MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED --- WHAT NEXT?
Today marks the three-year "anniversary" of when President Bush so jauntily told us that the mission in Iraq was accomplished. It clearly hasn't. The critiques are well-established; the "what next" alternatives less so. The former without the latter only get us so far, both politically and in policy terms.
We're going to use our blog to address alternatives. Between now and May 15 we of the America Abroad contributors group will post on what next in Iraq (other topics, too, but this as a focus and thread). We invite bloggers in our AAbroad community to join in. While some analysis of how we got to where we are can be helpful, we'd really like to keep the focus on where we go from here. We'll then compose a paper, drawing on ideas conveyed, and pursue opportunities for dissemination and input (e.g., possibly the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group).
Bruce Jentleson, on behalf of America Abroad contributors group
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Happy Mission Accomplished Day!!!
May 1, 2006 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Cross-post to Cole's Settling Iraq Before It Blows Up
Better late than never I guess. The range of choices - bad to worst
May 1, 2006 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's next?
Iran, of course.
Anybody not thinking about how that is going to affect the war in Iraq is not going to be useful in discussing how to resolve the war in Iraq.
You don't have to be certain war in Iran will come to do the necessary thinking about the impact on the war in Iraq if it does come - and how to possibly prevent that impact from occurring and possibly how to prevent the war in Iran in the first place so as to eliminate such an impact.
As for alternatives sans an Iran war, I see only one possible alternative:
Pull the troops out as fast as they can be pulled out.
As Scott Ritter has said, the best day to leave Iraq is today - because tomorrow will be worse.
Any other "alternative" is likely to be more of the same.
As an aside, if anybody thinks a viable "alternative" is going to be discovered here, do they think said alternative is going to be seriously considered by the Administration - or even a Democratic nominee for any office?
May 1, 2006 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you're right; whatever the best option might be, we can be sure the Bush administration won't take it up. On the other hand, do you seriously think that the Bush administration will contemplate your preferred solution, an immediate pullout? So why are you suggesting it?
The real question for us is not what the US should actually do - we have limited influence there - but what we should be advocating, with a view to a. doing some advance thinking for future US interventions, b. influencing the interpretation of "what went wrong", which will have political and policy consequences over the next several years, and c. positioning Democrats and progressives politically for success on the issues of military affairs and foreign policy. (I abhor the Orwellian term "national security". It should be called "military affairs". And the Defense Department should be the Department of War.)
The problem for your position is raised at the top of Juan Cole's post: if we pull out hastily now, we are complicit in the bloodbath that follows. If you advocate an immediate pullout right now then, if the US does pull out and genocide ensues, your viewpoint will be seen as the pro-genocide viewpoint. This is a serious problem, and it's a reason why the left should not be embracing the get-our-troops-out-now platform. We need to have some vision of how we're going to prevent an ethnic-cleansing bloodbath in Iraq after US forces leave. I don't entirely agree with Cole's solution because I think you have to work more within the Iraqi government structures that have been created over the last 3 years, via a painstaking process of negotiation. But I think he's right that preventing mass slaughter is the agenda and we can't shirk it.
"When God ariseth, and when he visiteth, what shall we answer!" - Rev. Benjamin Hancock
May 1, 2006 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree that if we pull out, we're complicit in any resulting civil war.
I don't agree that if "you broke it, you own it."
I think the only rational attitude is:
We broke it. We admit it. We're not going to break it any more. We're leaving because staying is not part of any solution anybody in Iraq (except our puppet government) wants.
They can either fix it or break it some more.
That's their choice - not ours.
We screwed up the Iraqi economy, the infrastructure, and lots more. We did not start (or at least we haven't admitted to starting deliberately, slthough some people think we actually did) the sectarian bloodshed. That's on them.
Putting US troops in the middle of a civil war makes less sense than pulling them out and trying to deal with the civil war from outside the country (possibly in coordination with other Arab states) to contain the spread of the civil war.
And the obvious lesson learned is: don't do this stupid crap again. Stop invading countries for oil and geopolitical goals dressed up as WMD hunts and "democracy promotion."
May 1, 2006 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The break-it own-it view is that of the shop owner, not the breaker, and it doesn't matter if we don't believe it. The shop owner is the rest of the world.
The meaning of the phrase is that all subsequent events are seen as causally dependent on the first event (invading). I think it is fair to say that knocking the country apart without keeping control of the pieces made an insurgency possible. It takes very few troops to destroy stuff, but holding the country is essentially policing and requires way more personnel.
If we had invaded and immediately left there would have been civil war. The insurgency does follow the invasion, causally, because had we not invaded there would not now be unrest. (Probably in the future, but not now.)
It is tempting, though, to "declare victory and leave." I don't have a clue what's best.
May 2, 2006 5:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course the insurgency follows the invasion causually and so does the civil war - although it's not clear the latter was as certain as the insurgency. It's not certain that had we left immediately, a civil war would have started. Things might have proceeded violently or not, but a civil war was not certain as there has never been one in Iraq before despite the sectarian tensions.
And as for whether the US gets blamed for it, well, that's the "we broke it" part. If the US can't acknowledge that, then trying to stay there and break it some more doesn't really help, does it?
"Declaring victory and leaving" is definitely the wrong message.
What bugs me is the assumption that the presence of US troops HAS prevented a civil war up to this point. There's simply no proof of that. What has prevented a civil war - and a greater insurgency - has been one guy - Ayatollah Sistani. By keeping his eyes on getting a Shia-dominated government, he has restrained the Shia from joining the insurgency, and he continues to try to restrain them from joining the civil war. How successful he will continue to be in the latter endeavor is not clear.
But there is NO evidence that the US can stop a civil war if the locals want one - and even LESS evidence that the US can control a civil war if it starts.
And leaving the troops in the MIDDLE of a civil war with 100-200,000 or more people shooting at us when we can't handle the 20-40,000 insurgents is just dumb.
At what cost does the American people want to stay in the middle of a civil war? $20 billion a month? Five thousand more dead US soldiers? Another 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed by US troops trying to defend themselves from the Iraqi civil warriors? Another five years? Ten?
It's untenable on the face of it.
May 2, 2006 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty much how I feel. I lack your confidence in putting it simply.
Well said.
May 2, 2006 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to see 2 distinct steps to formulating a going forward proposal:
1. Define the end state.
What will it look like when we are "done." We need to paint the picture for Iraq, region and US foreign policy position. Painting the picture does not assume that we can make it all happen but is rather what we wish would be the result.
[Some of the fights over the how to go forward and when to do what are in fact due to implicit differences in end states.]
Then
2. Structure the alternatives to best achieve the end state or most nearly achieve the end state - rubber meets the road.
This is the reality of how much can be achieved. We need to discuss the probablity of an action working and the accompanying risks. This is tradoff time for what is possible and what we wanted in the ideal end state.
May 2, 2006 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Irishkg's response - figure out the end state desired, then work back. Part of 'end state' tho' is what we can realistically expect, in the real world that is messy and resists shaping. We can define a utopian outcome and also realpolitik ones. It's the latter that are toughest and most important.
May 2, 2006 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
ewilson -
When I think about an end state it has to be somewhere between utopia and reality. If it is pure fantasyland then there is no way to fashion alternatives that will even approach it.
My concern for an end state, however, is more on the too realistic end. A more realistic definition in many ways is harder to agree on since we know that people today are looking at the current situalion and seeing vastly different realities.
May 2, 2006 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Via Juan Cole:
May 3, 2006 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
There are lots of plans out there. None in the WH.
May 5, 2006 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink