Home | Away

The Mess in Iraq

To respond to one of the comments directly: yes, I do have a blog sort of my own.  It’s called Public Intelligence and I share it with my lively siblings, one of whom has just posted an interesting riposte to my comments about Iraq a few posts back.  Her objections echo many expressed by respondents here—and compel me to revisit the issue.  (I invite you to go over and read for yourself. )

Pat’s post (I’m assuming it is from Pat; I think I recognize the voice) also suggests a solution. The dilemma, as I phrased it, is how can we withdraw from Iraq without causing even more harm than the harm we are doing by being there. Various people object to understanding our situation in that way and I very much agree that one result of such an understanding is that you can end up prolonging a conflict because you don’t want the earlier deaths to be “in vain.” To use a very crude, but apt, analogy, it’s like throwing good money after bad. (Also, just to be clear, “harm” here is being understood in the grossest utilitarian terms. More harm = more deaths.)

So Pat suggests that we place the decision in the hands of the Iraqi people.  Schedule periodic (say once every six months) plebiscites on whether the US should go or stay. (She considers various objections and drawbacks in her post.) I think the idea is promising.  Oddly enough, I’ve been planning to write against plebiscites (with the Governator as prime instance) in my upcoming posts on the Republican assault on democracy.  And I am worried that Pat’s notion could just be a way of covering the US’s ass. It might be more of a public relations gimmick--giving us a way to leave with honor (to recall an odious Vietnam-era phrase)--than a way to minimize bloodshed. But--and this is a very big but--the insane dynamics of war are so insane precisely because they rarely offer any way to back down short of defeat. And the refusal to cry “uncle” can lead to thousands and thousands of pointless deaths. (Which is not to say that the first deaths in this war were not equally pointless.) So even if it is just a gimmick, any port in a storm. It can still have great overall consequences. In short, a hesitant endorsement of the idea. At the very least, it’s thinking creatively in the absence of any other good options.

Two further thoughts on Iraq. The first is that I do believe that, eventually, we are going to cut and run. The US can’t outlast the “insurgency” and it can’t stabilize the situation. We will do what we did in Vietnam. Make a show of having trained a legitimate, indigenous army and then leave before that army is even close to strong enough to control the situation. There will be a civil war from which some strong-armed authoritarian regime will emerge (Saddam Hussein-lite if Iraq is lucky). I don’t see any reason at all to expect any better than that. Even if the army we leave behind “wins” the war, it will do so by becoming authoritarian. So the only real question for US policy is whether we do any more harm withdrawing tomorrow as opposed to three years from now. But, of course, the question can’t be posed that way in public--or in the government’s foreign policy decision-making. The first casualty in war is the truth.

The second thought is on the insurgents. As Pat notes, there is some reason to believe their violence is much more about killing Americans and those Iraqis who collaborate with Americans than about gaining political power. The evidence? The minute the violence subsided in the immediate aftermath of the January elections, talk of American withdrawal began. The obvious strategy for an insurgency that actually wanted to win a civil war would be to unilaterally stop its attacks for six to twelve months and bide its time. After the Americans leave, it could overwhelm the new Iraqi government.

Of course, it took a long time for the Vietnamese communists to devise that strategy. But here, I think, analogies to Vietnam are completely misleading. It’s being called the “insurgency” for lack of a better name. But notice that there has been next to no information about who these insurgents are or any sense of what they want as a prelude to some sort of negotiated settlement. Partly that’s because we’re in such firm good guy/bad guy mode; no deals with the devil. Partly it’s because, from all accounts, our intelligence on the ground in Iraq is absolutely abysmal. (Our idea of combating the insurgents is to make sweeping arrests, with little idea of who the dragnet is pulling in.) But I think (from what I can glean and guess from, admittedly, a galaxy far, far away) it is also because there is not one insurgency, with some set of articulated aims, but instead thousands of very angry and pretty much independent armed groups who are bound and determined to resist America and all it stands for. And if that is the case, then withdrawal might very well make things better.

Posted by on 06/03 at 04:26 PM

  1. But I think...it is also because there is not one insurgency...but instead thousands of very angry and pretty much independent armed groups who are bound and determined to resist America and all it stands for. And if that is the case, then withdrawal might very well make things better.

