Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Obama announces 18-month troop withdrawal

By

From the Globe – Obama announces 18-month troop withdrawal schedule. Link to President Obama’s remarks.


The president said today between 35,000 and 50,000 troops will stay beyond the pullout date to train Iraqis and perform counter-terrorism.

Now it time for those that thought invading  (sorry I mean liberating) Iraq was the right thing to admit they were wrong and for those that thought we should have withdrawn a year or two ago to do the same.

For the record I was against the war but thought we needed to stay and try to turn the tide.

Now you fess up!

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I’m not convinced yet, but I’ve been paying much less attention to Iraq than formerly. (1. Economy. 2. Afghanistan)

    <

    p>The main problem was and remains the lack of viability of Iraq as a national identity.  

  2. I fail to see what we got by staying an extra year or two.  It seems that success has been defined as “fewer Americans die now than before”, rather than “the quality of life for Iraqis has improved to such an extent that it is worth the loss of American life.”  On the first metric, yes, the escalation was a success — Americans are being killed at a slower rate than previously, albeit at a faster rate than if we’d just stayed home.

    <

    p>On the more relevant metric of “America is now safer than before” I see even less evidence.  I honestly would welcome evidence that Iraqi quality of life — or American safety at home — has improved over the last year in a way it would not have without American military presence, and that such improvement is of such a scale that it is worth the sacrifice to have stayed there.

    • I guess there will be no fessing…

      <

      p>

      I fail to see what we got by staying an extra year or two.

      <

      p>Then you are clearly not paying attention.

      <

      p>

      On the first metric, yes, the escalation was a success — Americans are being killed at a slower rate than previously, albeit at a faster rate than if we’d just stayed home.

      <

      p>That is the metric you just pulled out of thin air. If that is the metric then should we should pull out of Afganistan as well so no one else dies? I think everyone would be all for it if we thought it could be done and have no consequences to US national security.

      <

      p>The escalation is a success because the quality of life in Iraq has improved dramatically, which now allows President Obama to propose a realistic withdrawal plan while maintaining some stability in Iraq. This is better for the national security of the US.

      <

      p>

      On the more relevant metric of America is now safer than before I see even less evidence.

      <

      p>Agreed, that is why I OPPOSED the war.

      • If America isn’t safer due to the escalation, the escalation was a failure, unless you believe that these nebulous improvements in Iraqis’ lives was worth the blood spilt by Americans over the last year or two.  Despite your phrasing implying an objective truth, that is a judgment call.  If improving peoples’ lives is worth America blood, we should invade Zimbabwe tomorrow.

        <

        p>Given that Iran’s grip on Iraq is a lot tighter in the intervening year, and given that the Kurdish situation — the paramount problem in Iraq — is still completely utterly unresolved, I’m not sure that meaningful improvements have come.  I’d like to know upon what you base your phrase “the quality of life in Iraq has improved dramatically”.  Fewer suicide bombers because al-Sadr is waiting us out in Iran?

        <

        p>Even if I were to accept your contention that Iraqis’ quality of life has meaningfully improved because of American sacrifice — which I don’t — I certainly disagree that improvement has been worth the American sacrifice.  Again, if that’s how we now roll, let’s invade Zimbabwe, or at least Equatorial Guinea.

        <

        p>As for Afghanistan, I do support our continued stay there because our presence WILL improve American security, unlike our continued presence in Iraq.

        • I reject your metric, you reject your metric and then this non-sequitar? I’m not sure who or what that was aimed at.

          <

          p>

          Again, if that’s how we now roll, let’s invade Zimbabwe, or at least Equatorial Guinea.

          <

          p>As for improvements:

          <

          p>Violence has been reduced substantially from the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and 2007. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been dealt a serious blow by our troops and Iraq’s Security Forces, and through our partnership with Sunni Arabs. The capacity of Iraq’s Security Forces has improved, and Iraq’s leaders have taken steps toward political accommodation. The relative peace and strong participation in January’s provincial elections sent a powerful message to the world about how far Iraqis have come in pursuing their aspirations through a peaceful political process.

