President Bush is about to announce a policy change in Iraq this week. Speculation is that he wants to add up to 20,000 troops and 1 billion dollars for a jobs work program. Is this the right thing to do? I don’t know, but after reading this article in the New York Times today I tried to step back and think about this as objectively (I was against invading) as I could.
Johan Spanner for The New York Times
Before the war Iraq was in dire straits.
* They had a poor infrastructure
* Saddam was in power
* Society for the most part cut along sectarian lines.
Now after the invasion:
* Iraq’s infrastructure was all but destroyed
* Saddam has been replaced by a new government.
* Iraq is essentially in all out civil war
* 3000 civilians are being killed each month
* Over 3000 courageous American soldiers’ dead
We as a nation are directly responsible this.
The big question is what do we do now? Yes we would all like the Iraqi government and the military to stand up and defend their country, but we must also take into account the dire straits their country is in and how difficult it must be for them. We cannot invade a country, destroy its infrastructure, ignite a civil war and then leave. I believe we have a moral responsibility to the tens if not hundreds of thousand Iraqis that have died and the thousands of American soldiers killed and injured to do the right thing.
I believe the right thing to do is to stay committed to Iraq. I don’t think most of us have the enough information to give an informed opinion as to whether adding troops is the right thing to do, but it seems to me that withdrawing troops will only lead to further destabilizing Iraq.
The idea of withdrawal is pretty awful. But what’s happening now is awful. The question is whether we’re making things better or worse by 1. being there in the first place, and 2. (possibly) sending more troops there.
<
p>
In other words: At this point, all the options are totally rotten.
then why aren’t you there?
<
p>
Don’t be a yellow elephant.
A: of course not, we would have to support bush’s, which based on past decisions he’s made will be pretty hairbrained. so your comment is just silly. also, many of us wouldn’t be allowed to go even though want to because we’re gay and unwilling to die for bush while denying our identities.
Ah my old friend pers-1765, you courageously anonymous old soul. Are you still mad about my priceless comment?
<
p>
Did you write that comment from Iraq or perhaps from Beverly?
<
p>
2. The U.S. presence in Iraq inflames the Sunnis. The U.S. has no strategy for winning the Sunnis over to supporting the Iraqi government other than killing them. This policy is either genocidal or counter-productive. Saudi Arabia is not going to like us destroying a second Sunni city in the style of Falluja.
<
p>
3. Putting down an insurgency of this size requires at least 500,000 troops according to experts who’ve done this kind of work (Yugoslavia for example). You cannot do it with 150,000 troops, so keeping 150,000 troops there is not going to fix a thing.
<
p>
4. The Administration’s conduct of this war has been grossly incompetent. Bombing is a stupid tactic against an insurgency. Not closing down Abu Graib immediately after the abuses were revealed and really prosecuting those responsible caused a complete collapse in Iraqi support of our occupation. Remember Bush didn’t really know the difference between Sunnis and Shia in December 2002. These guys are reckless, brutal, and stupid. A competently run occupation is not going to happen.
<
p>
5. The U.S. talk about taking on the Mahdi army is utter lunacy. The logistics from Persian Gulf to Baghdad are thin enough without risking having our lines cut off in the South.
This isn’t some strategy mystery. For a variety of reasons (usually a desire to get Americans out of the way so they can be in charge) most of the power centers of Iraq just don’t want us there. The US is getting in the way of al-Sadr’s ambitions, Maliki himself is proving less pliant than Bush had hoped, and Iranian agents are running amok. Frankly, our greatest friends in Iraq are the Kurds, whose Peshmerga can take care of themselves at this point.
<
p>
I think when you occupy a land whose people want you there, it can end in only one of two ways — get killed bit by bit until you leave, or massacre the inhabitants. The second way is effective (its how the modern US was “settled” by those of European origin) but is largely frowned upon today. So, like the French in Algeria, the British here, the Israelis in Lebanon, and dozens of other examples, American troops sit there as targets while policymakers back home worry that people will think their pecker is small if they pull out.
<
p>
We’ve already lost in Iraq. It’s now a question of how many Americans will die before Washington figures that out.
This is directed to KBusch as well.
<
p>
Two questions/clarification:
<
p>
What does leave mean to you? Does it mean just pulling all the troops out but still providing finacial support or are you suggesting complete withdrawal of troops and financial support?
<
p>
What do you think will happen in Iraq if we withdraw soon?
The two components of leaving:
<
p>
(1) Leaving means withdrawing most of our troops. I’m not sure that leaving behind trainers makes any sense.
<
p>
(2) Financial aid is questionable. Drawing from Juan Cole’s excellent post, post on the Top Myth’s on Iraq:
The quorum wasn’t met because so many legislators are out of the country! Whatever has been created in Iraq, it is not much more stable than the government of the the Republic of South Vietnam. Funding that government looks equivalent to funding various Shiite militias — as the Sadam Hussein execution demonstrated.
<
p>
Who knows what will happen? Possibly Sunni Arab states will intervene to protect the Sunni population, but possibly not since the Sunni Arab states, with the possible exception of faraway Egypt, do not have large armies. Possibly Iran may “help” restore “order”. That will certainly be an order that favors Shiites, but order may be better than the current chaos. Possibly, Turkey will invade the Kurdish provinces in the North of Iraq. Possibly not.
<
p>
The problem is that all of the above things will happen eventually anyway. A real Iraqi government that is able to enforce laws and security is not going to magically appear because we keep our guys on the ground longer. Iraq is not Belgium with its amicable coexistence of Flemish and Walloon. It’s not even Czechoslovakia or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Iraq was a country invented by the British after World War I with an eye to economic stability and to placating tha Hashemite “royal” family. Its different parts never decided to co-exist just to please Churchill and his map makers.
I agree with much of K says, and I’m also aware that there are many out there with a better understanding of Iraq than I have.
<
p>
For me, one question is to whom we would give any money, as someone mentioned that Iraq’s government is “barely functioning.” Maliki likely won’t survive the year, and any cash wouldn’t go beyond his circle. Short of direct aid, Kurds wouldn’t see any of it.
<
p>
Iraq isn’t a natural state, no more than Yugoslavia or the USSR were. Like those two, a brutal crackdown could keep it together, but absent that I don’t see how it happens. I imagine Iraq will go the way of Somalia (with Iran playing the role of Ethiopia). There may be an official government that sends rich friends elsewhere as ambassadors, but barely clings to the capital city at home.
Again responding to Kbusch in Sabutai…
<
p>
I agree with a lot of what you two gentlemen have said, however, I can not support a policy that turns our back to the fact that we have initiated a war that has lead to the death of 10’s of thousands of Iraqis. I believe we owe it to them, our soldiers and ultimately the security of our country to try another strategy.
<
p>
Simply pulling out all of our troops and withdrawing all financial support without the foggiest idea what will happen seems to me to be irresponsible (no less irresponsible than the original decision to invade) at best.
<
p>
<
p>
I guess the best way to sum up my position is to respond to your point above. If I broke that machine I would do everything I could do to fix it.
Jim,
<
p>
I agree that things need to be made better. For humanitarian reasons of justice and quality of llife, but also security reasons. Leaving Iraq now would condemn it to lawlessness, akin to that in the Sudan and Afghanistan that allowed bin Laden to set up there.
<
p>
That said, our troops can’t make things better. These kids are trained to kill, not police. They don’t (in the main) speak the language, or share the religion. They barely got through high school, some of ’em, have a few weeks’ training in killing people, and now they’re the de facto mayor of an Iraqi village? What good comes from that? I would be all for a large humanitarian effort (though the Red Crescent got raided recently) or other mission led by Turkey, Pakistan, or whoever you’d like. But I think we’ve reached the point where American armed forces don’t have the training to help, and Iraqis don’t have the desire to accept help from us.
Underlining Sabutai’s point, the hostile environment that is Iraq has caused our military to promulgate some very brutal rules of engagement. These do not win any Iraqi hearts or minds or help calm the violence.