    I won’t proffer any fairly rapid exit strategies for the U.S. because I can’t come up with any that are palatable - except perhaps the one where we’re running out of soldiers ourselves so we may have to do so by necessity.

    I agree with the argument that there is not one but rather many armed groups united loosely at this point around ousting the Americans.  But I disagree that our withdrawal will, therefore, make things better.  No, obviously we wouldn’t have American deaths to deal with but this would surely lead to these sectarian groups turning on each other in a very violent way and yes, for power and treasure.

    We’ve opened a Pandora’s box and while many of the Vietnam analagies don’t apply for reasons already well said, I fear that ultimately, when we do inevitably leave Iraq, it will be with the same sadness, disappointment, and disillusionment as when bailed out of Vietnam.

    http://asilentcacophony.blogspot.com

    Posted by DK  on  06/03  at  06:01 PM

  2. What is this withdrawal of which you speak?  If I’m not mistaken, not a very big ‘if’ to be sure, but aren’t we (the U.S.) planning on establishing permanent military bases in Iraq?  I wonder what Vietnam would look like today had we “withdrawn” but left a few thousand soldiers on a couple bases in South Vietnam.

    Posted by  on  06/03  at  06:06 PM

  3. To respond to one of the comments directly: yes, I do have a blog sort of my own.

    Thanks, John. Nice work. It’s going in my roll.

    Aside fom that, Michael Kircher beat me to saying most of what I was going to say. I suspect - from reading Cole, and from talking to a few people who’ve spent time outside the Green Zone in the last 12 months or so - that a lot of the rebellion would simmer down if the US so much as announced a date on which it would make a withdrawal plan public.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  06/03  at  06:16 PM

  4. Of course, it took a long time for the Vietnamese communists to devise that strategy

    Uh, as far as I know, the Vietnamese didn’t develop a strategy like that (lying doggo to make the U.S. go home).  The Tet offensive essentially destroyed the Viet Cong as a fighing force, but the guerrilla campaign, fought largely by Vietnamese regulars, continued intensively right up to the U.S. withdrawal in 1973.

    Posted by  on  06/03  at  06:40 PM

  5. The second thought is on the insurgents. As Pat notes, there is some reason to believe their violence is much more about killing Americans and those Iraqis who collaborate with Americans than about gaining political power. The evidence? The minute the violence subsided in the immediate aftermath of the January elections, talk of American withdrawal began. The obvious strategy for an insurgency that actually wanted to win a civil war would be to unilaterally stop its attacks for six to twelve months and bide its time. After the Americans leave, it could overwhelm the new Iraqi government.

    You assume that the Americans plan to leave.  I see no evidence of that and obviously neither do the pro-Iraqi forces (I think you call these people “insurgents") who have only switched their targets because the Americans are hunkered down in the Green Zone and their permanent bases where it’s hard to kill them.  You also seem to have accepted the self-serving administration spin that the violence subsided after the fake elections in January.  The Pentagon quit reporting the incidents of violence, but they didn’t subside, though it is true that for a few days, while the entire country was under lockdown (no cars or transportation allowed, pedestrians shot on sight) the number of car bombings dropped a bit.

    Had the pro-Iraqi forces taken your advice and laid low for a few months, the Bush Cabal would have taken that as proof that the U.S. had “won” the war, its hubris would have known no limits, and Iraq would have been turned into the oil-rich colony run by quislings dependent for their miserable survival on a force of 50,000 U.S. troops that has been the dream of the Cabal since Rummy first supplied Saddam with poison gas back in the 1980’s.

    Posted by  on  06/03  at  06:59 PM

  6. How many ways can we spell OIL?  We need to control the Iraq supply of oil; we being the US based corporate powers vested with the technology, machinery, transport equipment, and financial structures.  China and India are now competing with the US for access to oil resources, and the MidEast supply is one of the most lucrative and economically profitable.  In order to maintain this control, as part and parcel of the National Security Plan and the agenda plan of the Project for the New American Century, our nation’s leaders understand that we need a strong and powerful military presence in the region for a very long time.  The only type of pullout would be a reduction in US military forces required to occupy Iraq, while maintaining forces and in fact increasing their presence in the region through expanding bases.  Thus we are training Iraqi “security” forces for no other purpose than to work with our 20 thousand or so private contract troops to secure and control the oil fields and production.  Once Iraq is “stabilized” we can focus attention on reducing base components in Saudi Arabia which relieves pressure on BushCo family friends in the royal family.  Working with Shia elements in Iraq, we facilitate a “working arrangement” with Iran and garner greater control over the underground oil reserves.  Then we use bases in Afghanistan and the other STANS to safeguard the pipelines and infrastructure for moving the oil.  Where in all this is pullout?  There is no such thing.