          <

          p>Not my words but President Obama’s…

          <

          p>

          • JimCaralis: The escalation is a success because the quality of life in Iraq has improved dramatically,…

            <

            p>Sabutai: If improving peoples’ lives is worth America blood, we should invade Zimbabwe tomorrow.

            <

            p>Perhaps you must be thinking that an improved quality of life for Iraqis improves American security (whereas Zimbabwe can descend into chaos without threatening us).

            <

            p>That’s not clear.

            <

            p>The Bush Administration has installed an Iranian ally in Iraq. Iran is doing some scary stuff now. From a purely self-centered nationalist and amoral point of view, Iraqi instability might be better for U.S. security.

            <

            p>That leads back to the questions: (1) By what metrics have things improved in Iraq? (2) Why are those metrics meaningful? (3) Were those improvements worth extending the expensive stay in Iraq another couple years?

            • I said

              <

              p>The escalation is a success because the quality of life in Iraq has improved dramatically, which now allows President Obama to propose a realistic withdrawal plan while maintaining some stability in Iraq. This is better for the national security of the US.

              <

              p>It’s pretty clear what I was thinking.

              <

              p>

              If improving peoples’ lives is worth America blood, we should invade Zimbabwe tomorrow.

              <

              p>It’s a ridiculous conclusion to come to, it lacks meaning relative to my comment, it’s absurd to the point of being confusing. It does not follow – otherwise known as a non-sequitur.

              <

              p>Clearly President Obama thinks the situation in Iraq has improved. What are the metrics for Afghanistan and why is it OK (at least in Sabutai’s eyes to stay their now and not in Iraq 2 years ago?

              <

              p>

              • But you don’t make the case for the sentence you’ve put in bold face. Putting it bold face is not an argument for it.

                <

                p>I can believe stability in Iraq might be better for the oil supply or for keeping Turk-Kurd tensions cool, but it’s also lots better for Iran. Could that be a bad thing? I don’t know. Explain.

                <

                p>Absent that argument (you’re extremely terse in this discussion), Sabutai’s rejoinder doesn’t seem like a non-sequitor at all.

              • You maintain that the deaths, injuries, and overall pain of the escalation of American soldiers was worth it to improve the lives of Iraqis.  I merely suggested that if you favor the idea of sending troops abroad to improve others’ lives, we could get great “bang-for-the-buck” from Zimbabwe and Equatorial Guinea, two places as miserable as Iraq was, and much easier to push around besides.

                •  The improved lives was a means to an end – not the end. That is why I placed This is better for the national security of the US in bold.

                  <

                  p>As an aside, we are primarily responsible for a lot of the plight that was caused. We didn’t invade Zimbabwe and enable the death of over 100k people and bomb and destroy their infrastructure.  It’s a completely different and unrelated situation, which is why I said it was a non-sequitur.

          • I just have yet to see what you believe has changed in Iraq that was worth the price of American sacrifice during the escalation.

            <

            p>If I ask whether it is American security, you go back to the invasion and change the subject.  If I ask whether it is Iraqi quality of life, you call it a non-sequitur.  What, then, is the reward for the American blood in Iraqi sand over the last two years?

            <

            p>As for political accommodation, any deal that does not include Muqtada al-Sadr and the Kurds is worthless.  And that is what we have now.

            • I answered your question! President Obama summed it up well for me.

              <

              p>Now answer mine. What has changed in Afghanistan that was worth the price of American sacrifice. Why is Afghanistan so much more import than Iraq.

              <

              p>You don’t seem to be capable of separating the mistake of the invasion from the correct course of action now that we made that terrible mistake. They are two different things. We invaded, we total screwed the country up, ruined it’s already crumbling infrastructure and over 100k Iraq’s have died. It is our responsibility!

      • Possibly he pulled it out of the thin air that lies between the ears of certain Bush Administration officials. The decreasing U.S. casualty rate has been a Republican talking point dragged out to prove the success of the surge for a while. Yes, not exactly meaningful.

