Absolutely right Ivo. There is a chance of success and it is important to stay until either it is achieved or it is impossible. No matter how badly we think and know Bush has performed, timetables for withdrawal would only compound mistakes already made, not to mention reinforcing the view that Democrats cannot be trusted on national security. When all is said and done, much credit will be given to Senate Democrats for holding the line and not giving into the base.

When all is said and done, there won't be many of those cowards left

A Shia Crescent: What Fallout for the U.S.?
October 14, 2005
Forty-first in the Capitol Hill Conference Series on U.S. Middle East Policy


Speakers: Juan Cole Professor of History, University of Michigan Kenneth Katzman Specialist in Middle East Affairs, Congressional Research Service Karim Sadjadpour Analyst, International Crisis Group Ray Takeyh Senior Fellow, Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations Moderator/Discussant: Chas. W. Freeman, Jr. President, Middle East Policy Council

Ivo. News Flash! Imperialism doesn't work! Out of Iraq now. As Cindy Sheehan says - not one more death, not one more dollar. Those who don't agree need to go over there and replace our troops. Next topic.

Let me get this straight.  You are suggesting we communicate the following message to Iraqis:

"We will stay engaged in Iraq (i.e. continue to occupy Iraq) only so long as we see a demonstrable commitment by all parties to the ongoing political process, and to resolving their political differences.  If, however, Iraqis fail to achieve the desired political outcome within six months, we will withdraw our troops."

Is that it?

Mr. Daalder, have you stepped through the looking glass?  Who exactly is this strange, topsy-turvy message intended to influence?  One might as well say: "if you sit down and behave, then I will continue to squeeze your balls, but if you punch me I will let go."  Who in their right mind would expect this approach to result in pacification rather than a punch?

Isn't it obvious that for those in Iraq whose chief goal is to get Americans out, such a message would now gives them a powerful new incentive to wreck the political process, rather than advance it?  The majority of Sunni Arabs who did participate in the recent referendum were driven to do so because they wanted to derail the constitution, even after the eleventh-hour concessions by the Kurds and Shiites.

Juan Cole cites in his column today a statement by Shaikh Mahmud Mahdi al-Sumaidaie, of the Association of Muslim Scholars.  The shaikh calls on his followers to participate in the upcoming elections, "so that we can safeguard Iraq, its mosques and its clerics, and so that we can end the rule of one sect without the others; and so that we can make a common stand and say to the Occupier, "Leave our country!" "  The motive for participation among the Sunni Arabs is to get us out.  If we say instead that we will "stay engaged" if the democratic process moves forward, we can kiss that process good-bye.

The Sunni Arabs overwhelmingly want us out, and as soon as possible.  That is because, despite their minority status, they like their chances in a post-occupation free-for-all.  The American occupation has only served to empower their political rivals.  As is surely obvious to all of them by now, the longer the US stays, the more likely it is that the Kurds and Shiite will continue to consolidate their political gains, and solidify their political control of Iraq, and Iraq's resources.

The Sunni Arabs were the overwhelmingly dominant component of Saddam's army, his fedeyeen, his intelligence services and his other security agencies.  They have weapons, military training, effective organizational networks and determination.  If we send them the paradoxical, wonderland message that we will stay indefinitely if they pursue the political path, but will leave if they fight harder and cause that process to fail, then they will reject politics and fight harder of course!

The message you and Senator Levin propose will only be compelling to that fragment of the Iraqi population who are actually afraid we will leave.  That is only a minority of Iraqis, and those Iraqis are already working with us in varying degrees.  Even most of the Shiite masses (as opposed to Baghdad-area politicos) want us out fast.  They hate us, and also don't need us, since they always have Iran to protect them from Sunni aggression.  Exactly what proportion of Iraqis do you imagine want us to stay "engaged"?

The Levin approach seems to be based on an absurdly exaggerated sense of US importance and prestige among Iraqis.  He imagines, despite overwhelming evidence that most Iraqis want us out, that if we threaten to leave, those Iraqis will say "No, please stay!  We'll be good!  We'll have elections and be democratic and fix the constiitution and all that other good stuff you want us to do!"  This is ridiculous.

Imagine a substitute teacher who is faced with a classroom or unruly and disruptive students in an algebra class, and who has been inflicting corporal punishment with his ruler.  And imagine the teacher says: "OK that's it!  If you settle down, I will stay here and continue to rap your knuckles with my ruler from time to time, and continue to teach you algebra.  But if you keep acting up, I will just leave, and you'll be on your own."

The disruptive students have just been told that if they sustain their efforts at sowing chaos, the teacher will actually abandon the classroom and they will get a day off.  Not only will they sustain their efforts, they will probably gain new allies in their war against the substitute.  The hypothesis that the teacher's "ultimatum" will succeed in getting the students to settle down is based on the highly dubious assumption that the disruptive students actually, in their hearts, want the teacher to stay, so they can continue to receive corporal punishment and learn algebra.

I don't think that the Sunni insurgents in Iraq actually want the US to stay in Iraq, to continue to meet out military chastisement, and teach them democracy.  They don't want our "engagement" - they want us out!  Isn't it obvious that, if we want the insurgents to stop fighting and to work for stability through a political process, then our clear message to them must be that that is the way to get us to leave?