    Posted by  on  06/03  at  07:14 PM

  7. I agree with Spyder in that we’re there to fight for stable oil supplies.

    We could easily go to more of a partial withdrawal. Pull back to the north, the Kurdish regions, with ample oilfields to protect.

    We could also continue providing air support with flyovers throughout the country, at minimal risk to troops.

    But three quarters of Iraq would be then free of direct contact with our troops. And we could offer to do this as part of a larger ceasefire agreement from the Sunni insurgents.

    From there, it’d be up to the Shias and Sunnis to make the country whole. Any strongman govt that might result would be the one with superior firepower, provided by us. Which would go to the Shias and Kurds as long as the Sunnis refuse to engage politically.

    Other oil-rich nations have a vested interest in a successful outcome, so a peacekeeping force from other Middle East nations might be called upon to play a defensive role, too.

    We can only guess whether minimal loss of life will result. But the longer we stay, the less likely ‘minimal’ will be achieved.

    Posted by Kevin Hayden  on  06/03  at  08:08 PM

  8. "The second thought is on the insurgents. As Pat notes, there is some reason to believe their violence is much more about killing Americans and those Iraqis who collaborate with Americans than about gaining political power.”

    Ummm, how are, for example, last week’s random drive-by shootings at Baghdad markets about killing “collaboraters”? This view of the insurgents as just anti-occupation patriots seems pretty naive. The argument that their refusal to lay low until the Americans leave somehow proves that they’re more interested in ending the occupation than seizing power falsifies itself by its own logical inchoherence. Its precisely that refusal that shows they’re more interested in creating enough chaos to eventually generate enough support for a new dictatorship, rather than allowing the elected government time to consolidate itself. Thus, they target electricity, health professionals, and, above all, Iraqi police and Shiite leaders. The argument that they would stop all or even a signficant part of this if we left is ungrounded.

    Posted by  on  06/05  at  12:52 AM

  9. If the point of this endeavor were to free the Iraqis, we’d pretty much leave tomorrow.  The Kurds are fine, and the war machine is broken.  Order can’t be guaranteed if we leave, and it also can’t be guaranteed if we stay.  There is now a quasi-legitimate government in place.  Time to declare victory and go home.

    Of course, the point of this endeavor is to establish a vassal state while making President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld look good, so we aren’t leaving until at least 2008.

    Posted by Kimmitt  on  06/05  at  04:21 AM

  10. So the only real question for US policy is whether we do any more harm withdrawing tomorrow as opposed to three years from now. But, of course, the question can’t be posed that way in public--or in the government’s foreign policy decision-making. The first casualty in war is the truth.

    In that “of course” is the essence of the dispute about what Dems can and should say about Iraq.  It reveals an unattractive cynicism beneath your previous insistence that we be hopeful.  The other side lies and has to keep lying; you’ve decided to make truth-telling a casualty of war.

    Leadership is knowing and seeing that we’re going to withdraw as we did before, and demanding that it be now rather than thousands of lives and billions of dollars later.  It’s declining to prolong the harm because “finish the job” bullshit is more reassuring than the truth.

    Posted by  on  06/05  at  10:08 AM

  11. Here’s my sister Pat’s next contribution to this discussion:

    Just a couple of additional thoughts on Iraq—partly prompted by the comments John’s post elicited on Michael Berube’s blog and partly an elaboration of why I think a plebiscite proposal would be good politics for Democrats as well as a decent way out of Iraq.

