The view seems to be that Iraq is dysfunctional and that if US forces leave it will become even more dysfunctional, perhaps sliding further down the path to civil war. The problem I've always, always had with this argument is that it doesn't demonstrate anything unless you can also make the case that keeping our troops there will solve the problem.

Would you say this about missions in Bosnia, Kosovo?  (Aren't there still SFOR peacekeepers in Bosnia?  The Dayton accords were in 1995)  Would you say this about the peace-keeping troops in Sudan--"Jeez, they're not solving the problem.  Therefore, we certainly shouldn't keep them there or put in more troops, we should pull them all out."  Of course not.  Granted, how we got to this point is different in Iraq than in Afghanistan, than in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Sudan.  But in all cases, we're dealing with an external force trying to keep sectarian violence from flaring into open warfare and mass casualties.  Isn't it usually the left that accuses America of being impatient?

The United States does not technically have a responsibility to help these factions "get along."  Our obligation is to restore infrastructure, assist in the development of the new government, and train an Iraqi security force.  If civil war does indeed become a reality, the U.S. military has no obligation to meddle in that affair.  It appears, thankfully, that our commanders agree with that assessment.  Depending on the severity of the civil war (which hopefully will never come to fruition), the American responsibility may be greatly decreased if the new government fails and/or the trained security force dissolves into their various religious sects.  In this instance, infrastructure restoration becomes the only obligation facing the United States.  As a consequence, many troops could be brought home.  In point of fact, however, this is very unlikely.  Bush has staked too much in this war to allow it to sink into civil war.  Our troops would likely remain in the country--even if only hunkered down in the Green Zone.  But the point remains: an Iraqi civil war presents a great opportunity (and a legitimate excuse) to reduce troop numbers in the country.

Bush has staked too much in this war to allow it to sink into civil war.

Of what relevance is Bush's personal stake in the conflict? This seems to be the same fallacy that Matt pointed out. Bush may not want to "allow" civil war, but his strength of will does not override reality. Either it's possible to avoid civil war or it is not. And if it is not, then it doesn't matter whether "Bush has staked too much" or even if our nation as a whole (note: "L'Etat c'est moi" is not in the constitution) has too much at stake.

Second, if it is possible, but it requires exorbitant national resources, then Bush may have so much at stake that he would work tirelessly to commit those thousands of lives and hundreds of billions more to see it through. That doesn't mean that we as a nation have to let him.

C'mon. Agree or disagree with the invasion/occupation, your expectations for how quickly Iraq should have functioning institutions that can gird against a civil war are unreasonable.

Our obligation is to restore infrastructure,

Which after three years is not restored... 

assist in the development of the new government,

Which after three years is not developed... 

and train an Iraqi security force.

Which after three years is not trained.

But we'll probably turn the corner any day now...

Dissent Protects Democracy

The problem I've always, always had with this argument is that it doesn't demonstrate anything unless you can also make the case that keeping our troops there will solve the problem.

I rarely agree with Brad the Dad, but I do in this case.  Matt's analysis is a bit too simplistic here. 

Suppose 500 people are being killed a month in Iraq, in part due to the US presence, but 5000 would be killed each month if we left, then that is certainly one reason for staying.

Similarly, suppose casualties continue to accelerate if we stay, but they accelerate at a slower pace than they would if we left, then we have another good reason for staying.

Of course the crucial question is just what would happen if we leave.  Would things get worse?  How much worse?  These are certainly tough problems of estimation.  But we do have to do our best to try estimate the answers, in an intellectually honest way, if we are going to act responsibly.  These are the debates we should be having; but it is not adequate to say that we should get out of Iraq simply because our presence is not solving the problem.  Regrettably, our choices may now be between living with a bad problem and causing a worse problem. 