<
p>
Jim, I sympathize with your statement
Of course, we should do a lot of things. Like maybe in Darfur, maybe? The problem is that no good options are on the table. With insufficient troops, insufficient Arab speakers, insufficient trust from Iraqis, reckless and incompetent leadership, no political will for a draft, alienation of our European allies, anti-diplomacy with Iran and Syria, and leaders who are willing to pretend that Iran and al Qaeda are somehow allies, the only thing we have proven we can do is harm. Turning our backs on the Iraqis can only be on improvement over turning our guns on them.
<
p>
Remember that our President does not speak knowledgably about Iraq. He speaks of “winning”.
Intervention on a more direct basis by Iran?
<
p>
Counter-intervention by Saudi Arabia?
<
p>
Turkey moves to crush the proto-Kurdistan in the north, by, say, killing many or most of the Kurds, who are the closest thing to the good guys that there is over there?
<
p>
It sure isn’t clear, at least to me, that the consequences of withdrawal might not be worse, and maybe far, far worse, than the consequences of staying, even staying incompetently for two years before a grwn up takes charge. It could easily precipitate death and destruction on a scale that is an order of magnitude greater than the present situation. Compounding the problem is a lack of good information, as you can’t believe anying official, and much of the anti-official information comes with anti-Bush axe in hand, ready for grinding.
<
p>
Lastly, “no blood for oil” chants aside, I have always thought that oil was the most legitimate reason for military action, because its economic importance qualifies it as a “vital interest.” If Saudi Arabia and Iran, owners of like a third of all oil reserves, start shooting at one another over Iraq, that would be a pretty horrific Worst Case Scenario for the rest of the world.
<
p>
At this point, the withdawal arguments seem to share a flaw with the invade argument in 2002 and 03: we don’t have a clue what will happen, so lets do it, duck, and hope.
I’ll reply to this as a reply to the diary because this is a constructive question that requires an answer and discussion.
i have similar feelings to what you described in your post. i’ll look forward to more comments on this thread.
<
p>
i posted this once before: it is the most thoughtful action strategy memo i’ve come across.
I’m impressed that you guys are actually getting past how awful Bush and the US have been and starting to think about what we can do now, this is real progress. Perhaps, now that the dems have congress, this can start to happen on a national level as well. United, we may actually stand a chance at making something positive happen. Its got to be hard to think constructively when such a large percentage of output is devoted to bashing bush and the US though, any chance you could put that aside and have a purely “whats next” discussion?
<
p>
Anyway, I am sincere when I say this is a great discussion to have. Personally I am a bit troubled by the “surge” plan, but I’ve seen no viable alternatives from anyone as of yet. Even the surge may not be a viable alternative.
<
p>
How about:
– Withdrawing largely to fortified bases within Iraq where our forces can be well protected, but also can always jump in and tip any battle when needed? (I guess this assumes a real civil war not just sneaking death sqauds).
<
p>
– Move the troops into Iran?
<
p>
– Installing a dictator who can rule with an iron fist?
A huge part of the problem in Iraq really is the multi-faceted manner in which the Bush Administration messed this up and can be counted upon to continue to mess this up. Part of the problem some Liberals even have in figuring out how to respond to this mess constructively is that Bush Administration’s handling of this imbroglio is qualitatively worse than any previous Administration’s handling of anything in memory. And for someone who supports a political party which was wrong on everything concerning Iraq, your tone of condescension is unearned. Who indeed has been the source of noise on Iraq? The happy talk administration or liberals?
<
p>
I’ll tell you: the Administration.
<
p>
Maybe if you were to stop Liberal-bashing and read the substantative critiques, you might learn something about Iraq. Many of our guys knew in 2003 what is just dawning on your folks in 2006.
I read the following example of Liberal-bashing:
Unfortunately for you, Demolisher, the “nutjobs” have gotten it right on Iraq much more than you non-nutjobs.
<
p>
May I suggest a steady diet of walnuts?
it but I do agree. I have seen people’s hatred of Bush and his policies cloud their thinking about how we move forward in Iraq (this doesn’t apply to KBusch and Sabutai)
<
p>
Bush’s performance (for the momnent) is only important in the context of how his past failure might influence his future decision making.
