One thing lacking from the stay or withdraw debate is that it assumes a priori that the "stay" position consists of no other possible set of security strategy goals than what is happening now. The nonchalance that dispensed with post war planning has tended to obscure the degree to which the administration was counting on receiving a specific benefit from taking over Iraq.

The question to ask before exploring the issue of what would happen if we just up and left one day is if there would be any benefit to signaling to all the parties in the region that we would like to stay with a different agenda than the one that has been the program since the tanks rumbled over the Kuwaiti border.

As you say, there are plenty of people who don’t want to have the security arrangements ripped out of place with no process to make another. This is a powerful bargaining chip. But to make use of it requires sacrificing the degree of freedom which the notion of permanent bases and a compliant Iraqi government would have given.

So the failure to do nation building has had the effect of shrinking to zero any discussion about what U.S. obligations could be fulfilled without gaining the influence that the adventure was supposed to garner. The slogan: “We will stand down as they stand up” does not hint at what the U.S. could be doing other than training Iraqi troops to shoot more accurately in firefights.

What I would appreciate is an honest debate about the consequences of staying and the consequences of pulling out. Leslie Gelb has initiated this debate. While I don't believe either side is putting up a good argument as to why we should stay or leave, I also do not think this is going to happen during an election cycle. Democrats understand that pulling out will be messy and therefore are not willing to discuss it in details. Republicans believe in staying the course but are not willing to discuss additional options.

The best case we can hope for in Iraq if we pull out is a civil war that will kill 1-2 million people, similar to when we pulled out of Vietnam and the killings that resulted in Vietnam and Cambodia. The country would then probably settle into three sections. The worst case would be a large regional conflict involving neighboring countries, a spike in oil prices, and a global recession for a number of years. I think it is obvious why Democrats do not want to talk about the future of Iraq and the region if we pull out but we deserve this debate. This will also highlight the horrible situation we are in and hopefully focus the debate on how costly our decision to invade Iraq has been and will continue to be.

Right now we are spending a far amount of money in Iraq and soldiers are dying but at home the stock market is reaching record levels and gas prices are falling. We are only going to feel the effects of this war once we lose the political will and pull out. I do not believe we can relate the Vietnam pullout to a potential Iraq pullout. The enemy, al Qaeda, has already indicated its broad strategy in the region and they have no reason to stop once they have defeated the American’s in Iraq. In addition, their sophisticated adoption of technology and the Internet for recruiting, propaganda, planning and executing will continue to enable their insurgency successes. This enemy has greater ambitions than the Communist in Vietnam.

I'm reminded of Eisenhower in 1952 (well, i was 4, and literally remember headlines at best). Specifically, he made the repeated statement, not necessarily with great specificity, "I will go to Korea [if necessary to move the talks]." I don't know if GWB can get out of the petulance, but, were I advising him and thinking he might listen, I would advise him to make a public announcement that he will go to Iran. Perhaps, in a face-saving way, he might offer to speak (cringing here, but with a formula that might be needed) to Khameini rather than Ahmadinejad. The ground rules is that this is not a debate. This is an attempt to understand one another.

Public action I would think best, but, if it must be background and brokered, or ministerial level, the Algerians, even though radical, have a pretty good although quiet record in brokering.

An interesting twist, that still might have value, would be having Darfur on the agenda.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I have grave doubts that the current president will ever "officially" engage Tehran in diplomacy.  The current administration is far too rigid in it's foreign policy and inhabited by extreme ideologues.  Bush is on record that for as long as he is president there will be US troops in Iraq...and while our forces are in the region, in his mind, there is no reason to engage Tehran.

We keep on hearing how we need to address the world in a new way.  But Bush is still stuck in a Cold War mindset when it comes to regimes we don't care for.  Isolation and non-recognition.  Cuba, North Korea, Iran, etc.  In Iran's case we should finally say the revolution and taking of our hostages is in the past and finally recognize them and engage them.  All our punitive sanctions of these countries only result in more hostility of the US by the people who reside in those countries.  For example how long have we tried to topple Castro with sanctions?  Castro doesn't suffer only the Cuban people do...and Castro has remained in power.  Eventually all leaders die or are replaced but the people remember.  And movements like radical Islam invariably are the result...