Gettysburg's argument about the nature of our obligations toward Iraq raises important issues.  But frankly, whether we have an obligation to stay in Iraq, and under what circumstances, appears to be an increasingly moot point.  If all hell breaks loose in Iraq, if civil war erupts, if pipelines and wellheads are blown up all over the country, if arms smuggling, refugees and other kinds of spillover spark intervention from other countries in the region, and bring them to the point of conflict, if shipping is disrupted, then we can be quite certain that, even if we leave,  we are going to be right back in Iraq and other places in the region in no time.  In fact, I would say the most important consideration in favor of a continued US presence is to deter intervention by other countries.  Of course, I would much prefer if this kind of peacekeeping and deterrence operation coupld be carried out by some coalition of neutral countries.  But I don't see many takers lining up.

And I certainly wish we are not in this situation to begin with.  My dominant emotions about the situation in Iraq are anger and intense bitterness.  One of the reasons I was so opposed to this war was the fear of the kind of chaos the war would spread, and its potential to ignite a regional conflict.  But Bush did invade, stupidly and criminally in my book, and now we have to figure out how to deal with the consequences of that decision.  Some day, perhaps Bush and his lying cronies can be tried for war crimes and locked up.  But that is not going to fix the problem we are in.  The administration has blown a hole in the dike, and the water is rushing in.  We have to stop it - or at least slow it down.

Returning to Matt's discussion, it certainly would be good to find some way of solving the problem.  Does he have any suggestions?   He may alos have meant to suggest that a US withdrawal would leaves things no worse, and perhaps better, than they are now.  Does he have an argument for that conclusion?

The clerics hold the cards, and if they call for all out war, there is nothing our 160,000 troops in Iraq will be able to do to stop it.

I would argue that's quite wrong.  In fact, that is one of the things that our troops do exceedingly well.  In Afghanistan, we intervened on one side (the much weaker side, in fact) of a similar conflict in much more challenging terrain, and the more powerful force was routed by the weaker one with only a few U.S.  personnel on the ground to guide the smart bombs.

With the U.S. troops in the country, small scale guerilla operations are possible, but real military operations are not.  As it stands, the militias can engage in skirmishes, car-bombings, and the like, but not all out war.  With the U.S. out of the picture, the dynamic would change dramatically.

The solution is political, not military. Even our own Generals say this.

And the reality is, despite the purple fingertips, the Iraqis are not interested in politics. If it wasn't a mosque this week, it'd be a different mosque next week.

Just about the only thing the Iraqis can agree on is they don't like us.

A majority thinks it's OK to kill Americans. 80% want us out.

Perhaps we should oblige.

Dissent Protects Democracy

So who's side would we take? Or would we be an equal opportunity bomb dropper?

And in my book, guerrilla war counts as war.   

Dissent Protects Democracy

Towards the end of the aborted presidency of John Kennedy he was asked how he thought we could successfully pull out of Vietnam, something Kennedy was intent on doing. He said, "Simple, just get them to ask us to leave."  Unfortunately, the power structure in Iraq will never ask us to leave.  One of the many blunders we made in Iraq was to encourage, in fact blatently support the return to Iraq of very rich Iraqi's, think Chalabi, and see to it they assumed positions of power in the government.  The Shiite population of Iraq, even though it is much larger than the Sunni population, is at the same time predominately poor, very poor.  In fact it has been so since the death of the prophet in the late 7th century.  They see themselves as marginalized, yet again, under the existing government, which explains their insurgency.  The Sunni insurgency is to be expected, given their numbers.  (We are not about to remove the likes of Chalabi because he insures our continuing hand in the oil pot.)  Given our track record, it's hard to believe that reconstruction can ever keep up with our blunders.  I'm afraid we can't win in Iraq, so it's merely a matter of when do we lose, the time of which we can control. 

C'mon. Agree or disagree with the invasion/ occupation, your expectations for how quickly Iraq should have functioning institutions that can gird against a civil war are unreasonable,

Ummm, are you talking about Matt or the Administration?

The insurgents can attack at will. The events of this week clearly show we're not doing anything to stop Iraqis from killing each other.