        <

        p>The presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq (not to be confused with Al Qaeda without the qualifier) seems partly to have been a result of the U.S. presence in Iraq. So it’s a neat trick to have isolated them without pulling out, but a U.S. withdrawal might have been just as effective.

        <

        p>What isn’t resolved? We still have contention about Kirkuk. We still have the Kurds acting rather autonomously. We still have tension, frustration, and sectarianism dividing the Sunni minority from the Shiite majority. The system of government, with its supermajority requirement, will prove worse than the U.S. Senate in getting much of anything done. That’ll  be particularly true if more Sunnis are seated and any Shi’ite led government cannot attain a sufficiently large majority.

        <

        p>So to me this seems like a mess. Pretty much the same mess as a couple years ago.

        • I’ve been saying for months that the only thing that’s keeping Iraq from going completely haywire is that the Kurds are not participating in Iraq, but ignoring it.  If they seek to participate in a way concomitant with their strength, it all goes into a handbasket.

          <

          p>Right now the Kurds are waiting for us to leave, and al-Sadr is waiting for us to leave.  If Iraq is a chess game, the two queens are fronted by pawns, and won’t engage until we leave the match.  That’s when we’ll truly see what has been wrought by the occupation.

        • I’m not a Republican. Those are not my talking points, not my metrics, not Sabutai’s metrics and are not even the actual metrics. So Sabutai is willing to allow Republican talking points become the defined metrics for the war, I’m not.

          <

          p>Here they are:
          Perform constitutional review.
          Enact de-Ba’athification reform.
          Form semi-autonomous regions.
          Hold provincial elections.
          Address amnesty.
          Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan.
          Ensure minority rights in Iraqi legislature.
          Keep Iraqi Security Forces free from partisan interference.
          Disarm militias.
          Provide military support in Baghdad.
          Empower Iraqi Security Forces.
          Ensure impartial law enforcement.
          Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan by Maliki government.
          Reduce sectarian violence.
          Establish neighborhood security in Baghdad.
          Increase independent Iraqi Security Forces.
          Implement oil legislation.
          Distribute Iraqi resources equitably.

          <

          p>

          • I was trying out metrics because until this comment you refused to supply any.  Please don’t attach say that I endorse a “Republican” point of view…I was just desperately trying to guess at what you’re saying.  You’re a sharp guy, Jim, but on the Iraq War, it’s like trying to dialog with a copy of The New Republic, and this isn’t the first time.  You cheerled the escalation from day one, so no wonder you want to believe it worked so badly.

            <

            p>As I said upthread, until al-Sadr and the Kurds truly play their hand, it is an utter guess as to the “good” done in Iraq.  Let’s look at some of your points.

            <

            p>Sectarian violence is down because the guns are hidden away, not because there’s a political resolution.  Al-Sadr is no less militant, and al-Sistani has become more so.  Last summer, the “Mahdi Army” took over a sector of Baghdad for a day, just to prove they could.  

            <

            p>The oil legislation does not mention or resolve the Kirkuk area, a center of oil wealth.

            <

            p>The Maliki government told the US to go screw repeatedly.  Continues to do so.

            <

            p>De-Ba’athification?  Not even close.

            <

            p>I’m glad you agree that it’s time to get the heck out of Dodge.  But I really can’t understand why you think it was worth it.

            <

            p>

            • Cheerled – surely this can not be defined as such.

              <

              p>

              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.

              <

              p>I never ascribed those views to you, I said you allowed that to be the basis of the metric you brought up.

              <

              p>If you think very little progress has been made in Iraq, my guess is that you are in the minority. Clearly Obama sees progress.

          • Yes, Jim, I know all too well that you’re not a Republican! 🙂

            <

            p>You put up a remarkably terse post. Kind of like Fermat’s comment in the margin: you assert but don’t prove. I believe the above list represents the benchmarks as set by Congress and the Administration.

            <

            p>Have they all been met? I don’t think so.

            <

            p>Have enough of them been met? I don’t know.

            <

            p>Has the progress on them been worth the effort? I doubt it, but I’m opening to learning more.

