Why We Must Leave Iraq
Sometimes in life there are no good options. It is part of our nature to always assume that we can fix a problem. But in life there are many problems or situations where there is no pleasant solution. If you were at the Windows on the World Restaurant in the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 9 am on September 11, 2001 you had no good options. You could choose to jump or to burn to death. Some choice.
A hard, clear-eyed look at the current situation in Iraq reveals that we are confronted with equally bad choices. If we stay we are facilitating the creation of an Islamic state that will be a client of Iran. If we pull out we are likely to leave the various ethnic groups of Iraq to escalate the civil war already underway. In my judgment we have no alternative but to pull our forces out of Iraq. Like it or not, such a move will be viewed as a defeat of the United States and will create some very serious foreign policy and security problems for us for years to come. However, we are unwilling to make the sacrifices required to achieve something approximating victory. And, what would victory look like? At a minimum we should expect a secular society where the average Iraqi can move around the country without fear of being killed or kidnapped. That is not the case nor is it on the horizon.
We may even be past the point of no return where we could impose changes that would put Iraq back on course to be a secular, democratic nation without sparking a major Shiite counteroffensive. Therefore the time has come to minimize further unnecessary loss of life by our troops and re-craft a new foreign and security policy for the Middle East.
The Current Situation:
Iraq has devolved into a tri-partite state, split among the Kurds in the North, the Shias in the South, and Sunni tribes in the middle. While things are relatively peaceful in the North and South, the central part of Iraq is in the grips of a defacto civil war. Most of the trained and deployed Iraqi police and military forces are Shia. Most of their operations are directed against Sunni targets. The Sunnis do not feel that they have a legitimate voice in the political process. As a result they have decided to fight.
The Shia majority, long oppressed in Iraq, are not willing, nor likely, to relinquish their new status as the tops dogs. They are receiving significant intelligence, economic, and political support from the Islamist government in Iran. The Shia also are well positioned to control a significant portion of Iraq's vast oil resources. They are not likely to share this wealth with the Sunnis.
There is no effective national government in Iraq. The current group meeting inside the Green Zone to draft the constitution has no real clout. True power is held by tribal chieftains and religious leaders scattered around country. Those leaders are playing both sides of the fence--keeping a toe in the political negotiations in Baghdad while providing money and protection to insurgents.
The insurgency in Iraq is comprised of at least 20 groups. Some of these are Baathists, some are Sunni Islamic extremists, and a few are Shia. They agree on one thing--the United States is an invader and must be expelled. While there is no single leader who can claim the status or mandate as did Ho Chi Minh during the Vietnam days, the insurgents in Iraq are as firm and serious as those we faced in Vietnam.
The continued presence of U.S. combat forces and our operations against Iraqi civilians is recruiting new jihadists from around the Muslim world. Notwithstanding U.S. efforts to win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people, the sectarian strife and the images of U.S. soldiers kicking in the doors of peoples' homes while searching for insurgents is creating more anger rather than support.
The Sunni insurgents have control of the battlefield in the central belt of Iraq. Even today the United States military cannot keep a six mile stretch of highway open that runs from downtown Baghdad to the International Airport. U.S. diplomatic personnel and many key Iraqi Government officials live inside a security ghetto known euphemistically as the Green Zone. Even during the bleakest days of the war in South Vietnam, U.S. diplomats and soldiers could travel freely around Saigon without fear of being killed in bomb blast or kidnapped. We don't have that luxury in Baghdad.
Options?
We could potentially defeat the Sunni insurgents if we were willing and able to deploy sufficient troops to control the key infiltration routes that run along the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys. But we are neither willing nor able. It would require at least 380,000 troops devoted exclusively to that mission. Part of that mission would entail killing anyone who moved into controlled areas, such as roadways. In adopting those kinds of rules of engagement we would certainly increase the risk of killing innocent civilians. But, we would impose effective control over those routes. That is a prerequisite to gaining control over the insurgency.
We cannot meet the increased manpower requirements in Iraq without a draft. We do not currently have enough troops in the Army and the Marine Corps to supply and sustain that size of force in the field. But, even with a draft, we would be at least 15 months away from having the new batch of trained soldiers ready to deploy. More importantly, there is no political support for a draft. In other words, we're unwilling to do what is required to even have a shot at winning.
While the insurgency is not likely to acquire sufficient strength to fight and defeat our forces directly in large set piece battles, they do have the wherewithal to destroy infrastructure and challenge our control of lines of communication. The ultimate test of a government's legitimacy is whether or not it can protect its citizens from threats foreign and domestic. Thus far the Iraqi Government has made scant progress on this front. Today's attack in central Baghdad, by a uniformed unit of masked insurgents, represents another disturbing milestone in the continued growth of the insurgency. One of these days we should not be surprised when an insurgent force breaches the Green Zone and takes some U.S. diplomats hostage.
An ideal, but unlikely outcome, is that the secularists, who are trying desperately to craft a legitimate government, will persuade a sufficient number of Shia and Sunni leaders to turn their back on a religious-based government. Unfortunately, they don't control weapons or militia. Force remains the ultimate means for deciding a country's fate. In this case the guns are in the hands of those who favor an Islamic state over a secular nation.
If the United States tries to intervene now to compel power sharing on behalf of Sunni interests we are likely to trigger a backlash by the Shia majority. Mullahs like Moqtada al Sadr have demonstrated that they can mobilize combat units to kill Americans when their interests are challenged.
There are some indications that once we are out of the picture that the insurgency will turn on itself. As noted earlier a significant portion of the insurgents are not Islamic extremists. There is evidence that the different groups will fight each other. Sunni tribal chiefs are not likely to cede control of their territory to foreign Islamists once the United States is no longer on the scene. Our departure will likely lead to a brutal civil war, but such a war creates opportunities for the United States where it can rebuild its credibility with those forces who represent modernity and secular progress.
So What's Next?
Staying the course and enduring further casualties while the insurgency grows stronger is an insane policy. If we persist on that front we will end up strengthening the hand of Islamic extremists and their role within the Iraqi insurgency.
Our choice is simple--either we invest in the military resources and personnel required to defeat the Sunni insurgents and allow the Shia and Kurds to consolidate power or we withdraw and let the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds find their own solution. We cannot ask our soldiers and Marines to give their lives and sacrifice their bodies for a new Islamic state. It is true that our withdrawal will create a major vacuum and damage our prestige. But the alternative, i.e., that we stay and try to train up sufficient Iraqi forces and help the fledgling Islamic Government get on its feet, will leave us the favorite target of insurgents and terrorists. And after we have shed the blood of our sons and daughters in trying to create a new government that will be controlled by Islamists, those Islamists will ultimately insist that we leave Iraq and no longer meddle in their affairs.