So hopefully when the next president is sworn in maybe we can move forward and engage the world in a productive, meaningful way.

I'm sorry Howard, I don't buy it. Your post assumes that the U.S. government is dealing with something close to aborigines. Feckless tribesmen and hunter gatherers and sheep herders.

The reality is that the Iraqi military was trained and was quite effective at suppression of low level revolts and guerilla operations. It proved reasonably effective at fighting an eight year war with Iran, and at conducting a blitzkrieg invasion of Kuwait.

Was this army on a technological or training level with the United States military? Nope, not a chance. But the numbers of military forces in the world that are can be counted on one hand.

Did Saddam's army have helicopters? Yes they did. And they were used effectively in putting down the post-Gulf War uprisings. Did it have tanks, heavy weapons, artillary, logistics, command and control etc. Yeppers.

Its easy to be generous with a nonexistent baseline. One could, for instance, ramble on about the 'miracle of electrification' of the American presence in Iraq. The fact that we don't do this is a quiet acknowledgement that Electrical power generation has in the last four years, failed to reach levels that Saddam reached three months after the Gulf War and maintained through the sanctions period.

You seem to be taking a point of view that the basline was 'guys with sticks.' I think that the adequate standard of comparison is what the Iraqi's provably had and maintained before the United States occupied.

Given that standard of comparison, its clear that the United States 'training of the new Iraqi army' lacks a little something. Whether the intent is to leave Iraq without a military, so as to ensure continued American presence; or whether the intent is to ensure an impotent and dependent Iraq military; or whether the intent is to create a force of 'janissaries' who might have supplied the warm bodies to die in place of Americans in the event of a war with Iran or whomever; or whether the intent was bona fide but crippled by staggering incompetence .... frankly, that's debatable.

But the key is that here, as it is everywhere else in Iraq, the record is disastrous.

Woudn't it make sense to withdraw troops from Iraq and redeploy them to Afghanistan, in order to prevent Afghanistan from turning into a terrorist-friendly narco-state?

Sure, it doesn't do much for Iraq, but at least it gives us a foxhole in a region that has been torn asunder by the incompetance of the Bush administration.

Are you suggesting, Howard, that a group planning some violent blowing things up could be encouraged to communicate with some discrete authorities first and then hopefully be prevailed upon to make a violent demonstration instead?

"But do not burn more than 10 stores and 100 cars, please."

Clearly, much better than exploding a car in the middle of a marketplace etc.

From there, we could keep things evolving toward NYC-style ethnic street fairs and parades.

That is exactly what happens in Japan, with both sides knowing who will be arrested next. Obviously, that will not translate to the Iraqi culture.

The idea of police as a first contact to government services -- I distinguish police from military -- is not unreasonable, although it will be dangerous to the police.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Jon -- Yes, that would make sense. It's something Brian Katulis and Larry Korb at the Center for American Progress have been arguing for since last year. Ivo Daalder

Ivo

Separate from whether we should leave Iraq becuase we are not contributing anything positive do you believe the Iraqi on Iraqi violence will end or even lessen if the United States leaves? It seems many at this site confuse disparate issues. The United States by removing the yoke of Saddem Hussein and not replacing it will real police and order allowed anarchy and score settling to break out. That is different than the violence being due to the United States being in Iraq. Most of the deaths and the daily killings are Sunnis on Shiia or Shiia on Sunni.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I'm not sure that I appreciate the distinctions that you are making.

'Most of the deaths and daily killings'?

According to the study, at least a third of the deaths and killing operates directly as a result of American actions.

We can assume that a significant proportion of those killed and attacked in the remaining two thirds constitute collaborators or supporters of the American occupation, or of the puppet government installed by and under the influence of the United States.