    First, I totally agree with the opinion voiced in most comments that the Bush Administration has no wish or plan ever to leave Iraq. They can dress their determination to establish bases and exploit oil in any language they please, but they will not go unless insurgents of whatever stripe make the price of staying intolerable. Moreover, they will not cede sovereignty to any Iraqi government that does not meet their basic criterion of a privatized free market economy that supports foreign (US) corporate investment. I also believe that the presence of the US is harmful not only indirectly as an incitement to violence, but directly in the sense of inflicting violence on insurgents, suspected insurgents, and any others with the misfortune to get in the line of largely indiscriminate fire. John is right that our intelligence is appalling which increases the harm inflicted even as it decreases its efficacy. Therefore, the US should withdraw immediately.

    The only slightly nagging objection to immediate withdrawal is a feeling of obligation to repair the damage before bailing out. Getting voted out does not exactly relieve us of that responsibility, but does disabuse us of the notion that our presence is part of the solution. All of this agonizing is neither here nor there for Republicans—they don’t give a hoot about damage past, present, or future. Their only concern is how long they can keep a hold on Iraq in the face of rising violence there and growing public doubt at home.

    But we are talking here about Democrats—the original context of this discussion being how the Democrats should campaign in 2006 and 2008. I like to think that Democrats quite genuinely do not have any long-term designs on Iraq and just want to get out as decently as possible. Of course, I may be wrong about this, and Kerry and Hilary Clinton’s and others’ reluctance to call for withdrawal may have less to do with scruples about cleaning up the mess and/or inability to figure out a way to leave without Democrats’ taking the rap for losing the war than with some conviction that continued presence in Iraq is strategically or psychically necessary. If that is the case, we are in deep trouble. Be that as it may, last fall, Kerry unequivocally said that a Kerry administration would not extract any kind of economic or military advantage from the occupation and would internationalize it as soon as possible. Problem is that his “plan” seemed both unrealistic (obviously, neither the UN nor anyone else would be willing to step in) and insincere (the occupation would continue indefinitely). The plebiscite idea would provide an exit opportunity, an affirmation of the principle of self-determination, and a clear. easily understood alternative to the Republican policy. It would also call the Bush administration’s bluff on promoting democracy in the Middle East. So, I think it is good politics, though I don’t expect to see any mainstream Democrats advocating it. (Pat)

    Posted by john mcgowan  on  06/06  at  11:01 AM

  12. The plebiscite idea is a good idea politcaly, as long as we all realize it really won’t amount to a hill of beans. Whether we get out tomorrow, next year, or in 10 years, Iraq will eventually descend (it’s on the way now) into a bloody civil war, involving ethnic and religious issues, leading to another brutal secular dictatorship or a Shia theocracy.

    Add in that the Kurds will then try for independence, likely bringing in the Turks, and the night mares of those of us who opposed this insane war will come to past.

    Posted by  on  06/06  at  11:49 AM

  13. It is so important to realize that the central point here is the oil, as noted above by spyder.

    1) Bushco have NO intention of leaving without securing the oil.

    2) The country has already descended into a bloody civil war, with dozens of attacks a day across the country on troops, police, etc.  Not leaving to prevent bloody civil conflict is sort of senseless, we’ve already caused plenty of bloody civil conflict.

    3) if we do leave, however, the resulting government will probably not be a US puppet gov.  If Bushco thought we could get the heck outta there and still keep the oil, we’d be gone tomorrow.  If we do leave tomorrow, we flat out lose control of the world’s second largest oil reserves.  And it goes, in fact, to people who hate us.

    I’m personally all for withdrawl.  I just think it’s important to realize that you are definitely risking the oil when you do so.  The oil is important, and does matter geo-politically and strategically.  Having that much oil will generate a lot of money for some people who strongly dislike us.  Neocons are total realpolitikers, and they know this, and they’ll never go for it. 

    Iraq is doomed.  If they’re lucky they end up with a repressive puppet government and heavy foreign military presence, otherwise it’s a return to crippling sanctions and international, US-led strong enmity.  The Neocons gambled that we could get out with the oil, and frankly i just doubt they will ever, ever in a million years let the oil go.  If they can’t have it, they’ll make it so no one can, and that is terribly chilling, considering the way these bastards think....

    Posted by Zenji  on  06/06  at  04:26 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: The Republican Assault on Democracy

Previous entry: Amnesty International Hits A Nerve

<< Back to main