Rosy scenario does not live in Iraq. Until we come to grips with this truth American soldiers will continue to be killed and maimed for no good reason.
General Westmorland also argued for more troops, until he had half a million in South Vietnam. But that wasn't enough. There isw no number that will be enough. Where does the figure of 380,000 come from? I agree, though, that the current war cannot be won at any acceptable moral, political, or military cost. That's what happens when you fight an unjust elective war. All of the bad choices flow from the initial decision to go to war in the name of unjustifiable ideological fantasies.
August 24, 2005 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry's comments are probably correct on most points. But isn't the political lesson from the social security debate that liberals, progressives, and Democrats should simply point out the utter disaster that is Iraq and let Bush figure out what to do next?
I mean, as soon as the prominent Dems stand up and say "Bring 'em Home" aren't we just the lilly-livered wimps again?
And along with a relentless attack on Bush's prosecution of the war, shouldn't the affirmative policy be "lets redouble our efforts to get Al Qaeda which Bush has ignored at our peril?"
August 24, 2005 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
Thank you for this cogent analysis, however somber.
Who can take up your case to communicate to the American public?
More critical, who will this Adminstration listen to so they can come to accept the truth of what you have laid out?
August 24, 2005 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have just retunred from Crawford where I have spent most of the past two and a half weeks. For the past week and a half, I've spent a great deal of time with the Bush Supportors who make up the counter demostrtion. An imersion, even temporary, in their environment of murderous certainty, gives one a sad, sinking feeling.
I have stories and new photos at http://www.thebillboardproject.com/
August 24, 2005 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The author's intent with this post was to paint a realistic picture of where we stand and what our options are as a nation. Not to point out ways to win on this issue domestically, or even to suggest policy positions for Democrats to enunciate on moral grounds.
This is the kind of report Bush should be getting from his advisors.
August 24, 2005 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
As late as the spring of 2004, i was prepared to think of iraq as potentially only a SNAFU, but certainly since last summer, it has been impossible to think of it as anything but FUBAR.
The last time we were in a FUBAR this bad, we had immoral scum - nixon and kissinger - running the endgame, but at least they were intelligent scum. Now we not only have immoral scum running the situation, but they are demonstrably so ideologically blinkered and in denial that an endgame is literally beyond them to conceptualize.
This disaster - all of it, of course, being conducted with borrowed money that has to be paid back to, among others, the chinese - is almost certainly without precedent in america in the post-world war ii era, and perhaps in the 20th century. The Stalinist announcement by the American Legion is, in my estimation, just the first shot over the bow in the awful blame game that will erupt from the right as the collapse of the policy becomes as obvious as the emperor's new clothers....
August 24, 2005 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree with this comment more. There is no good decision vis a vis Iraq, that's why Democrats look so poor on the issue. They don't have an answer, because there isn't one and Republicans don't have one either. I don't think Democrats should offer an suggestions either other than to say the President and the Republican Party got us into this mess based on inaccurate facts and poor judgment, they can't offer an explanation out of this mess other than more of the same, and they should be fired. When a CEO of a company screws the company up we don't say we had better keep him and his friends in their jobs because we don't know what new management would do. No, we fire the guys who did a rotten job and let a new bunch of executives see if they can fix it. The same analogy applies here. The guys in charged have really muddled this thing up and they need to be fired. period.
August 24, 2005 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your post was so moving, not only for the information, but also for the fact that you could go from one side of the street to the other. You have empathy, but you have formed an opinion. To be able to do both is a sign of maturity and grace. Thank you,
August 24, 2005 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
While the insurgency is not likely to acquire sufficient strength to fight and defeat our forces directly in large set piece battles
And they don't have to. As long as they are not defeated they have won. That is why the rhetoric coming out of the WH is so insulting. An insurgency "in it's last throes"? We will "stay as long as it takes to defeat the insurgency"? One is a myth and the other is divorced from reality...
Most people think of patriotism as being willing to die to defend your country. We are up against a different enemy, one who is not only willing to die, but are willing to kill themselves to win. You can not defeat an enemy who is willing to kill themselves to win, unless you are willing to do the same. The cold hard fact is that we are fighting an unwinnable war, unless as was indicated we are willing to go up to as many as 500,000 troops in Iraq (IMHO I feel Larry was being generous with the 380,000 figure). So the best case scenario is get a consitution written asap, hold the elections and get the hell out of Dodge. Then let the dust settle, see which group gains power and go from there...
August 24, 2005 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell are you talking about?
We depart, a brutal civil war ensues and if the forces who represent modernity and secular progress win, we can convince them to trust us again. No hard feelings all around.
If the forces who do not represent modernity and secular progress win, we do what? Fund an exile group of displaced secular Iraqis in London who will spend the next decade trying to undermine the Islamic state of Iraq?
How easily you write off the loss of thousands or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives to save a few American ones!
I never supported the war and I still don't understand how the Pentagon, after ten years of planning to go back to Iraq, screwed up. But we started the damned war and we should finish it. The cost is the president's problem, not mine.
August 24, 2005 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
After reading this somber post I rememberrd something I heard Michael Moore said on Charlie Rose early on in the war, something like:
(I tried to read a transcript to get the quote right- but you have to pay.)
August 24, 2005 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our departure will likely lead to a brutal civil war, but such a war creates opportunities for the United States where it can rebuild its credibility with those forces who represent modernity and secular progress.
I'm as big a cynic and believer, by default, in realpolitik as you will find, but this chills me, to the point where I would advocate doing almost anything to avoid it, because "brutal civil war" could easily be an understatement, and no one can really predict what will happen in a post occupation Iraq.
I'm thinking it took the intervention of the Syrians to end the Lebanese civil war. Will we see a point where the world welcomes Iranian intervention in Iraq, just to see an end to the bloodshed? What price would the Iranians extract for that, how much would it boost their world standing? It's just one of the scenarios that could play out. This isn't a chess game, where you can predict with a degree of accuracy what will happen. And of course, the pieces on this board are real human beings, with real lives and real blood.
August 24, 2005 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, On another thread here, I've raised the bloody flag of our exodus from the field in Afghanistan when we found, in post 1990, the world of nine Islamist Militia groups that hated each other's guts combined with the drug trade and the Pakistani ISI interests and all a bit too complex. Of course the result was we handed over to bin Laden's camps, the Taliban and what then transpired in E. Africa and Lower New York City. For some reason I don't see "just leaving the field" good strategy.
I do know that what we are doing now is senseless. Getting half a dozen of our soldiers blown up every day on a patrol that is not about much of anything is stupid tactics. It reflects the absence of any decent strategy. Equally, the simple minded idea of trying to sell an Islamist Constitution written with the help of the Iranian Mullhas to the American Public as "progress" toward Democracy ought to becalled the porn that it is.
But I also don't think Democrats should be called to the rescue -- afterall no one asked us to participate in the development of the policy or plan. What I want is a focus on Lugar and Warner as the Chairs of the relevant Senate Committees -- They have not done adequate oversight of policy -- and now it should be their task to fix things. They did, afterall ask for absolute power and no need for bi-partisian consultation. Essentially, they have to take custody of George Bush.
As a long time goodly Quaker, I philosophically oppose any draft, but at this juncture I think it appropriate that Bush ought to be forced to bring it forth with all the complications that my friends in the AFSC, the FOR and the WRL will probably bring to the case. I actually want Bush to declare a draft -- it is, afterall the only honest way to defend his policy -- and then allow the debate to evolve in a way where my "no-way" saying friends can make their case. I am sick and tired of a social class and economic class draft -- and the only way a democracy can defeat that is to either make the case for the war (and I think that impossible) or take your lumps when the upper middle and middle class types sock it to the policy. (I especially want to draft the current President of Young Republicans who made the case a couple weeks ago on Chris Mathews show as to why it was more important to stay home and fight the culture war than it was to volunteer for the Marines.) The guy needs to learn how to drive an unarmored humvee through a minefield.
Anyhow, Larry thanks for being on the CNN program "Dead Wrong" for short takes. While there is virtually nothing I didn't already know in the program -- there are lots of folks for which it is news, new news. I hope CNN shows it of an evening again after labor day. Too many who need to see it are now at the lake cabin.
August 24, 2005 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who can take up your case to communicate to the American public?
We can. We are. From the grassroots...from US...botom right up to the Beltway.
The Democratic Party's national leadership needs to come together on this and FAST.
For those who quail at the prospect of another Bush bashing......he beats the poodles who heel, not the yellow dogs that bite.
And it doesn't take any great courage or skill to put this debate at issue....
A 42 year old construction worker, quoted recently in a news feature, showed how to stick it...
"When it all started, we were hearing about nuclear weapons, gas, biological weapons, all sorts of stuff," Blake says. "Of course I thought we should get rid of stuff like that.
But now we know that was all bull, and so I now believe I was wrong. But maybe wrong because I was lied to from the start. How are we going to get out? That's what I want to know."
We need an orderly stand-down and withdrawal. We need a schedule with interim and final exit targets. We need the Democratic Leadership to join growing numbers of Republican partisans and traditional isolationist conservatives. We need to act and act swiftly for the good of the country.
August 24, 2005 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you say leave Iraq now, what do you mean?
You certainly don't mean start shipping everybody back tomorrow, willy-nilly. There'd have to be some kind of withdrawal plan.
Do you plan to abandon the (as atrios referred to them recently) The Bases Which Must Not Be Named?
What about the Green Zone? Will the myriad contractors be left to their own devices?
How about the US embassy? Are we keeping that?
When Kevin Drum recently came around to this view, I was suitably impressed. When it turned out that by "now," he meant by the end of 2007, I began to suspect that the difference between "Stay the course" and "Pull out now" is smaller than you might think
August 24, 2005 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yiet Nam ended PolPot. That gave them moral authority and regional power. I believe it also broadened their world view and made them more open to reconcilliation with the U.S.
But there was no comparison on Cambodia's borders with the Kurdish State or Sunni-leaning Syria. Civil War is coming to this region with or without us. Natural progression. Societies that are joined in artificial political entities nearly always have this issue. I don't see Iran pulling a peaceful rabbit out of the hat--I really think we are in for some ethnic cleansing and a lot of refugees heading toward Syria.
If we want to have some dignity we need to do our best to prevent arms and war material from entering this area and enforce no fly and no armor zones. If we can help each faction secure its "borders" we may be able to gain some cautious support.
Unfortunately our policies have created such an opportunity for extremism getting even a moderate Islmist State will be difficult.
August 24, 2005 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
No matter how much sense anything makes we aren't stepping back till Bush is out the door. He may lose all his political capital by hanging tough but the Republicans will need to let the next Administration take the fall for this debacle if they want any hope of getting back in power.
Look at all the fluff Republicans have developed to make losing Viet Nam "not Nixon's fault." It was leftist betrayal on the home front or the evil world controlling UN.
It is amazing that with no money and no power the leftists and the UN maintain their iron grip on the world's future. And are culpable for all past ills. Cain was a leftist.
August 24, 2005 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree mostly. Only my unfortunate experiences do not let me accept your trust in a business dumping a CEO. Until the Stock price hits the fan the company can be absolutely mired in stupidity and the CEO gets to keep his job. Of course the board needs time to quietly unload their shares before taking action against the CEO and this might explain the delayed reaction to bad management.
August 25, 2005 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Posted from by Bill Section 147 on Aug 24, 2005 -- 08:08:07 PM EST
The biggest lie that the Bush Administration sold is that there is an Iraq. Once Saddam was gone there was no more nation. If we could have provided immediate security and stabalized the situation it might have happened. I would hazard that a majority of the people of Iraq would prefer to stay one nation. I just don’t believe they would fight to make it so. We know the extremists are prepared to die. For the average person is there enough “Iraq” left to die for.
The second biggest lie is that we (those in power) care. In their grand plan Iraq and its government do not matter—they did not matter before invasion and they don’t now. Please understand: I am talking about the grand strategy that got us there—not my idea of what should matter or what I would have done.
Because the Bush Administration tried to maintain the false nation of Iraq (perhaps thinking they could control it through ruthlessness like Saddam had before them) the Shi’a see that they will be able to control more than they have a right to and they also have an opportunity for revenge on their Sunni oppressors (Hutu v. Tutsi II—but with better weapons and worse neighbors). If we could re-draft our policy to divide the former Iraq into its more stable regional pieces we could buy the time we need to get out without a whole lot more damage. Here I think analogies to Yugoslavia are more apt than Viet Nam.
If we could shepherd the devolution of Iraq into a more natural state each piece would be less volitile. As much as possible the break up would need to have some win for each of the parties—which means some share of the oil profits. This plan requires diplomacy. That and the removal of BushCo as they have no plans to share the wealth.
What is to prevent an Iran-Iraqi-Shi’a Anschluss? The same danger exists for Syria and the Sunni-dominated sections. This may be inevitable. But it will be better if we can keep them from dragging the rest of the former Iraq with them. We will need to play hardball with Turkey as a Kurdish buffer-state will be necessary to maintain control or, at least slow down total chaos. And if we make the process slow with an aim to reduce violent change, as opposed to absolute opposition to what ever change happens, we might have some success.
So, I believe we cannot totally cut and run. Our main role would then be preventing any of the smaller sections, or Iran and Syria from using airpower, heavy weapons or armor. So we would need to continue our presence in the region but again, more like our involvement in the former Yugoslavia. In essence—containment. Sadly this was the policy that George I left us with a hundred thousand lives ago.