We also have to acknowledge American meddling in various ways as contributing to the ongoing violence. Would these butchers with guns have really gotten their start, unless the United States had been there as an initial target?

Didn't the attacks slowly seep out from attacking Americans, to attacking American supporters, to attacking those they didn't like?

How much of the violence going on today stems from the consistent refusal of the United States to provide even minimal domestic security for people? Remember all those news camera footages of people looting in the wake of the fall of Iraq? Throughout the period of the American occupation, the overriding concern of people was the lack of security. It was the lack of security which made people turn to local militias.

Speaking of militias, how much of the violence today can be attributed to America's initial decision to tolerate private militias like the Badr Brigades and the Peshmerga, to even encourage private militia's like Ahmad Chalabi's bunch. When America opened that door, did they really think that they could close it to the Mahdi Army and other bunches?

To what extent can America's own deliberate meddling in Iraq's political process be blamed for the breakdown of civil order. I'm thinking of the policy of dividing or administering the country along ethnic and sectarian lines, encouraging Kurdish aspirations, revoking the results of municipal elections, creating a particularly divisive electoral system which exacerbated national divisions, and then visibly manipulating that system in abusive ways like ditching a Prime Minister who you didn't like?

Finally, what are the probabilities that America really is promoting the civil war as a 'counterinsurgency' strategy... ie, the much discussed 'El Salvador Option'? Though there is no longer discussion of this option, and denial that it is being implemented, we have the precedents of Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Argentina, Indonesia, Iraq, Vietnam and El Salvador itself to suggest that the United States often has a hand in the sort of purging and binging we see now.

You seem to be taking a point of view that America has innocently and naively walked into a shooting gallery, and shouldn't be held responsible if the Ay-rabs insist on shooting each other. I don't think that is supportable.

Your question is, 'will things get better if America leaves?' I have to say that yes, that's a very good possibility.

Alternately, I would answer it this way. 'Will things get worse if America stays.' Guaranteed yes.

To put it very plainly, America's ability to influence a good outcome is nonexistent. You shot your wad. You got no credibility. No one likes you there. Everyone hates you.

I roughly concurr with your comments, but I would argue that the US has a greater degree of culpability for manufacturing the situations that lead to a breakdown of order.

It's not like America are innocent bystanders in the whole thing.

STAYING IN IRAQ: THE ONLY CHOICE

Either you like to hear it or not, President Bush is a great man and is the leader of a force which is the last guarant of freedom, peace , justice and freedom in the world. I am surprised that you, American citizens, are not supporting him. As a French, I am surprised that you have forgotten your pledge of alliegance to the Nation, have you forgotten the spirit that forged the US? Washington, Licoln, the concept of freedom... Come one guys, wake up, it is time to unite and support your president. The victory of the US army in Iraq is a fact, many people are tasting first bites of freedom after years of Saddam dictature. The fight in Iraq is the fight for freedom. Leaving Iraq now would not be very wise, staying in Iraq is a must for the victory of freedom and justice in Middle East.

God Bless Mr President Bush
God Bless America

The distinction is fairly straight forward. I do not really believe studies with death counts. They have historically been fictious. I also don't accept the naive view that Iraqis aren't mainly responsible for their own fate. I recognize that you are reflexibly anti-American but when it is Bush or is equivalents on the Left it is time to treat the Arab world as made up of grown-ups not children.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Dear fellows,

I read here "In a world strewn with violence and highly-charged international issues, Americans are broadly uneasy about U.S. foreign policy. The September 2006 shows the Foreign Policy Anxiety Indicator at 130 on a scale of 0 to 200, where 0 is the most confident, 200 the most anxious and 100 neutral. "

Anxiety is not only for Americans, it is for all those who try to resist and block the way to an expanding and dangerous islamic wave which has spread all over the world. In France, from were I write this note, it is not possible to act freely and freedom of speech against islamic view is no more possible. Europeans are very much anxious, they can't move, they leave in fear, and they are not as well protected as Americans, we need a Bush there. Chirac is chicken and did not support his American allies, what is the result...Please do not fear, remember that one of your president said: The only thing we have got to fear, his fear itself". Please stand and fight, you are the last hope for a free World.