This is the fallacy at the heart of the liberal critique of the war: since attacks continue, it must mean that we are doing nothing. By that logic, how does any army win any war?  After all, as long as the enemy is able to attack, it must mean you're sitting around twiddling your thumbs.

Back in the real world, there are the real military operations, patrols, training of Iraqis and rebuilding projects going on that are very much contributing to Iraqis not killing each other.  That attacks continue does not in any way make these activities irrelevant.  It just means the job isn't done. 

There's so much to criticize in the way this war has been run without resorting to nonsensical statements like "we're not doing anything to stop Iraqis from killing each other."

So who's side would we take? Or would we be an equal opportunity bomb dropper?

Well, the government's side in general.  But in specific cases, the U.S. might veto a massive assault against the Sunni heartland by the predominantly Shia military.  But, in fact, the U.S. won't have to drop those bombs against tanks, artillery or masses of troops, because neither side will attempt use these things if the U.S. refuses to allow it.

And in my book, guerrilla war counts as war.   

I don't think is a question of of counting or not counting, it's a question of the numbers of casualties (which could be an order or two of magnitude higher with unrestrained civil war rather than sporadic, low-level guerilla fighting).

cscs

In all honesty, I would consider supporting a withdrawal if civil war erupts in Iraq.  Today's calls for peace by both Shiite and Sunni clerics, along with the daytime curfew, seems to have eased the tensions for the time being.  There is an excellent opinion piece in today's Wall Street Journal (2/24/06) in which the author, currently in Baghdad, states that U.S. efforts have visibly shifted from facing insurgents to training Iraqi military personell.  This is encouraging.  As recently as November we were seeing U.S. troops (with Iraqi troops participating in support) launching counter-insurgency operations on a large-scale.  This was troublesome simply because as long as our forces participate in such activities, al-Zarqawi is justified in retaliating.  I am glad our forces have stopped or slowed such operations because a less-visible U.S. force is not good for al-Zarqawi.  If civil war is avoided, we will begin to see troop reductions later this year.  I would say that is the best we can hope for.

Vic,

You said pretty much everything I wanted to say. The only thing I would add is that characterizing the Iraq War as "peacekeeping" is probably erroneous. What we are engaged in is a classic guerilla war. To be fair, it seems some one realized late in 2004, and changed our strategy accordingly, starting with the Battle of Fallujah.

As with any guerilla war, the end is unlikely to come quickly or with any finality. The primary danger is the loss of political will in the interim. I would guess that organized resistance will continue for about another three to five years, and violence will likely continue sporadically for at least another decade. This isn't a war I would've chose to start in the hindsight, but I agree that having kicked over the Iraqi applecart we are morally obligated to help pick up the apples.

Noel

But the overall point is the same: while Bush and Lieberman keep yelling Progress!, there has not been much.

Well that depends on your definition of "much", doesn't it?  Again, you are assuming because the job isn't done, there hasn't been much progress.  I tend to disagree. I think we've made quite a bit of progress, even though the country is far from stable.

Saying this does not in any way imply that I think we are near the end.  And I agree with you that the Bushies' constantly telling everyone that we're further along than we actually are is spectacularly dishonest.  But that doesn't mean there hasn't been progress.

But let's assume that progress is glacial, for the sake of argument.  You still have the question of what is the least bad option?  Which is worse: the continuing slow trickle of casualties and political polarization that our continued presence in Iraq causes or the removal of our forces and the country becomes a giant Lebanon - lawless, full of terrorists and a magnet for meddling regional powers.  Which is worse?  You haven't said.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

 Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Einstein

 September 5, 2003

Regis Debray, Le Figaro

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?

Upthread, mw attempted an analogy - Bosnia, Kosovo, Sudan:

Granted, how we got to this point is different in Iraq than in Afghanistan, than in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Sudan.  But in all cases, we're dealing with an external force trying to keep sectarian violence from flaring into open warfare and mass casualties.