---
OK. "Biggest" is hyperbolic. How about "ONE OF THE BIGGEST LIES" and ANOTHER BIG LIE" I'm too lazy to edit myself.
from
http://www.tpmcafe.com/comments/2005/8/24/152222/549/25#25
August 25, 2005 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The cost is yours. The cost is mine, The cost is your children's and your children's children's cost.
Failure is no longer an option.
Failure is a fact and Larry Johnson only scratches the surface. We cannot win. We can only lose more the longer we stay.
Rosie's moved....no forwarding addresss.
Make the pyre higher is no solution. Staying the course to ever deeper defeat is not strong. It is not right. It is not patriotic. It is psychotic.
Get real...get out...get over the fact that failure hasn't been optional for two years.
Who Will Say "NO MORE"?
Gary Hart
I have.
It takes a clear eye and a spine.
That's not too much to ask Americans on the home front now is it.
August 25, 2005 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you think they're drafting my daughter to die because Bush is a moron and you're ticked at some Young Republican chickenhawk -- think again!
August 25, 2005 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Johnson,
Thank you for the comprehensive reality analysis. My personal feeling was pulling out would be a disaster, even though I never supported the Iraq war, because the end result would be civil war. After digesting the facts laid out in your analysis I have changed my mind. I got caught in the game every bad situation can be turned into a good situation. Not the case in Iraq.
Oh one other thing GO MIZZOU!!
August 25, 2005 3:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is a little like stock market investing-you have to be hard-headed about pruning your losers from your portfolio and taking the loss. America lost Vietnam, but went on to unparalled power and world leadership until 2001.
August 25, 2005 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our hope for a constitution was that the North and the South, together with moderate Sunni elements would agree to join forces against the Sunni insurgents and take over our failing attempt to pacify the Sunni areas of Iraq. All of those hopes fell apart when the Kurds stood fast for regional autonomy including a big share of oil money and then the key Shia partners said 'OK then we want something like that too'.
Suddenly rather than a pact to take over the occupation of the Sunni areas, the constitution has become a partition agreement designed to prevent a civil war against the Sunni areas. The whole exit strategy falls apart as soon as there is the prospect that the south can have its own army and its own source of revenue. The new autonomous areas will use their oil money to build armies and support.
The recent outbreak of fighting between Sader forces and SCIRI (Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq) in the south shows that the Baghdad-based Sader army understands that such a partition would leave Sader City to fend for itself against the Sunni forces.
The whole idea of training Iraqis to occupy the Sunni areas was based on the idea that there would be a central government that would feel that that was necessary to its existence. As soon as the real power devolves to regional entities then it starts to look unlikely that they would be willing to support the continued occupation of the Sunni heartland themselves. There is no oil there and those people have really learned to fight. And any attempt by Shia and Kurd forces to take up the fight would probably require US close air support which would make it impossible to pretend that their forces were being anything other than proxies of the US.
So the military/diplomatic bottom line is that we are screwed in Iraq. But the political bottom line is that the Republicans are going to be casting about wildly for a way to turn a Republican Defeat into a Democratic Retreat. We can't let them get away with it. The Democrats need to stay the course of not being the ones to declare defeat but rather just calling on the administration to show that it has a plan to win and demanding that Republican lawmakers hold hearing designed to examine the situation we have been gotten into.
There will not be such hearings, but the refusal of the Republicans to hold them can be a proxy for the war issue without committing the Democrats to declaring a defeat.
August 25, 2005 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Vietnam ended Pol Pot.
Over a beer one evening in Hanoi in 2000 one of my Vietnamese friends said of his country's intervention in Cambodia, "The mistake we made was that we stayed too long."
Even if one supported the Iraq war at the start (I didn't), the time has come to admit that, as others in this thread have noted, there is no winning strategy. Discussions of what the US might have done to make a success of this immoral adventure strike me as entirely beside the point. Even if one supported the war, clearly, you have to admit that we have stayed too long.
August 25, 2005 5:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two Realities.
Reality One:
This is a fair analysis.
Reality Two:
True or not, it is meaningless because Bush and his supporters would have to eat a mountain of you know what before they might accept the conclusions. The political loss to Bush and the Republican Party would be too great. They can never admit they messed this up.
There is a slim chance that enough Republicans in Congress might switch sides if this came down to a contest between the WH and Congress. Things would have to get notably hotter for the requisite Congresspersons to change their minds about continuing to support Iraq operations. Their careers would have to be clearly in jeopardy before that will happen.
The mood of the country will have to turn far more ugly before the powers that be feel compelled to do an about face. Bush & Co have dug in their heels and won't be easily moved. I think much more so than in the VietNam era. Capitulation is a thoroughly ruinous option and they know that.
Bush & Co have forged themselves a mighty hook. Ultimately they'll be hung on it. But not before the fat lady sings a really sad song.
thepeoplechoose
August 25, 2005 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am a little pressed for time at the moment so just a very short post on Johnson's long interesting post. Mr.Johnson says a withdrawal from Iraq now (or soon) will be viewed as an American defeat. I disagree strongly. The American defeat has already occurred and it is serious and profound. It is hard to recall the early period in which American war planners drunk with their sense of power filled the American discourse with domination of air, mother of all bombs, shock and awe, for all to hear in the heady days after the fall of Baghdad. That was when we were threatening Syria and Iran and basically acting like all we had to do was give the hard stare for the next "bad" guy to fall into line. There were 100 American deaths and thoughts of reducing forces. As we know declaring victory was premature. But it is the long drawn out insurgency, the demonstration that even absent a Vietnamese jungle for cover, a rebel force using improvised tactics can strike blow after blow and checkmate a superpower that constitutes the essential part of the American defeat. Even if we could now "win", and this really does require a long discussion, we have in any case already demonstrated for all to see thel imits of the American power. That is a profound defeat.
August 25, 2005 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post once again. The range of exit strategies must be contemplated in terms of a persuasive definition of victory. We either pursue real victory or we get out. Real victory has been a phantasm for some time given the calamatous cascade of bad decisions from going into Iraq in the first place through the entirety of our efforts there. So there is only one choice: expedited departure.
The reason this isn't happening? Domestic US politics, pure and simple. American soldiers and Iraqis are dying to cover Bush's ass, to help him look tough and not admit a mistake. He and his type can't afford a split second of self reflection for fear that the black chasm within will consume the thin mantle of hyposcrisy that protects them from its full force. As it is within the person, so too with the body politic. One blink and they are afraid the Big Lie will unravel along with their political power, their plundering of America's treasury, and G_d willing, their liberty.
The Hague is too good for them.
Thanks again Larry for your cold eye, and courageous voice.