There is certainly a lot of hatred of Bush, but it is difficult to dispassionately explicate the situation in Iraq without eventually throwing out a lot exclamation points and getting shrill. As if that weren’t bad, the Republicans have tried to freeze the antiwar voices out of this discussion for the last four years. They’ve accused those of us who were right of being treasonous or complicitous. Finally, they who have been stupefyingly wrong about Iraq never acknowledge it. They act as if it were somehow right to be wrong about Iraq: they were being nobly mistaken — with other people’s lives.
<
p>
Let me add that Republican propagandists (vide sopra) have read Liberal critiques of the Iraq adventure through their filters. Those filters made them think that nothing the antiwar folks were saying was true and that we were just saying that stuff for “partisan gain”. They sincerely but wrongly believe we’ve been doing nothing but bashing Bush all these years.
<
p>
The change in Congress not only gives Democrats responsibility concerning Iraq but it also allows us to influence it. That was impossible January 2007.
<
p>
*
<
p>
One last point on Bush bashing. Remember that this was the Administration where the State Department worked on a post-Iraq plan that the Defense Department refused to read and in fact refused to let anyone in the State Department have any influence in Iraq. This Administration’s Defense Deparment refused to plan for the post war period. I am not saying that to “bash Bush”. I am saying that because that Administration will be the instrument of whatever Iraq policy will be in place for the next 2 years. An electrician o dentist with such a track record would not be hired twice. If you are stuck with such an electrician or dentist, you might not give her or him the go-ahead to rewire your house or give you a root canal.
I expressed interest in discussing paths forward in Iraq and some happiness that people on the left are taking up the subject in earnest despite their considerable angst over Bush and the war in general.
<
p>
You respond with 3 posts containing 10 paragraphs and a quote, none of which discuss ideas for going forward in Iraq at all.
<
p>
If you calculated signal to noise in this very thread where signal is ideas for moving forward (or even out of) Iraq and noise is everything else, what would your ratio be?
You prove my point about reading Liberals with your filter on. If you saw no content, adjust your reading. I’ll wait.
<
p>
You similarly missed content in your own post titled “Moron Iran” which similarly emblazens your inabilty to grapple with uncomfortable content.
<
p>
Honestly, though, Demolisher, until you make a clean break with past positions on the Middle East and your eagerness to engage in fresh new imbrolgios, I’m not sure I care what you think “proves what”.
<
p>
The post to which you responded made the significant point that any sane calculation of Iraq strategy must factor in the Administration’s incompetence. Do you wish to debate some part of that — or do your regard scorn as a sufficient substitute for reasoning, as evidenced by your Moron Iran posting.
<
p>
Oh pardon me, you barely dipped your little toe in the path-forward water by backhanding the administration (again) and naysaying before you even start. I missed that as “talking about solutions” but I guess you could try and attach it as a caveat or additional problem to any solution that I or others might propose. So I guess you think you are already offering paths forward rather than just complaining – swell.
<
p>
Extracting that point alone from your noise, I reply by saying no, no you dont have to factor in the administration’s incompetence. One because you aren’t in a position to qualify or quantify competence or incompetence, two because brainstorming for solutions must assume wider options than purely those that Bush will carry out and three because the administration will be over before the war will.
<
p>
Now, how would you like to offer a path forward? Was I supposed to read in one of your earlier posts that bailing out and maybe giving money to someone would help?
That is the way forward. It has become that simple. You are welcome to respond to Sabutai’s or my reasoning on this.
<
p>
You have yet to say anything substantive on this subject. If you regard suggesting we install a new dictator is a substantitve offering, perhaps you don’t know what “substantive” means.
“withdrawing largely…” Who’s going to feed them and supply them — are we going to parachute everything in? This is reminiscient of our deployment on the Korean border, which has left US troops as de facto hostages of a North Korean assault. We’d put troops in Iraq into a similar place — no base is fortified it cannot be overrun. Besides, we have great bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Turkey — as well as naval forces. Iraq isn’t so big that we must be in there at a moment’s notice.
<
p>
“Move the troops into Iran” It is to laugh. Iran is better organized, better funded, better armed, bigger, and with rougher terrain than Iraq. Plus nukes. May as well drop them out of planes and save the time.