First sentence, MW grants difference. The second, he takes it away. Kosovo and Bosnia are peace-keeping missions which were established to safeguard the Muslim provinces from "external" Serbian aggression.  In each case, the external force was introduced to stop mass killing and open warfare, a goal which was rather swiftly accomplished under UN not NATO Command. Neithre case is remotely comparable to Iraq or Afghanistan or Sudan for that matter where peacekeeping has been impossible in an open civil war.

By contrast, the US forces have been fighting as an Occupying Power and invader and since 2004 as mercenaries in a civil war between the Shia/Kurd dominated government and the Sunnis (with notable exceptions - the Mahdi Uprisings and the seriously deteriorating situation in Basra).  85% of Iraqis want us out. Yet we fight on with the following indisputable consequences:

• US troop presence fuels the insurgency
• It allows the Shiites to build militia control of the security forces
• It allows the Kurds to use their militia in a campaign of reverse cleansing in Kirkuk - preparation of the ground as it were for the upcoming referendum which when it passes secures an oil revenue source and hastens the inevitable secession - The Sunnis who are most aggrieved are kept at bay by the mercenary occupying force
• US troop presence strengthens a government with close ties to Iran; strengthens and encourages Iran's nuclear development; ensures the emergence at US cost of Iran as the hegemonic power in the Persian Gulf
• US troop presence destabilizes not only Iraq but the entire Middle East region as well
• US occupation has significantly contributed to the rise of political Islam in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain
• The Iraqi security forces are only marginally better prepared today than one year ago. Violence has held steady or has increased.  Oil and electricity production has continued a steady decline. 

BradTheDad's criticism that withdrawal advocates often fall into a facile "all will be well only if and when" is well taken.  Things can get worse and may for a short while. Certainly, the well-recognized negative consequences must be weighed against the less well appreciated but real short term benefit  that the US troops to some indeterminable degree, prevent Sunni forsees from launching major attacks in the Kirkuk area and also prevent concentrations of force for large scale operations against the government.

That said, Brad should have left well enough alone, quit while ahead:

In an ideal world, that would have been the question to ask before we even started this adventure.  But as we all know, the Bush Administration systematically ignored those voices that said that our presence would NOT solve the problem and might even contribute to it.  This is a strategic blunder of the highest magnitude, for which we will pay a price for generations.

But that is separate from the decision whether to pull out now that we are there. 

What happened that suddenly the blunders predicted so accurately before the war are no longer material to a the decision about how to fight it?  Why should we stay the failed course when experience of three years only establishes the 20/20 foresight of pre-war predictions of disaster?

Let's be honest about what really happens when the Stay the Courses launch intor doomsday demonics - what happens is that all alternative courses - over-the-horizion air and ground forces- UN - Arab League etc - disappear. Bush uses this non-sequitur of failure to justify and sustain even greater failure. Silenced for fear of being seen as weak, politicians who know better, choose instead to remain accomplices to the very failure and weakeness they posture against. Bush muddles his way through, staying the same course to new depths of the same quagmire. Nothing has changed. Blunders forseen. Blunders accomplished. Blunders beget  blunders It only gets worse.

Time for honesty here - the war which was not in our interest to begin with is no more in our interest to prosecute three years later when  the most dire pre-war predictions have been met or surpassed. Time for honesty - we are not succeeding, failure is a fact not an option. Time for honesty - this calamity has no discernable end point, no strategy, and there are no good choices. 

The war was not a mistake. I made a mistake when I forgot to pick up cat food. This was is a disastr of unimaginable proportion which is getting worse and worse. The US cannot sustain this effort financially, militarily or politically for the many many years it will take chasing chimerical "success" promised in Bush propoganda points nowadays.

The burden of proof isn't on those who propose alternatives to catastrophe.  Theirs is the presumption of competence and presicience. The blunderers bear the burden of failure and preseumption of incompetence.  Enough already of the pottery barn wisdom and snake oil peddler's slogans.