August 25, 2005 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's why we have . . . draft resistance! Remember? One function of the draft is to focus the distracted multitudes of this great nation to think seriously about what the hell we are asking our sons and daughters to die for--not our janitors' and cashiers' and security guards' sons and daughters . . . "And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for?"
August 25, 2005 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Leaving Iraq would be a huge mistake. When Mr. Johnson says there will be a civil war after we leave, he is being optimistic. What really would happen would be worse than many of you expect.
If the US left Iraq, the Kurds would declare break away immediately from Iraq. While that in itself isn't a bad thing, it would make Turkey unhappy. (Turkey is worried because it is afraid its large Kurdish population will attempt to break away if there is a independent Kurdish state) It would not be surprising if Turkey and the new Kurdish state get into a real war. (Unlike the current situation in Iraq)
While a war brewed to the north, the Sunni tribes and the Shiites would also start to fight. Because some Sunnis are convinced they are the majority, and because others want to return to the period of Sunni domination of Iraq, the Sunnis and Shiites another war would break out. Since the Sunnis are better armed and the Shiites have a greater population, it is unclear what the result of that mess would be, but it would clearly be destructive.
To prevent those two wars, and to stabilize the region it is imperative that US forces remain in Iraq despite the obvious disadvantages of having US forces in harms way.
August 25, 2005 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never supported the war and I still don't understand how the Pentagon, after ten years of planning to go back to Iraq, screwed up.
Don't go blaming this fiasco on the Pentagon. Franks' original invasion plan called for 500,000 men. No, the blame for this lies squarely in the political decisions taken by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. They wanted as small a force as possible in order in order to make it easier to sell to the American people. When things began to go off the rails, "staying the course" became necessary to preserve the fiction of Bush as the Churchillian model of resoluteness and courage so as not to damage his reelection chances.
ALL the poor decisions in this war have been taken for political reasons, overruling the judgment of the professional military and diplomatic corps.
The irony here is of course rich. It is a given in conservative thought that the reason the US lost in Vietnam was Johnson's meddling in the military decisonmaking. But, as with so many aspects of conservative thinking, how much they care about this depends on whose ox is being gored.
August 25, 2005 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is very close to the nub of it. While I admire Larry Johnson for (among many other things) his clear-eyed analysis of where things stand, I have to ask what his choice would be between two broad scenarios: A) We, having been placed irrevocably in the path of Iraq's fate by our president, face up to our responsibility to limit the catastrophe--that is, we lose, and we leave, and we leave behind a Shiite Islamist theocracy but manage (hopefully! not certainly!) to prevent genocide, or B) we cut and run, Saigon '75 style, and a civil war ensues in which, say 1.5 million civilians are slaughtered and 5 million driven from their land--just guessing--over, say, the next two years, and a regional war ensues that enflames the region from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea. I think the test of seriousness is to contemplate that choice, and I don't know how one can avoid the conclusion that Bush must be forced to pursue the former option. As John Rainwater and Fred from Vermont point out elsewhere here, this is the responsible Democratic response to the disaster that Bush has set in train--we must not run from it or give the Bolshevik Republicans the old stab-in-the-back narrative. They have to stand and deliver. And to make them do so, we have to ask our sons and daughters to persevere in this largely thankless task. I don't say this lightly. A neighbor--he joined the Army in the wake of an Internet start-up flameout--was just killed in Baghdad three weeks before coming home to his wife and eight-month-old daughter, whom he saw just once. This is what Bush hath wrought. He must be impeached. But in the meantime, we have to find our way to the least disastrous exit from Iraq--the least catastrophic loss, for that is what it surely is--that we can. Cheers to all these fine posts. They make me feel hopeful that America will indeed come to grips with this monstrous crime and its consequences.
August 25, 2005 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be most concerned with doing "the right thing" at this point. That would include not making military bases in Iraq, and divesting ourselves of any profit from this venture. And removing our forces from where they aren't welcome, if this was a liberation war. Thats the current billing right? liberation?
I'm not really too concerned about how it makes us look.
August 25, 2005 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The scenario you present is quite plausible, but the conclusion you draw -- that the US must stay in Iraq -- does not necessarily follow. First, the current American force structure in Iraq cannot prevent the scenario from playing out in any case. Second, staying in Iraq will exacerbate & extend the current insurgency. There are no good options. The least bad option is to withdraw, bring some international peacekeeping forces into the country, and to pursue a humble round of diplomacy while organizing massive aid for rebuilding what we have destroyed.
August 25, 2005 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
BAGHDAD (AFP) - The Iraqi parliament has cancelled a meeting to vote on the country's draft constitution.
The Americans seem to have gotten themselves into an intractable mess in Iraq. They must now choose between a historical debacle if they hang on and a temporary setback if they let go.
"We cannot leave Iraq before it is stabilized," declared a former CIA officer. But to maintain a prolonged foreign occupation of Iraq is to destabilize it only further. Once the invader departs, there will no doubt be a civil war, which will accelerate the dismemberment of the nation, giving rise to a fundamentalist regime, which will make at least some people miss the era of Saddam.
On the other hand, if the occupation persists, one can foresee a multifaceted terrorist escalation eating away at U.S. forces and aggravating ethnic and religious divisions. The Americans will bring in reinforcements, including Fijians and Norwegians. They'll talk of the final fifteen minutes and of last gasps. A coup d'etat or uprising will be inspired in Teheran (terrain more favorable to the West than Iraq is) but with irritating repercussions in Najaf, which will be transformed into a base of retreat for vengeful ayatollahs. The Americans will cling to Iraq as "useful" and ensconce themselves inside supposedly unbreachable bastions. Then, as the death toll mounts by the hundreds, the "bring the boys home" movement will spread like an oil slick across the United States, and a new, Democratic administration will make the prudent decision to stop the hemorrhaging when the vital interests of the United States are not at stake. But how many lives will be ruined in the meantime?
"The Indispensable Nation"
Regis Debray
Let the mighty Eagle SOAR Amen
August 25, 2005 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thnks for your post. A visit to your website, the billboard project, is recommended to all.
The ability of Bush supporters to deal in absolutes in a world that is filled with gray never ceases to amaze me. I'm sure it has to do with the desire to avoid the insecurity that comes with ambiguity. It's always easier if you don't have to deal with such questions.
August 25, 2005 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are in a staring contest between the two parties on who is going to seriously propose a draft first. Right now, the "Drop everything and leave crowd" are not seen as a legitimate force. In Middle America, the party that is seen as leaving might as well tattoo the moniker " These Colors Run" across their forehead. That won't sell in Des Moines, Iowa, Boise Idaho, Columbus Ohio, Birmingham Alabama, or Asheville NC. Who can explain that we have lost?