<
p>
“Installing a dictator” What do we think we’ve been trying to do? If you think we like Maliki because he’s into purple fingers, you’re wrong. Problem is, all the good candidates (I’m looking at you, Muqtada) are wholly owned subsidiaries of Iran. They outmaneuverd us.
<
p>
Finally, regarding your attempt to stir the pot with your Bush-bashing remarks. It’s simple — in his ignorance and war fever, Bush got us into this mess. And as usual, it’s up to the Democrats to fix it, as they did with his Daddy’s economy. But hating him won’t save any lives…curtailing his plans will.
Unless things really change, the Iraqi army remains our ally (and us theirs). No standing army in Iraq would reasonably be able to exist with us sitting in the country in bases; we’d wipe it out before it could arm and organize. North Korea had a whole hunk of territory, army, equipment, and don’t forget major support from a nuclear power on the border.
<
p>
Anyway keeping troops in Iraq would be faster and perhaps politically easier to take action with then troops in a foreign base, who would then have to invade an unoccupied sovereign country. Also, I think that we would in fact have to use the troops with some level of frequency so you probably want them close at hand, but less integrated with the populace. No one is going to overrun a serious US army base in Iraq, trust me.
<
p>
Iran already had nukes? I thought that was what we were trying to prevent… You really think we couldn’t knock Iran down if we really wanted to? There may be other really good reasons not to walk into Iran but the prospect of not being able to defeat them militarily imo is not one.
<
p>
If we were installing a dictator I think we’d probably pick someone who would do our bidding, and I doubt we’d bother to hope that the Iraqi’s happen to elect the person we want in a nationwide vote. I’m not buying conspiracy theories to the contrary, sorry.
<
p>
I dont think any of these options are fantastic but at least they are things to discuss. Withdrawing and leaving them to their own fate is another option but the obvious problem is that al qaeda is already there, and we really can’t walk away from those guys. The worst case would be that Iraq becomes a safe haven for al qaeda and then I guess we’d have to go right back in. Right? Or are we going to coexist with al qaeda now?
<
p>
I give Bush credit for trying to do the compassionate thing and create a democratic and free Iraq. Personally I would have knocked them down then left them to their own fate, maybe support whatever dictator emerges from the ashes or if its an unfriendly one, then knock them down again. This business of installing or supporting dictators is an ugly, nasty way to conduct foreign policy and I know you lefties absolutely stew in the fact that we once supported Sadaam, but you know what? Life is full of hard choices.
Personally I would have knocked them down then left them to their own fate, maybe support whatever dictator emerges from the ashes or if its an unfriendly one, then knock them down again. This business of installing or supporting dictators is an ugly, nasty way to conduct foreign policy and I know you lefties absolutely stew in the fact that we once supported Sadaam, but you know what? Life is full of hard choices.
<
p>
I think that says it all. I don’t think anyone should regard such a reckless point of view as interesting, constructive, or even worth debating. It’s as morally repugnant as it is suicidal. As I’ve said before, Demolisher, you really think this is all just a video game, some reenactment of Civilization III.
<
p>
Remind me again where you say something constructive or substantive.
If I understand it, Central Mass Dad is asking three questions:
The last question seems the easiest to me. I actually don’t see a lot of anti-Bush bias from the critics. The problem, I think, is that the Iraq intervention was an extremely bad idea very poorly executed and then covered with a huge dollop of criticism-stifling accusations. For sentient humans, the outrage is unavoidable: so it is simply impossible to discuss without thinking or saying, “How could they?” That’s not bias.
<
p>
It is difficult to assess the likelihood of Turkish intervention. I confess not to fully understand the Kurdish issues in Turkey, but from what I do know, the Kurdish independent movement ranks up there with the Basques in their use of tactics within Turkey. (The Turkish government has been brutal too.) As Turkey wants very much to become a part of Europe and their military still carries the traditions of Attaturk, there are some brakes on intervention.
<
p>
The Sunni issues are significant, but the problem I see is that the U.S. govt’s approach has been terrible. Four things play into that:
Those four things served to convince an overwhelming majority of Sunnis — nationalist or Islamist — that we were not their friends. There are hints our relationship with Saudi Arabia is straining. Staying in Iraq and continuing as we have been will make things worse.
<
p>
I think a Saudi-Persian war is unllikely. The two countries have more to gain by keeping the peace than not. I’m thinking of Saudi Arabia’s Shiite population located near their oil and the need to keep Gulf shipping clear.
You have fairly characterized my questions.
<
p>
I guess I was thinking more of a proxy war, which bears serious risk of inviting terrorist acts by that Shiite population in the oil producing areas, along with counterstrikes against Iranian fields. The Saudis are very well armed, and have a lot of dough to finance their Wahhabist extremism.
<
p>
And I suspect that Turkey has been falling out of love with Europe for awhile, though one hope the economic benefits of EU membership causes cool heads to prevail.
<
p>
But is really the Sunni/Saudi–Shia/Iranian thing, along with the intense religious extremism that is all over the place there, that should keep everyone awake and on their toes.
<
p>
I suppose that this is a real nuclear meltdown scenario: (one hopes) very low probability, but exceedingly bad consequences for an exceedingly large number of people and nations.
<
p>
I would really, really like to see those in leadership and in position to shape policy address those questions clearly and in advance of precipitous withdrawal. 2008 Candidates, I’m talking to you (as well as the new Congressional leadership). Otherwise, our policy is just as willy nilly as it was four years ago: based on hope, belief, and ideology.
<
p>
It is very heartening to see discussions such as this move beyond denunciations of Bush and demands for apologies from the hawks of 2003 which, though quite understandable, don’t add much for 2007.
One problem is that the neo-conservative approach to diplomacy has focused on intimidating “bad guys” rather than using common interests as a lever to attain peace. A wiser President would have opened a line to Iran to help out with both Afghanistan and Iraq. Since no viable Democrate is a neo-conservative, a Democratic Presidential victory in 2008 will have an excellent effect on diplomacy.
<
p>
While the Saudis have a lot of men under arms, they’ve only been engaged with border fights against Yemen. Contrast that with the Iran-Iraq War, and I suspect that the Iranian military has a better idea of what to do. By my observations, Iran acts more rationally than its rhetoric.
<
p>
As for nuclear dangers, those seem to be Pakistan and North Korea — and probably in that order. Iran is not on the board yet. An awful side-effect of our intervention in Iraq is the danger of destabilizing Pakistan and releasing that nuclear technology into the hands of extremists — if that has not already happened.
The present administration forgot to speak softly when wielding its big stick.
<
p>
Democrats will certainly speak more softly, which should help. Their challenge is to do so without seeming to discard the big stick, which is merely an evil tool of the imperialist capitalist ruling classes seeking to sujugate non white blah, blah, blah. Or to seem like they will seek a permission slip from Chirac before carrying the big stick.
<
p>
Your posts and the new majority leave me feeling more mollified than i have in some time.
“It is very heartening to see discussions such as this move beyond denunciations of Bush and demands for apologies from the hawks of 2003 which, though quite understandable, don’t add much for 2007.“
<
p>
I agree that denunciation isn’t enough, but really aren’t those apologies two years overdue?
<
p>
The problem is that the numerous hawks and ex-hawks occupy the vast majority of pundit perches and have an interest in trying to show that they weren’t wrong — or if they were wrong, that their wrongness was better than dove rightness, or that the whole thing is just so very, very complicated that only serious, hawk pundits can understand it.
<
p>
To cite the only positive example I can think of, Andrew Sullivan has gradually turned around and I think that is very salutory for our national discussion.
though I find him a little overlikely to over-react.
<
p>
The need for apologies are understandable among those who knew– knew!– that this would be a disaster from the get go, and were roundly accused of being terrorist lovers for their trouble. But the apologoes are irrelevant.
<
p>
But these apologies are rare, and will not be forthcoming from those whom you most wish to apologize.
<
p>
And, frankly, though it may satisfy the emotional needs of the demander, the demand to admit one was wrong, Sam Kinison style (Say it! SSSAAAAYYY IT!) typically sidetracks discussions such as the above, which are the discussions that need to happen at a level far higher than on our anonymous message board.
<
p>
In addition, I am skeptical of debate on this topic that roundly discounts anyone who does not admit that the entire enterprise was bound to be a disaster under any circumstances.