            <

            p>Maybe this deserves a longer post from you with more links and paragraphs. As it is, it’s a bit of a guessing game. “Maybe Jim says this because …” “No! I don’t think that. I’m not a Republican.” “Maybe Jim thinks this…” “No! I don’t think that either!” Don’t keep us in the dark.

            <

            p>You seem to have more content ready than you’ve published and a retrospective post on Iraq would be interesting and useful.

            <

            p>The neener-neener framing of this post is not conducive to a careful discussion.

  3. Progress in Iraq

    <

    p>New York Times October, 2008

    The security situation is indisputably good. Violence is down. Parliament passed both a law to hold a census for the first time in more than three decades and a provincial election law that would allow the balloting to be held in all but one province by the end of January. This is clear progress.

    <

    p>The Brookings Institute Dec 29th 2008

    On the whole, we feel that the Iraqi government has met 7 of the 11 “Iraq index” benchmarks we have laid out

    <

    p>President Obama Feb 28, 2009

    Violence has been reduced substantially from the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and 2007. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been dealt a serious blow by our troops and Iraq’s Security Forces, and through our partnership with Sunni Arabs. The capacity of Iraq’s Security Forces has improved, and Iraq’s leaders have taken steps toward political accommodation. The relative peace and strong participation in January’s provincial elections sent a powerful message to the world about how far Iraqis have come in pursuing their aspirations through a peaceful political process.

    <

    p>Clearly The New York Times, The Brookings Institute and President Barack Obama have stated that there has been meaningful progress.

    <

    p>Sabutai, I still haven’t seen an answer to my question…

    <

    p>What has changed in Afghanistan that was worth the price of American sacrifice. Why is Afghanistan so much more import than Iraq.  

      • Uh, no kidding, Bob. That is why I OPPOSED the war! Did you read my comments?

        <

        p>I’ll say the same thing I said up thread

        <

        p>You don’t seem to be capable of separating the mistake of the invasion from the correct course of action now that we made that terrible mistake. They are two different things. We invaded, we total screwed the country up, ruined it’s already crumbling infrastructure and over 100k Iraq’s have died. It is our responsibility!

    • Jim, I take what you say on good faith.  So I don’t really believe that you’re being purposefully indecipherable.  

      <

      p>There was no actual question in your original post or any replies to my comments, so to say “Sabutai, I still haven’t seen an answer to my question… ” is ridiculous.

      <

      p>If you want me to answer a question, ask one.

      • Just look at the comment you just responded to…

        <

        p>

        Sabutai, I still haven’t seen an answer to my question

        What has changed in Afghanistan that was worth the price of American sacrifice. Why is Afghanistan so much more import than Iraq.  

        <

        p>OK I left out the question mark.

        <

        p>and from an earlier comment

        <

        p>

        Now answer mine. What has changed in Afghanistan that was worth the price of American sacrifice. Why is Afghanistan so much more import than Iraq.

        • Afghanistan is more important than Iraq because it is a greater threat to American security.  Afghanistan has a longer history of radical Islam than Iraq.  Afghanistan has access to invisible money through the poppy trade to a great extent than siphoned-off oil money than Iraq.  Afghanistan has greater experience hosting terrorists, and is more willing to include former terrorists in the government.

          <

          p>More than any of that, Afghanistan is a much more promising conduit of nuclear weapons.  Either from Pakistan, or lost nukes from the former USSR.  Keep in mind, of course, that Afghanistan and Pakistan are colonial creations, and rubbing out the line between them doesn’t take much — after all, it is Pakistan’s ISI who created, trained, and more or less directed the Taliban.  Things tend to disappear in that part of the world — think part of the Red Army, or Osama bin Laden — so a nuke wouldn’t be hard to move around.

          <

          p>Granted, after the invasion Iraq was much more a threat to American security than it had been before, but it is still not at the level of Afghanistan.

          • I’m not here to argue that Afghanistan is not important (it is), only that in 2007 the choice to stay in Iraq was the correct one, that we have made real progress and that it is after we invaded as important as Afghanistan.

            <

            p>We disagree.  