That is why the rhetoric stays the same coming out of the White House, that is why they can't come up with a new slogan. What can they say? "We have made a tremendous mistake by not putting enough troops and armor on the ground. We thought that by decapitating the regime we would be able to bring order to Iraq. That has not been the case. We will need to signifigantly increase troop levels and the intensity of the conflict in order to eradicate the extremists from the area. Innocent lives will be lost, Americans will have to sacrifice mightily, and in the end we will prevail."
Try to sell that on the street corner. No White House that is this political can even sell it in a closed cabinet meeting much less to the fat and comfortable American people.
Cue sh*t, cue fan. Ladies and gents it is going to get much worse before the admin levels with the American people.
August 25, 2005 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was such a great post -- I am not educated on the situation in Iraq and I learned so much from what Larry Johnson wrote. And that is the problem.
No one is going to get this kind of information in the mainstream media, it is just not going to happen. Perhaps the New York Times will do a thoughtful piece on this, but I live in New York City and when I take the subway to work I see most people reading either the Post or, worse, "AM" or "Metro" -- two patched together free papers that make the Post look like Proust.
How on earth can this information be given to the regular jane and joe on the street who still believes Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Our media is not telling the American people plainly and in one voice what is happening in Iraq, so Americans can cherry-pick whichever version makes them feel better. And of course our politicians are doing the same. We now have only Senators Hagel and Feingold stepping out from the herd, but that is not enough.
And once again -- and I have seen this over and over -- this kind of post is doing the Bush Administration's thinking for them. If I could have one wish it would be that the entire opposition to this administration, from every walk of life, educational level, political affiliation would hammer over and over again just a few simple questions to their elected representatives and to the media:
1. What is the goal of this endeavor in Iraq?
2. How are we going to pay for it ultimately?
3. What is happening to the oil in Iraq? Who is guarding it? Who is profiting from it? (and of course, provide the documentation for that)
4. How are you going to get more troops once the Reservists are finished with their stint? Will there be a draft? Enlistment is down, so how are you going to get the troops you need?
The media should be asking these questions over and over, but they are not. We are going to start having to ask them. There are so many brilliant people who can come up with brilliant strategies of what can be done in Iraq and what cannot be done. None of that is useful without the American people behind it. I am very frustrated, so apologize for the disorganized writing.
August 25, 2005 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will there be a huge, bloody civil war when (you'll note I didn't say "if") we leave Iraq? Of course. It doesn't matter how long we stay--and as such, we might as well pull out now, to prevent more soldiers from dying for nothing.
August 25, 2005 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
While you raise a good point, you fail to understand that our military is the only thing holding back the possibilities that I suggest. If we increase our troop presense, we will be able combat the insurgents more effectively.
The least bad option is to withdraw, bring some international peacekeeping forces into the country, and to pursue a humble round of diplomacy while organizing massive aid for rebuilding what we have destroyed.
This simply won't work. The moment we withdraw, the situation will escalate immediately. However, I agree with your next suggestion, namely bringing in international peacekeeping forces. To get the UN to participate we would need to give the UN full control of Iraq and perhaps more. While getting the UN more involved is a goal we should strive for, I doubt its plausibility. The UN will be hesitant to get involved in the mess we created.
Sadly, while we aim to get international aid for Iraq, this remains far-fetched. Our narrow-minded president has led us down a path with two horrible choices. Either we stay or millions die in Iraq.
August 25, 2005 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that to retain any semblence of national honor-- what we owe the people of Iraq is this: Although I don't feel a shred of responsibility for the fact that they hate each other, We did topple the stabilizing influence that kept them from being at civil war. So we broke that. Hands-in-the-cookie jar.
Since we lied about why we were there I think at the very least we can return that to them, and be on our way. So this invasion crime continues to cost us, even now. And it will continue to cost us, until we put in place something with the power to provide them with the security they had before. If that part of the world means that it has to be islamist, then they have traded an islamist state for a dictatorship, and I dont feel all that bad, although I do feel bad about forcing that trade on them.
A little late now for regrets, but at this point we are left with doing what we can, and getting out of their faces.
Bush is the invader, along with Blair, and as part of all this, I want to see him at the Hague to answer to the people of Iraq and the world, because he obviously orchestrated this whole thing for his own ends, not for the good of the United States.
He should be made to answer for his lies. He was responsible and he blew it. He needs to burn brightly for it.
Yes, we are spending troops badly, but I dont see how we can not spend them. We have to take responsibility for our leader's actions. That means many of our soldiers-- many of us-- will die horribly. We also owe it to the people of Iraq to do this in a reasonable time. We are acting as occupiers until then, and that's unacceptable. We can't keep a country under military supervision-- that in itself will incite more crimes against these people. We owe them a reasonable date when we are going to leave. Two years sounds reasonable to get a stabilizing force into place. If thats not enough time, we can re-evaluate then.
Will there be violence and challenge for the government that takes over? oh yeah. But they all hate each other, let them figure it out. Peace between those groups is not our problem. Giving them back what our wayward son Bush took from them is now our problem. Time to pay for these expensive lies. Everyone take out your wallets, and bring your children forward.
We also should divest ourselves of any bases we plan to make there.
August 25, 2005 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seeing an old map of the World containing the name United Arab Republic - a union of Syria and Egypt - made me wonder about the possibility of Iraq splitting up with the oil-rich Shi'ite region joining Iran. The resulting Shi'ite nation would represent over 7% of current oil production and over 20% of proven oil reserves.
I have no idea whether such a thing is likely but I suspect that it must represent a nightmare scenario for the U.S.
August 25, 2005 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gambler, you say we have been led down a path with "two horrible choices," but we apparently disagree about which one is horribler. I just don't see the current American presence lending any kind of fungible "stability" & while the current instability is different from the sort you project should we withdraw, I don't think withdrawal will be worse, just different. As for more troops, all that would do is lock the US into an unwinnable war even more firmly. And where would they come from? A draft? Nothing good can happen while we occupy the country & all occupations have to end sometime. In this case, the sooner the better. The Iraqis are going to have to take responsibility for Iraq at some point & a US withdrawal just might force the various factions toward working out pragmatic agreements. Actually, I think the most likely outcome will be a greatly expanded role for Iran in the region. You remember Iran, charter member of the Axis of Evil? Thanks, Mr. President.
August 25, 2005 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I would love to see us withdraw from Iraq in a phased 6 month timeframe, it will NOT happen on Bush's watch. Unfortunately, the majority of this country is NOT willing to admit defeat. While many of them might agree things are not going well and we might be behind in the score, there is still time left in the "game" for a comeback.
