical issues and start to undo the damage caused by this foreign policy catastrophes. As for Bush as the worst US president...well, I would go so far as to say he is certainly the worst US president in history in terms of his foreign policy.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Rothkopf.

Your historical analogies are painfully inept. One of the lessons of Vietnam you take away is that leaving can take a long time, as if it wasn't the political cynicism of Johnson and Nixon that kept us there. Another, particularly weird, is your comparison of the Middle East to a dynastic, religious and mercenary war like the 30 Years' War -- a reasonably educated person would read this analogy as a denunciation, yet you seem unperturbed by the prospects of another such war or wars.

Generally, you don't seem to get what the founders had in mind for this country -- they would have had the 30 Years' war, for example, relatively fresh in their minds and no doubt found negative inspiration with it. You don't however, and in places are outright contemptuous of our democracy, calling it, QUOTE national narcissism ENDQUOTE that we should want to withdraw from a bloody catastrophe.

Your piece is not only insulting, but devious, as you dress up what seem to be your desires as some distinterested academic prediction. You should come clean with your readers and let them know why you want us to attack -- with ground forces -- Iran. I and most of the commenters on your essay are left by your last paragraph thinking you want it for Israel's sake. Otherwise you wouldn't advocate a permanent, unstated -- and therefore unvoted-on -- military alliance with the Israelis, or a determination that Hamas and Hezbollah are significant threats to the U.S.

David Rothkopf: Hard to know where to begin. I certainly don't draw any of the historical conclusions you suggest about Vietnam or the 30 Years War. Much of the problem in Vietnam was due to mismanagement on the part of the US government. I don't believe I said otherwise. I only used the analogy of the 30 Years War to describe a long, episodic war. As for national narcissism, it has absolutely nothing to do with democracy. It is a term I coined as a critique of US policies that seem to be based on an assertion that we are the central actor in everything we touch and that our views and actions will be dispositive in every case. As for a desire to invade Iran...that would be horrific. Nonetheless, allowing the world's most notorious state sponsor of terror is not something that we should be comfortable with either. Should we pursue diplomacy and political pressure and sanctions first? Of course. (It is worth remember how well sanctions actually ended up working in Iraq.) But should we then passively accept them as a nuclear power if those fail? Should we accept an arms race in the region? Where do we draw the line? Or is there no line? If they get, share or use nuclear weapons on any country other than ours, should we then throw up our hands and say, it is not up to us to intervene? I don't think that is realistic or sensible or even moral. As for doing it for Israel's sake, I don't think the US should ever do anything for Israel's sake. I believe our policies should be for our sake...and the preservation of Israel is in our strong national interest.

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: As much as I dislike GWB, I kind of have to agree with him about negotiating with Iran. Ahmadinejad is a thoroughly dangerous man who wants to take over the world. While also dangerous, Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein are not even close to Ahmadinejad. I dislike all the loose comparisons with Nazis and Hitler, but Ahmandinejad is quite Hitler-esque with his talk of peace and seeming to be reasonable, while blaming the Jews for the world's problems and calling for their extermination. Negotiating with Iran seems more like the Chamberlain appeasement path that the Reps were accusing the Dems of before the elections.

So, why again should we be negotiating with Iran when their ultimate goal is to take over the region (starting with Iraq) and the world?

David Rothkopf: We should be willing to talk to anyone as we were with the Soviets, an enemy poised to destroy us for decades. We need to have our expectations in the right place. And we need to be confident that talking to bad people won't change us somehow and make us in turn into bad people. It is just one arrow in our quiver but the the stakes are so high we need to draw upon all the tools at our disposal.

_______________________

Oakton, Va.: You suggest that talking to Iran and Syria will be viewed as a weakening of U.S. support of Israel. But wouldn't it exhibit that we are actually diplomats in search of a solution and not just allies of the Israeli right wing. It would prove to Arab moderates that Americans can listen to both sides- which will take away the argument of terrorist that there is no difference between America and what they perceive as Israeli occupiers in the Palestinian territory?

David Rothkopf: I don't believe I said that. I said we should not let our responsible efforts to make progress in the region or produce more balance in our policy be seen as a dramatic weakening of our position for an important ally. But we should talk to them and we should seek more balance and we should critique and pressure Israel when appropriate...even as we recognize their value as our one dependable ally in the region.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I'm responding here to your response to another questioner. Hamas has never attacked U.S. assets. Hezbollah hasn't done so since the Marines barracks. Why are they high on your list of threats?

David Rothkopf: You are right. They are threats not because of their threat to US assets (which I simply raised as an example of a situation in which we might respond)...but because of the threats they pose to stability as terrorist organizations committed to the destruction of important allies of the US.

_______________________

Memphis, Tenn.: If the Iraq war ended tomorrow, how would it be judged by history?

David Rothkopf: As Thomas Ricks has characterized it, as a fiasco.

_______________________

Laurel, Md.: Please list the most important reasons we should have preferred Saddam Hussein to remain in power.

David Rothkopf: There were no reasons to prefer Saddam Hussein to remain in power. But having no such reasons is no reason to invade the country, violate international law, undercut our standing in the region, distract ourselves from our true priorities, unleash chaos on the people of Iraq, spend a trillion dollars we could better use elsewhere, lose thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, etc.

_______________________

Tarrytown, N.Y.: Thank you for the chat.

My take away from yesterday's article was that the U.S. must overcome its dependence on Middle Eastern oil in order to separate its political strategic objectives from its economic strategic objectives. Clearly this is a long term fix. Do you think Sen. Biden's proposal to allow Iraq to splinter into, for lack of a better term, "tribal homelands" has any merit?

David Rothkopf: Iraq may go as Senator Biden has predicted or suggested. There are problems with the proposal...what about Baghdad and more challenging...who polices the borders between the segments of the country? But it has the merit of seeming to be more aligned to the reality on the ground than the structure we originally conceived of...or that which the British originally conceived of.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: Isn't Saudi Arabia a bigger threat to the US than Iran? 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi.

David Rothkopf: Saudi Arabia is a complex country but its government has often been an important ally of the US. Were that government to falter and the country to be taken over by some of the more extreme factions within it...then it might well become a major threat. But for now...no.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Thank you all for joining us.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.