Do not give up, we are with you, American peoples have many true friends.

Gettysburgfrog.

Nothing scientific in this, but I've had friends who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, and some in Iraq now. The ones who were in Afghanistan have an eagerness to go back, speak of liking the people, and feeling as if they were accomplishing something. Apparently, they did have some opportunities to go safely into Kabul and some other areas, and have informal interaction.

In contrast, the people I know that have been in Iraq, with the exception of some special operations people, had no opportunity to meet Iraqis other than in the Iraqi security forces. They go there with a sense of duty, and indeed some sense they can beat insurgents, but there simply isn't the same interest in the country. Again mostly SF types, but it's quite different for people who deal with Kurds. There, they have a sense of common purpose.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

After Iraq in the US the blame game will start and Administration will pin it on its opponents.

Faced with a Democratic House and maybe Senate and critical public the Administration will follow H. Kissinger. The real disaster is that we pulled out too soon, just as we pulled out of Vietnam too soon, and the fault lies with Administration critics who did not stay strong. In short the weak Democrats lost the war! 

Since the Democrats will be held responsible by the Administration then all the disasters that follow in Iraq and the region will be the fault of the Democrats.

We can find it laughable that the Administration will protray themselves as victims. We can find it laughable that today's victims were yesterdays creators of a new reality but I see it coming. This is not a laughable matter.

Howard,

Your point about expanding the civic role of police is well taken. The time to initiate a training program that concentrated upon such skills would have been when Bremer held executive authority of the country. It was a period when the development of local forms of governance could have been the framework from which national forms could have been developed.

But that is not how it went down. At that time, you had AID teams developing city councils and U.S. military officers overseeing town hall meetings and distributing money for local projects. These activities weren't coordinated or parts of an overarching plan. As a result, the process of transferring sovereignty to the Iraqi government enabled the various factions to fill the governance vacuum with politically savvy militias.

If the U.S. can still work toward supporting the political/security process in Iraq, it can’t happen in the context of developing institutions from the top down alone. For instance, putting pressure on the Iraqi government to put down the death squads is a good thing and an appropriate reminder that the Iraq government won’t be given freedom of movement if they rely on gang warfare. But such a posture does nothing by itself to close the chasm between local forms of governance and the workings of the nation that the Coalition helped install.

In a situation like this, developing alternate resources that compete with what local militias have to offer begins with acknowledging their presence. I don’t mean authorize them as bastions of law and order but recognizing that they are presently in control of the neighborhoods. All kinds of deals have been made to get such groups to cooperate with the national government. But the frameworks of these arrangements dissolve the very institution they are supposed to bolster. This problem can be seen in all aspects of administration. Since you bring up the role of the police, let us look at how these deals deepen their dependence upon the U.S. military.

As you have pointed out, the urban combat techniques being taught to the Iraqi army and police are part of a tactical regime involving helicopter fleets and a viable air force. This component is not even on the idea boards at the Pentagon. Developing such forces certainly carries risk and I could understand why someone with knowledge of what was happening in the Iraqi government might say no way. But if that is the case, then the whole deal needs to be rethought and another offer made to the sovereign government of Iraq.

Since the constitutional process is having no effect (or the opposite of its stated purpose) on the actual political order in Iraq, the U.S. can either be a part of hammering out a Federal arrangement that acknowledges that the Iraq population is separating into sectarian enclaves or become increasingly irrelevant politically as time goes on.

If the U.S can’t be a part of what stops the civil war from becoming a bloodbath that consumes the entire country, then they will disappear from the scene and have no influence upon future Iraqi institutions, even if they still have jamborees out in their bases in the desert.

On the other hand, if the U.S. was a part of significantly reducing the costs of the power struggle in Iraq, then they could offer to help to those who ask for it without taking sides in a war.