Like it or not calls for withdrawal will produce a serious backlash and not alter Bush's course at all. We will stay, the sectarian split of Iraq will get worse, thousands more soldiers will die and Iraq will become a worse wasteland than it already is. A couple years from now we will see Kudish uprisings in Turkey, Iran and Syria as Kurdistan tries to consolidate, the Saudi's and Syria will become embroiled in helping their Sunni brothers and the Shite's consolidate with Iran.
It is only when the Mideast is in flames, with the price of oil in excess of $100/barrel will George Bush be over-ruled by Congress and the US military. I think Bush is genetically incapable of ever admitting defeat in Iraq and he will do everything in his power to keep from losing face - no matter the cost in lives or treasure. Unfortunately, there are enough Americans willing to back Bush to keep this debacle going through at least 2008.
August 25, 2005 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you underestimate the damage that would be caused by leaving Iraq. Leaving Iraq would weaken our position in the Muslim community further. If we remain strong in Iraq, and attempt to provide food/electricity/fresh water to Iraqis, moderate Muslims will be sympathetic to the US. On the other hand, if we leave now, we would abandon the Iraqis, thus weakening our position in the Islamic World. Your proposal will lead unstable Middle East, increased terror threats, and incredible gas prices.
By staying in Iraq but attempting to collaborate more closely with the UN, we will strengthen our position among our traditional NATO allies and at the same time gain the support of moderate Muslims in the Middle East.
How many millions should die to bring our soldiers home? If we stay, we will right our wrongs but pay the price in thousands of American lives but if we leave will abandon Iraq to wars whose casulties will easily be in the 100,000's. (Think about all of the wars that will clearly occur, including potential uprisings in Turkey, and an Iranian presense in Iraq.)
August 25, 2005 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
And after we have shed the blood of our sons and daughters in trying to create a new government that will be controlled by Islamists, those Islamists will ultimately insist that we leave Iraq and no longer meddle in their affairs.
Not to also mention that such islamic fundamentalists will take away women's rights, which under Saddam were pretty good in comparison to the arab world in general. Now that would be some reward for the mom's of all those dead American soldiers that the death of their children was so that women in Iraq could be less free. Is there nothing this Bush guy can do right??
August 25, 2005 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
DLC
Dying for Israel
You find anti-Semitism in the strangest of places – the Democratic Leadership Council, for example. Perusing the online pages of Blueprint, the DLC house organ, I came upon this filthy piece of anti-Semitic propaganda from Will Marshall, the head of the Progressive Policy Institute and a well-known DLC fellow traveler:
"As they catalogue the administration's many mistakes, Democrats should also attend to the other side of the balance sheet. That side shows that our forces and their allies have toppled one of the world's most odious tyrants; upheld the principle of collective security; liberated a nation of 24 million; made possible Iraq's hopeful experiment in representative self-government; and changed the strategic equation in the Arab-Israeli conflict." (emphasis added)
I have to say, I find this very disturbing. Marshall appears to be arguing that one of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq (and the deaths of 1,871 U.S. soldiers and counting) was to further the military and strategic interests of the state of Israel. Our brave men and women in uniform, in other words, are dying for Israel – or so this purveyor of vicious anti-Semitic slurs would like us to believe.
August 25, 2005 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Vietnam comparisons become popular with the public during the 2004 election, and in part decided the outcome. Some say Bush’s ideology taken to conclusion is providing proof of it’s merits.
However, despite that MSM pundits for years have generally avoided and downplayed Vietnam comparisons as simplistic and populist. That disdain even seemed a prerequisite sophistication, a necessary credential for pundits to address the war credibly. Now, suddenly everything has changed. Vietnam analogies abound. Here are some questions about that:
Where was the opinion tipping point? Is it simply fatigue or a profound realization which has recently swung the public and pundit opinion?
Was the war always Vietnam-like on the macro scale? General concerns (4 Star even) predating the war were prescient; regarding fatigue, civilian casualties, insurgencies and martyrdom as a powerful force, and inter-cultural wars fueling global strife and militancy.
Have we sufficiently understood asymmetrical warfare, including global conflicts and Iraq? Not only regarding defeating them, but also helping unify them in common cause.
Can troop strength and technological advantage defeat a populist and determined opponent? i.e. can force ever quell passion? Analogous to contained explosions making nuclear explosions.
380,000 troops to “win” … is that sincere, or a rhetorical technique to underline the futility of it all? Honestly, in light of hawkish arguments on Vietnam “win” scenarios continuing to influence our FP, esp. considering “opening salvos” on Iraq from the American Legion today.
Is outright extermination of insurgent populations the logical conclusion of force expansion vs. asymmetrical warfare taken to extremes? Is that palatable or possible, esp in the information age?
Is the rumored/reported “Tet offensive” in Iraq likely? Sooner or later?
What do statements from our media tell us about their predictive utility? Is our MSM predictive? Or simply in the CYA game? (not referring to Johnson)
Who will “win” the domestic ideological war on wars, or is that one for the history books after Iraq?
August 25, 2005 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
VLaslo- I'm not even sure if i agree, but you do make one of the most unique arguments on Iraq, an important one. What does "winning" mean?
Does it have to be a dominant succes of force? Or can it be a "win" to better uphold our values, and better define our FP? Can a less hostile theocracy for example be considered a "win" over a totally hostile theocracy if those are the only options.
Could for example the next president proudly declare the US has learned valueable lessons from Iraq, is changing our FP course to optimaly balance of the carrot and stick, and claim victory? Not just of that situation, but for the future of US foreign policy?
BTW, to me that's a no brainer, I'd call it a victory. But would most of America? Could the case be made?
August 25, 2005 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The American defeat has already occurred and it is serious and profound.
True. The world knows this. Only Americans don't.
August 25, 2005 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This should be a mantra. It should be repeated over and over and over and over so that Americans, ever practical and small "c" conservative Americans, begin to see what Emperor Bush and the neocons are selling them -- an imperial future of unlimited costs and fantasy benefits.
Iraq is important as an object lesson on the present and future costs of this ideology. The problem is much larger than Iraq alone. The neocon philosophy must be defeated.
August 25, 2005 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Bolton is currently trying to destroy the UN. See Reed Hundt's post from this evening. The only possible way to improve the situation in Iraq is for the US to withdraw. One of my best online friends, Shelley Powers, agrees with you. Here is the link to her post & my extended comment in response.
August 25, 2005 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been working with US military special operations forces for years. Guys were telling me more than one year ago that Iraq was Vietnam with no jungle and no water buffalo. The critical similarity is the failure of Washington based leaders to understand the cultural and military situation on the ground.
Larry Johnson
August 25, 2005 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The critical similarity is the failure of Washington based leaders to understand the cultural and military situation on the ground.
Couldn't agree more. Compounding that was the vetting or suppression of dissenting voices, including Shinseki and White for starters. Where are the high level critics now? It seems their stories are long overdue in the MSM.