Ok I've been rated a 1. So in an attempt to get a 5 I should do a complete reversal and say
1) imperialism is a wonderful 2) we should continue our military presence in Iraq until Ivo is content 3) even though this will result in the deaths of innumerable Americans and Iraqis, not to mention the wasted money 4) Cindy Sheehan has no courage & Hillary Clinton has plenty 5) those who are for this war should sit in comfort at home while our troops and Iraqis continue to get slaughtered.

If the following 5 ideas get me a 5 - no thanks I'll stick with my original post and my 1.

Not one more death! Not one more dollar!

I got that from Cindy Sheehan who feels that those who don't have "skin in the game" have a much more armchair view of this war than the participants. Since our military was sent there under false pretenses, those who accept that they need to fight this fight even though we were lied to should put their bodies were their principles are rather than have our military be held hostage by Bush's lies. They sure didn't sign up to be deceived by a Pres and VP who don't live up to the Scouts code of honor.

"... gives the insurgents every incentive to wait it out". 
Let's hope they do, if "wait it out" means decrease the current level of attacks. If the insurgents wait it out this gives Iraq a window to get things settled, form a stable government, etc. It gives  the governement a time window to prove to Iraqis that they can do it, and a window for Iraqis to choose the governement over the insurgents. 
Setting a timeline also gives notice to the Iraqi government that they had better get things in order before we leave. Without a time for pullout, their incentive is to stall. 
Finally, setting a timeline legitamizes the Iraqi government. It makes it clear that the US has no intention of staying. It makes it clear that the Irqui government will not be, forever, US puppets.

Levin, who's been more right on Iraq for a longer period than just about anyone else, has suggested that rather than setting a deadline for withdrawing now, we should link our commitment to remain militarily engaged in Iraq with a demonstrable Iraqi commitment to resolve their key political differences.

What would prevent the insurgents from playing along with this until the U.S. left, then re-starting their insurgency?  It's a timetable without a timetable, and it can be gamed in the exact same way.  

That's not the half of it Luigi. 

According to the Levin/Daalder plan, if the insurgency continues and the move toward stable democratic government is successfully stalled, then we leave in six months; but if the insurgency quiets down, and Iraq makes progress along the democratic path, then we stay engaged in Iraq beyond the six months.

Thus there is no reason for the insurgents to "play along" for six months in order to get us to leave, and then to restart the insurgency after we're gone.  According to the terms of the plan itself, firing up the insurgency and stalling the political process is the way to get us to leave sooner rather than later.

Curiouser and curiouser. 

we should stay engaged to help them succeed -- by providing security, training national security forces, and supporting economic and political efforts to reconstitute the Iraqi state.

Of course, the argument presumes our presence can achieve these things. I'm sure it is theoretically possible, but what data do we have to support the notion that the current leadership is up to these tasks? 

Under the Levin plan, what incentive could this more inclusive political coalition possibly offer to Iraqis in order to get them to join the coalition?  Are they to say "Please join our coalition.  The Americans have promised that, if we are successful, they will stay!"

This is a good point.  I don't have much of an argument with it, except that maybe it is a bit off my point.

Granting this point, you're probably right that the Levin plan doesn't  do much to peel away the violent opposition.  I think the question is what is going to be the character of the insurgency after we leave, however it is done.  

What I think needs to be avioded is a situation in which well-armed and trained remnants of the Ba'athist government are in position to continue a war with the aim of reestablishing power.  I don't know if it's likely that this could happen, but it would almost certainly lead to a wider civil war.  The question is, what course can we take that will end our involvement and at the same time make this outcome more likely?

I don't know if there's an answer.  It might be a timetable, it might be just to cut and run.  It might be Levin, but you're probably right that this plan won't do it.  Perhaps a hybrid of the two plans, with both carrot or stick: we'll leave on this timetable, or by this set of benchmarks, but we'll also leave if steps aren't taken to strengthen the political process.

I've rated up this comment, because it certainly didn't come from a troll, and certainly wasn't inappropriate.

I've rated up this comment, because it was pretty damn funny.

Curious how do you know what the Sunni Muslims want?  We know what Saddem's supporters and cronies might want but what about the Sunnis who have voted?

1) Tell the Iraqis we'll pull out if they don't behave.

2) Pull out.

3) Blame the Iraqis.

This is a sound political strategy.  It gets us out of Iraq, and it frames our getting out as "I quit!" rather than "You're fired!"  Which will be important down the road, when Republicans try to recycle the can't-trust-Dems-on-national-security theme in the form of "who lost Iraq?"

Hanging the failure on Bush won't work, because once he's gone he will vanish down the memory hole.  Americans won't want to be reminded that they ever bought into the guy, and you can't fight cognitive dissonance head-on; you need to finesse it.   

Is it unfair to blame the Iraqis for us invading them?  Of course, but so what?  Most of them just want to see the back of us; once we're gone, the last thing they'll care about is what we think of them.  They don't think much of us, either.

-- Rick