            • One reason to raise Afghanistan is that the U.S. has only so big an army, only so many linguists, and only so many experienced commanders and policy makers. This is an allocation question as much as it is a choice between “do it” and “don’t do it”.

  4. I think that there are two key differences that argue for  an Afghan intervention:

    • There is a sharp danger of a kind of militant Islamic movement assuming state control in Afghanistan and effectively taking over parts of Pakistan.
    • There is a clear military mission, i.e., defeat the Taliban. They have leaders. The leaders can surrender. In Iraq, the insurgency has always been multi-dimensional. There’s no one to sign an armistice. With fundamentally opposing interests among the factions in Iraq, today’s peace hides tomorrow’s conflicts.

    <

    p>That said, the Afghan intervention has been a glaring failure thus far:

    • Territory effectively held by the central government shrinks more than it grows.
    • War lords should not have become governors.
    • Corruption riddles the entire Karzai government especially the police. So they are not popular.
    • The Taliban continue to make gains.
    • Allied tactics, especially bombing, are not just immoral but counter-productive to the mission itself. Much of that, though, can be attributed to sending too small a force.

  5. Is that those who opposed the war in the first place were proven right.  However, those same people opposedthe surge and were wrong.

    <

    p>Why they were wrong is illustrated by much of this thread: they remain more interested in arguing about 2003 than 2009.

    <

    p>Based on what I read, the improvements aren’t at the point of “permanent” but could be.

    • I believe I’m arguing 2007 which was when the surge was announced. I’ve also been consistently mushy about how a Democratic President should handle Iraq once in office precisely because I lost all trust in the policy apparatus of the Bush Administration. So it was not clear to me how difficult it would be to disentangle from Iraq, nor what the best or quickest route out would be.

      <

      p>The assertion, if I understand correctly, is

      The surge was worth it. Choosing the surge in 2007 turned out better than the alternative, namely, a draw down in Iraq coupled with a greater commitment to Afghanistan.

      Arguing that thesis cannot be accomplished easily in 1000 words. One would have to touch on a number of points:

      1. How much has the surge and the continuation of the occupation cost? This must not only be measured in lives, injuries, and dollars, but also in terms of the horrific strain on the armed forces. This is further complicated by the need to make some estimation of how a draw-down in Iraq would have been accomplished in 2007.
      2. For the surge’s accomplishments to be worth the resources devoted to achieving them, they have to meet the following criteria:
        • They must have been unachievable without our efforts.
        • They must be somewhat permanent. They must outlast our withdrawal.
        • They must confer sufficient benefit to outweigh the cost.
      3. If the Bush Administration had begun a draw down in 2007, what would the results have been? Jim’s thesis might require him to demonstrate that some of the likely bad effects of drawing down in 2007 are unlikely to occur in 2009 or 2010.
      4. The costs of the surge must be weighed against the situation in Afghanistan. There were not just costs but opportunity costs. For example, it seems likely to me that the current peace (such as it is) in Iraq was  not worth handing governorships in Afghanistan over to warlords. The situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated to such a degree that it’ll be difficult to dig it out. I realize that observation may sound very 2003, but it was increasingly urgent in 2007 and has only gotten worse.

      Even though this thesis may seem “obvious” to Jim and you, it seems quite ambitious to me. I’m not saying I know enough to say you and Jim are right, but I’m still not inclined to think it was the right choice.

      • Some will be know in time and others can never be know now, but they go both ways in terms of determining whether withdrawing would have been the right choice.

        <

        p>I would add one thing – at the time I thought we had a moral obligation to stay as well.

        • Regardless of whether it was good policy to go in in 2003, in 2007 the options did not include, IMO, outright withdrawal.

          • A hasty withdrawal would have caused trouble. But I also felt we shouldn’t forget what the yes votes on the AUMF forgot: whatever was going to happen it would be done by the Bush Administration. They didn’t do subtlety and regarded their ignorance of the Middle East as a sign of their moral clarity. So the 2007 problem was compounded by who was going to implementing it.

            <

            p>Given that, the surge was conducted much better than anyone should have reasonably expected.

Archives