Iraq is starting to resemble Nigeria. Will we keep the bases against conventional actions by Iran? Will the paramilitaries guard the oil then?
August 25, 2005 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the point about the Bush Administration demonstrating a complete lack of understanding regarding the cultural and military situation on the ground in Iraq is absolutely correct, sadly exemplified by the outrages at Abu Ghraib.
<span>
Any hope of defeating the Iraqi insurgency was pretty much gone after Abu Ghraib came to light last year, imho. I believe that to many Iraqis, the goals of the American-led invasion and occupation may have been tolerable in spite of the loss of Iraqi life (which is at least in the tens of thousands) along with the massive physical destruction caused by the bombing, shelling, and subsequent looting that the U.S. failed to prevent. That Bush's original WMD rationale for Operation Iraqi Freedom was subsequently revealed to be bogus wouldn't have mattered had he been able to deliver on his promise of a better life for the average Iraqi. Bush told the Iraqi people that America invaded their country not merely to find the (non-existent) WMDs, but also to liberate them from a tyrant and bring them the blessings of freedom. However, once Iraqis saw the photos of American soldiers torturing and humiliating other Iraqis in the very same prison that Saddam used to hold his political opponents, I think it was the final straw for anything even remotely close to a successful outcome for OIF.</span>
<span>
I pose the following queries not as a rhetorical anti-American rant, but rather as serious questions that I believe need to be answered by those who would argue that America must continue to commit more blood and treasure in order to “fix” the mess created by Bush and company. Given the debacle of the last two and a half years, I ask why anyone would think that the Iraqi people want the United States and President Bush to continue fixing Iraq? At this point, what reason would your average Iraqi have to trust the word of the American government (or at least of President Bush) ever again? How could you expect any self-respecting Iraqi not to hate (or at least not trust) America after Abu Gharib? Ask yourself how would Americans feel about a country that allowed (and perhaps even ordered) its soldiers to torture and humiliate U.S. POW's and civilians? Do you think Americans would want its political leaders to trust and work with that country?</span>
August 25, 2005 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"When you say leave Iraq now, what do you mean?"
What I mean by "pull out now" is impeach Bush and Cheney, throw out as many incombents as possible who knew or should have known that they were lying about the war, and then create a withdrawal plan.
I don't think there's any way to withdraw by choice before that. We might find ourselves doing something more like a Dunkirk or Stalingrad before then, but that doesn't need any planning by voters or politicians.
At this point it seems almost inconcievable that we could suffer significant military reverses, but consider -- our resupply is heavily dependent on air transport. We ship critical supplies into the big bases by air and then move them to smaller bases by helicopter. If anybody gave the iraqis significant numbers of weapons that could shoot down our helicopters, we would be in trouble. We're doing so much air supply because we couldn't do it on the roads, and if we couldn't do it by air either we'd have to evacuate the smaller bases and concentrate our forces in areas where we controlled secure airfields.
So far nobody has given the iraqis significant weapons. If anybody played the game we did against the russians in afghanistan we'd lose a lot quicker than the russians did. It isn't unlikely we'd lose 3000 men in a month.
If we were forced to pull out of iraq, could Bush etc cast that as not his fault? He didn't know that iran/russia/china/whoever would act against us. They are now our most bitter enemies and we have to pay them back. Could he pull that off? I think the issue for the Bush administration now is to find somebody to blame it on, more than to get out or to get some sort of acceptable conclusion. If we could blame the defeat on some outside force would we forget that Bush had no clue how to get anything but a defeat regardless?
August 26, 2005 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"This is what Bush hath wrought. He must be impeached. But in the meantime, we have to find our way to the least disastrous exit from Iraq--the least catastrophic loss, for that is what it surely is--that we can."
You have left me confused what you're proposing.
Yes, we need to impeach Bush. That's unlikely before the 2006 elections, and in 2007 it will take considerable time, call it 6 months minimum. By that time the situation on the ground in iraq is likely to have clarified a lot.
So are you saying that in the meantime we should support Bush in "staying the course"? Do you have any reason whatsoever to think that will reduce the chance of the various horrible outcomes you're afraid of?
In the short run it doesn't matter what you do, you will have no influence on the war while Bush is running it. Why do you want to destroy your own credibility by supporting him?
August 26, 2005 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If the US left Iraq, the Kurds would declare break away immediately from Iraq. While that in itself isn't a bad thing, it would make Turkey unhappy. (Turkey is worried because it is afraid its large Kurdish population will attempt to break away if there is a independent Kurdish state) It would not be surprising if Turkey and the new Kurdish state get into a real war."
Maybe. It isn't certain that the kurds would break away immediately. They'd do it if it looked too ridiculous to stay, and if it looked like it would be too hard to break away later.
It isn't at all certain that the turks would invade. Let's see. On the one side they have the chance to get into the EU. On the other side they have the chance to get 5 million more kurds to occupy, this bunch already armed and trained. Maybe if they thought they could keep the oil? But then what about the UN? The UN didn't object very much when we invaded iraq, we had some kind of excuse and we said we weren't staying. If turkey invades a neighboring country without a good excuse will the UN object?
Similarly, it isn't clear that the sunnis are better armed today. And it isn't clear that anybody has the transport to do big well-armed fighting away from home. So if there was a lot of sectarian violence it would be more likely a degree of ethnic cleansing, people "persuading" the guys they don't like to move where people like them more. That would lead to sharper borders. Not a good thing, but what are we doing to stop it now in, say, Kurkuk? We're doing zilch.
What do you think we're doing, anyway, that's so good for iraqis?
August 26, 2005 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
a.) Continue to "stay the course," press for a constitution and work unsuccessfully to install some form of democracy in Iraq as the situation deteriorates.
b.) Realize that democracy is a pipe dream, that Iraq is tilting towards the worst case scenario (becoming a failed state), and throw America's full weight behind a fundamentalist Shia strongman...since Iran Jr. is still better than a Middle Eastern Somalia.
c.) Seek to exploit the public's disatisfaction with the war by "declaring victory" and beginning to withdraw troops before the 2006 midterms.
d.) All three.
I say d. Once the constitutional process fails, the Cheney Administration will identify a leader from the strongest faction (the Shia) and tell them to "take off the gloves" with the insurgents with full American backing. As this strongman takes control, Cheney will unleash the Rovian spin machine to create the perception that a democracy is being created when, in fact, a dictatorship is being installed. Once the dictator has cracked enough Sunni skulls to dull the insurgency, begin the withdrawal in mid-2006 while declaring a victory for freedom.
If thing go Cheney's way, the end result will be a vastly strengthened Iran...but no Middle Eastern Somalia.
August 26, 2005 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ooh, I don't believe it, but someone more cynical than me. Frankly, you are probably right, unfortunately.
August 26, 2005 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink