New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | July 21, 2005

Michael Young considers what David L. Phillips' Losing Iraq means for the U.S. occupation.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← Better Days for Zha Zhas | Main | One Eats Really Big Sandwiches, the… →

See all 46 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|7.21.05 @ 7:05PM|#

"even chaff heightens expectations" of even more chaff.

|7.21.05 @ 7:20PM|#

"the Lebanese overthrow of Syrian hegemony" was due to the fact that Syria went too far and assasinated one of the most popular Lebanese figures in its history.

You said it yourself:

"The Syrians cut off the branch they were sitting on," says Michael Young, a Lebanese political analyst. "The Syrian system here no longer has the slightest level of legitimacy.".

http://csmonitor.com/2005/0217/p01s03-wome.html

Let's not pretend Iraq had anything to do with this.

|7.21.05 @ 8:53PM|#

typo: "descent," not "decent"

Gene Berkman|7.21.05 @ 9:44PM|#

Michael Young thinks is the US withdraws from Iraq, there will be an increase in violence. Right now, with US troops in Iraq, the last month has seen record violence.

If you propose a government action - and war is a government action - you have a responsibility to point out the costs, and to include an exit strategy. President Bush was dishonest about both, and Michael Young still backs his war. It is hard to take Mr Young seriously.

|7.21.05 @ 10:15PM|#

Right now, with US troops in Iraq, the last month has seen record violence.

Sure. But what if the US wasn't there?

President Bush was dishonest about both, and Michael Young still backs his war.

Uh, yes, but why? It would seem that you have equated Iraq with Bush. Do you mean no one can be in favor of staying the course in Iraq without also "supporting" Bush?

If by "supporting" Bush you mean "I like at least most of what he does and has done in Iraq", then I'm not a supporter. But I'm also not in favor of just pulling US forces out right now.

I think Michael Young is right -- an immediate US pull out will probably "escalate" violence in Iraq to levels far beyond the present. Civil war is likely. A civil war that will be possible because the US knocked out the old order.

The obvious excuse will not sway me an inch here -- don't tell me "see, the US is BAD and that's the end of it". That isn't the end of it.

If we just remove US forces from Iraq right now, it's going to be very much like a man getting a woman pregnant, then saying "oh gee, I shouldn't have done that -- see ya!"

I wish we hadn't done it. I don't see that invading Iraq was ever a real necessity. But morally I also don't see it as right for us to just run out now and leave the Iraqis to a nasty civil war.

I say Michael is right this: now that the deed has been done in Iraq, an immediate US pull out would serve nobody's interests in the long run.

__________________________

One big problem I still see hanging, is a clear policy on how Iraqi POWs should be treated. It looks like the US military has done some wrong. Well, punishment of the wrong doers is step 1. Step 2 is making very sure the soldiers in the field have a clear set of marching orders to follow.

With all the raquet there's been about this, I'm really surprised Bush appears to have done so little to address it.

You can call me evil, but you can't accuse me of being a Bush supporter. And it looks to me like Michael's "support" of Bush is fairly qualified.

|7.21.05 @ 10:20PM|#

btw Gene, I want to qualify what you said that I'm taking issue with.

If you propose a government action - and war is a government action - you have a responsibility to point out the costs, and to include an exit strategy. President Bush was dishonest about both

We're on the same page about this part of it.

|7.21.05 @ 10:23PM|#

I wish we hadn't done it. I don't see that invading Iraq was ever a real necessity. But morally I also don't see it as right for us to just run out now and leave the Iraqis to a nasty civil war.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying here (though I'd justify continued US involvement on the basis of self-interest rather than morality). But I think you could make a good case that the civil war is already underway.

|7.21.05 @ 10:41PM|#

If you start a war armed with ignorance, hidden agendas and lies, how can you expect anything other than the disaster we're faced with now? If the talking chimp in the Oval Office allowed the most ludicrous blunders in imperial planning since the Italians were defeated by the Ethiopians, how can anyone with a brain still "support" his half-baked plan?? What's to support??

|7.21.05 @ 10:56PM|#

Why should morality matter now? How many Iraqi children died to due disease due to the US controlled sanction in the 90's?

Let the people there take control now. US Troops are simply fomenting more terrorism than they're preventing.

If the end result is an Islamist republic close to Iran, what a funny result (remember we first intervened to prop up Saddam in his unprovoked war against Iran).

|7.21.05 @ 11:14PM|#

Eric II,

I'd justify continued US involvement on the basis of self-interest rather than morality

I think you're right, the case can be made that way as well. But I don't know enough to feel I could make it from that angle.

Anyway, not letting ourselves degenerate to the moral equivalent of barbarians is in our self interest. Which is why

Why should morality matter now? How many Iraqi children died to due disease due to the US controlled sanction in the 90's?

I have to disagree with this.

cdunlea,

If you start a war armed with ignorance, hidden agendas and lies, how can you expect anything other than the disaster

I hear you.

There's a song (I foget which) that says "an ounce of perception, a pound of obscure, process information at half speed".

Maybe I'm a loon, but I'm still holding out for that ounce of perception to prevail. I've read enough history to think that's how the deck has been stacked most of the time anyway.

Clear, unequivocal triumph of the good and the right is a rare bird indeed.

|7.22.05 @ 12:24AM|#

I think you're right, the case can be made that way as well. But I don't know enough to feel I could make it from that angle.

It's pretty simple. We leave, and most of the Sunni Arab areas turn into a terrorist safe haven similar to Taliban-run Afghanistan. Not to mention that the Shia areas probably turn into an Iranian protectorate. That said, I'd still favor making an effort to cut the troop presence to at least below 100,000 within a year.

I'm split on whether you can make a case solely on morality. On one hand, you could argue that, having unleashed the demonic forces currently at work over there, we have an obligation to defeat them. But at the same time, I'm quite averse to sacrificing the lives of American troops and spending untold billions in taxpayer money solely to further a humanitarian objective, even in extraordinary circumstances like these.

|7.22.05 @ 12:56AM|#

Randy Ayn wrote: "the Lebanese overthrow of Syrian hegemony" was due to the fact that Syria went too far and assasinated one of the most popular Lebanese figures in its history. You said it yourself:

I don't see how what I said earlier contradicts the fact that had the US not been on Syria's border, you would not have had the threat of pressure on Damascus that (a) emboldened many Lebanese to protest openly against the Syrians after Hariri's murder; and (b) made the Syrians think twice about reimposing their control through violence. The Syrian withdrawal came about because of a combination of domestic protest in Lebanon and international pressure, including the American presence in Iraq and Resolution 1559. I never suggested otherwise. It would be silly, and mistaken, to ignore what the presence of American soldiers in Iraq meant to events in Lebanon.

|7.22.05 @ 1:11AM|#

"If we just remove US forces from Iraq right now, it's going to be very much like a man getting a woman pregnant, then saying "oh gee, I shouldn't have done that -- see ya!"

I like that, I really do, because I've been using a very, very similar analogy myself, recently. All the rising crop of "Well, OK, maybe we shouldn't have invaded" folks who argue we must STAY in Iraq, despite the lies, incompetence, and utter lack of Responsibility that got us into the war, are roughly the equivalent of a rapist telling a woman "Well, I've already got it in, you have no choice but to let me finish."

I'm sorry, Iraq is screwed. If we stay it's screwed, if we pull out it's screwed, the main question is how much of your children's future are you willing to squander on this nonsense?

|7.22.05 @ 1:57AM|#

I'm split on whether you can make a case solely on morality.

I can see that. I'd agree entirely if Dubya hadn't done it.

Still, there are limits on how far we must go to absolve ourselves. And you're right, the civil war probably has its roots down already. I just don't read enough of the MSM anymore to keep up.

I think putting Saddam in storage and on "trial" in Iraq was a major mistake. It's got his old gaurd all riled, and I predict they won't even begin to cool off until he's gone.

We leave, and most of the Sunni Arab areas turn into a terrorist safe haven similar to Taliban-run Afghanistan. Not to mention that the Shia areas probably turn into an Iranian protectorate.

None of which would be a potential security problem, if not for all that oil sitting in the ground. The fact that it's these people who would get control of it that's the problem.

If we stay it's screwed, if we pull out it's screwed

That I'm not convinced of.

My biggest concern is that it will demand some nasty tactics to settle the place back down -- and the US public isn't going to tolerate it. It'll be too Machiavellian. Neither will our fearless leaders have the wisdom to see what has to be done.

The "morality" of the US public is a real curiosity. People will scream "murder!" about POW abuse, but then they'll say "let's get out of Dodge now, and let the blood flow as it may..." Often enough, it's the same people who say both.

This isn't a consistent morality, it's a bleeding heart knee-jerk reaction. But I keep forgetting, half the purpose of screaming about POW abuse is to prove just how bad-bad-bad we are.

And the purpose of proving how bad-bad-bad we are, is to justify getting out of Dodge now.

I find Eric II's take a lot more convincing.

|7.22.05 @ 2:20AM|#

I've got a proposal for funding our ill conceived Iraq adventure: give somebody a license to start pumping oil. Let it be a private corporation, and let them pay to set up their own security. But they have to pay a tax on all their output.

I'm sure the US public wouldn't go for it. But it'd make more sense than what we're doing now.

The deal is, the Iraqi gov't gets a cut of the taxes. As they become more autonomous, they get a larger fraction of the tax. Eventually it's all theirs.

There's probably some fatal flaw I'm not seeing. But I'd favor this in principle.

|7.22.05 @ 7:16AM|#

Starting from where we are, the least worst options are very, very bad. On balance I am in favour of pulling the troops out. But any one who tells you this is not a very, very bad option which will likely result in civil war is kidding themselves.

So why am I in favour? In the end a lasting solution can only come from self-government. This is not because America or Britain is inherently bad. I'm much more optimistic than most libertarians about the possibility of rational planning and intervention. But the idea of intervention from the outside to create self-government contradicts the very concept.

Michael Young's example of Lebanon proves the rule: there the intervention opened up a possibility but it was the Lebanese people who chose to leap.

What ever it looks like formally, with ceremonies or declarations, substantially freedom can never be given away - it can only ever be taken. That is why whenever I hear the cant of "empowerment" I reach for my metaphorical gun. That is why the invasion of Iraq as a war for democracy and freedom was always going to be a disaster.

Abandoning Iraq will have consequences outside Iraq, too. It may well encourage more lunatics to blow themselves up in suicide attacks in the west. It will be a blow to the confidence of the US and British state which will be very unhelpful should there be necessary wars to fight.

However, I do not see a better alternative. The lesson that must be learnt is to fight the battles in front of us, battles that cannot always be won with military force. Do not ignore them in favour of imaginary battles that some of us would prefer to be faced with.

|7.22.05 @ 7:30AM|#

Some problems are insoluable. Deal.

|7.22.05 @ 7:40AM|#

Has anyone ever considered whether full-blown civil war would be a good thing for Iraq? I mean as long we're considering Machiavellian machinations, its something to consider.

|7.22.05 @ 8:34AM|#

Hmm, alright, I guess this is my point: everyone is predicting what will happen in Iraq based on our possible actions. We have to stay or else X. If we don't get out then X.

Call me cynical but after all the brilliant, cunning, realpolitik meddling in the past, we still got planes flown into our buildings and bombs in our subways. One side says this proves we're wrong, the other side says this prove it would have been worse if we hadn't meddled. I say nobody seems to be able to predict anything when it comes to the Middle East.

While we can't predict the future of Iraq, we do know we're flushing billions of our dollars away. What's our return? Security? London might disagree. Lower oil prices? We now own a ME oil-producing country and I haven't noticed gas prices dropping recently. Anyone else? Not so long ago they were $1.50 and I thought that was a little high. Those days are long gone. Are we trying to make friends?

So, OK, I'm an idiot, but I'm willing to learn...would someone please explain in simple, clear, non-bushian sentences precisely what return we're getting on our soldier's lives and our country's fortune? If it makes sense, hell, I'll support your little war with a vengeance.

Oh, and don't give me any moral crap. If this is a moral crusade we have Africa, chunks of South America and North Korea still left to go and I'm damned well not footing the bill for all that.

Warren|7.22.05 @ 9:09AM|#

Johnny,
I'm with you. The "we got to dig our way out of this hole" line is bullshit.

|7.22.05 @ 9:18AM|#

Instead, what ensued was a gradual descent into mayhem. Ultimately, Iraq may emerge from its nightmare thanks to the Iraqis themselves.

Er, I think that was the whole point. I can't think of any other way for this to end, and that has always been the case. You need a) a competent and willing Iraqi internal security apparatus; b) an Iraqi government viewed as legitimate by Iraqis; and c) an upward trend in economic stability. The US can only influence so much of this. The willingness of the insurgents to blow up Iraqis may make c slower, but it may make b more likely.

I heard on NPR (Terri Gross, maybe?) the other day a comment I agreed with. Some guy with the Center for Strategic Studies in DC was saying that he still gave the whole enterprise about a 50-50 shot, and that we'd know for sure by the 08 election. We'd know whether the forces we are training are competent, we'd know whether the Iraqi government had local legitimacy, and we'd know if economic activity could commence. Seems about right to me.

|7.22.05 @ 9:23AM|#

Johnny:

The other side's response would be that you are failing to distinguish between the short term and the long term. In the long run, the argument goes, a democratic Iraq would pay a huge dividend in the form of representative governments sitting on most of the oil and the possibility of persuing terrorist groups through diplomatic connections with people who actually would like for us to stop them.

Warren|7.22.05 @ 9:39AM|#

quasibill,
Say, you�re right about Michael Young. I often have a similar reaction to the stuff Cathy Young writes. Are they related, or is the name coincidence?

|7.22.05 @ 10:02AM|#

Don't you think, though, Michael, that Hariri was the last straw and that the Lebanese people's willingness to put their lives on the line was more important than 140k soldiers bogged down in a guerilla war next door?

This gets to the heart of the question that JK raised when he said, 'the idea of intervention from the outside to create self-government contradicts the very concept.'

So I must ask the question: Can democracy be imposed from the outside? Or does it take a group of desperate people who've finally had enough and are now willing to fight and die for their right to determine their own destiny?

This is probably the first question we should have explored prior to invading Iraq.

|7.22.05 @ 10:03AM|#

Quasibill-
Maybe they go more for the "Might makes right" school of libertarianism.

|7.22.05 @ 10:07AM|#

A very cogent piece on why withdrawal is the best choice now:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0721/p09s01-coop.html

|7.22.05 @ 10:07AM|#

Mr. Young writes, "I don't see how what I said earlier contradicts the fact that had the US not been on Syria's border, you would not have had the threat of pressure on Damascus that (a) emboldened many Lebanese to protest openly against the Syrians after Hariri's murder; and (b) made the Syrians think twice about reimposing their control through violence."

Not terribly convincing, in light of the fact that the presence of the US military on Iran's border a) dis-emboldened the Iranian opposition and b) actually made it easier for the mullahs to crush them by force.

The only evidence that the Iraq invasion emboldened the opposition that I've seen are some quotes from opportunistic establishment politicians sucking up to the United States, after having states exactly the opposite just weeks before. Not terribly convincing.

What is it about conservatives needing to give credit for people's uprisings to American presidents?

|7.22.05 @ 11:33AM|#

SPD,

Have you been reading the news? The proposed Iraqi Constitution is based on significantly on Sharia law and the new Shia-led government has buddied up to Iran.

The best we can hope for is a quasi-Islamic republic that will be closely allied with Iran.

Hopes of a pro-Western Iraqi government are gone.

|7.22.05 @ 11:40AM|#

Sleuth,

I guess I'm just hoping against hope, then. If this is the government ultimately spawned by our invasion and occupation, what was the point?

|7.22.05 @ 11:46AM|#

SPD,

The rationlizations for the invasions are more or less gone at this point.

The great irony is that the first major US intervention in Iraq (to bolster Saddam in his war against Iran despite knowing he had used chemical weapons) was to counter Iran. Now it looks like we have eliminated a natural buffer against Tehran's influence and will allow Tehren to have great influence over the 2nd largest oil supply in the world.

There are now two great lessons (Iran and Iraq) that show how unpredictable and costly an interventionist foreign policy can be. Let us hope this mess leads us back to the founders' ideals of a non-interventionist foreign policy.

|7.22.05 @ 12:00PM|#

Sleuth,

Hindsight is a bitch, to be sure.

I mean, who knew that training, funding, and arming thousands of mujahedeen to fight the Soviet invaders in Afghanistan would have led to the ascension of the Taliban and the terrorist group that would kill 3,000 innocent people in the United States, forcing us to invade Afghanistan?

Choosing the lesser of two evils just results in the lesser evil becoming the greater one. World War II proved this, which led to the Cold War, which led to the War on Terror.

It never ends, does it? The "isms" may change, but little else does.

|7.22.05 @ 12:02PM|#

(By the way, the second paragraph in my last posting above was supposed to be surrounded by "SARCASM" tags.)

|7.22.05 @ 12:26PM|#

Jason,
Yeah, that's what they'd say, alright, but lessee, in the 80's we thought it was a great idea to arm the Afghanies to fight off the USSR. It worked. But in the long run the Russkies are now our friends and the Taliban supported terrorist lunatics who like to fly into our stuff. Did anyone predict that? The law of unintended consequences be a bee-yach.

|7.22.05 @ 1:30PM|#

Say, you�re right about Michael Young. I often have a similar reaction to the stuff Cathy Young writes. Are they related, or is the name coincidence?
Comment by: Warren at July 22, 2005 09:39 AM

I have a similar reaction to Cathy & Michael Young drivel. Reminds me how much I miss Ms. Postrel :(

|7.22.05 @ 1:34PM|#

Jason said

we'd know for sure by the 08 election. We'd know whether the forces we are training are competent, we'd know whether the Iraqi government had local legitimacy

That makes a lot of sense to me too.

The biggest question is what kind of native Iraqi leadership arises. A gov't can be viewed as "legit", but it won't have staying power if the leadership is no good.

Good leaders are not so easy to find. Just look at us! :)

I still feel a sense of guilt at the idea of abondoning Iraq to its fate after the US has done what it's done. Maybe I'm the bleeding heart. But y'all are starting to convince me that maybe a pull out really might be the right answer. At least start winding it down.

The strategic reason to stay is still, keeping the oil out of the hands of lunatics.

How about "The UN Oil Corporation", whose first oil wells just happen to reside in Iraq? Taxes go to whatever "UN recognized" gov't can prop itself up in Iraq.

|7.22.05 @ 2:11PM|#

To be fair, Sleuth, a sharia-based governemnt that is answerable to the people through democratic elections is likely to be quite a bit more human than a sharia-based autocracy.

Here's hoping for a sharia-based government that's answerable to the people!

God, I can't believe I just wrote that.

|7.22.05 @ 2:34PM|#

joe hits my realistic hope right on the head!

Johnny comments: "But in the long run the Russkies are now our friends and the Taliban supported terrorist lunatics who like to fly into our stuff. Did anyone predict that? The law of unintended consequences be a bee-yach."

I have come to absolutely despise this knee jerk from libertarian circles. Doing nothing during the Soviet invasion would have been a choice with consequences, too. Some of those consequences would have been unintended at the time the choice to do nothing was made. There is no way to keep your hands clean, you just have to make choices with the information you have at the time.

As for all the Michael Young bashing on the grounds that he is not a real libertarian, that annoys me somewhat, too. I would suggest that only the anarchists can make a moals only libertarian case against intervention. Everyone else is subject to arguable points of contention between real libertarian minarchists about what the appropriate role of a standing military might be. Say the thing is unworkable or a waste of money. Say that the the definition of self defence doesn't extend to cases like Iraq. Just don't say that no libertarian can dispute your assessments of the war because it non intervention can be derived from libertarian first principles. Making that kind of categorical argument demonstrates nothing so much as arrogance and a narrow view of the philosophy you espouse.

|7.22.05 @ 2:58PM|#

"The burden is on you to derive such an argument from first principles, because these are clearly un-libertarian policies."

They aren't clearly unlibertarian policies. Does the increase in domestic spending offset increased liberty for Iraqis? That is debatable by libertarians. Would a peace dividend from a democratic Iraq have the effect of decreasing over the long run the freedom cost to Americans of shoring up against terrorist attacks? Debatable by libertarians. Is the current approach effective? Certainly debatable by libertarians.

It is just not that clear to me, and I certainly consider myself a libertarian.

|7.22.05 @ 2:59PM|#

"have come to absolutely despise this knee jerk from libertarian circles. Doing nothing during the Soviet invasion would have been a choice with consequences, too."

Yep, doing nothing has consequences, too. Most, if not all libertarians would agree. The problem is that ->government

|7.22.05 @ 5:10PM|#

"If an individual wants to jump in head first, consequences be damned - that's his right. But he doesn't have the right, through government taxation, to force others to do the same when they disagree."

This is, to me, an overly simplistic view of libertarianism. It is explicitly consistent with the anarchist position, but not so much with the minarchist position. In the minarchist view, the government has a non zero radius sphere of responsibility. As libertarians, we agree that human liberty is the value we seek to maximize. Some believe that the enforcement of contract and property rights by a police force helps get us there. Some believe that a standing military in net returns more freedom than it costs. Some believe that, for various reasons, eliminating Saddam from Iraq constituted both an act of self defence of the sort permissible by libertarian first principles and an investment that would allow for the at home police state to some day be ratcheted down. It just isn't that clear.

|7.22.05 @ 5:23PM|#

Government has never relinquished its police power after the fact. The Drug War is an enormous costly failure yet it is rubber stamped every year by the Congress. The Patriot Act was just renewed despite no terrorist attacks on US soil in almost 4 years. The SC just reaffirmed Bush's right to hold american citizens indefinitely and Bush has signaled he will veto any Congressional limits on executive power in this area.

Libertarians accept war truly in self-defense. Iraq never was a direct threat to the American people and the notions you cite about an "investment" in the Iraqi intervention is no different than the logic that public spending of confiscated tax dollars are an "investment".

|7.22.05 @ 5:39PM|#

Sleuth:

The 'its just like the War on Drugs!' argument is one that is greatly overused by libertarians of a certain stripe.

Let me put it this way. Do you believe that property crime should be prosecuted by our government? If so, why? If not, you are something very close to an anarchist, and we disagree for entirely different reasons.

If property crime should be prosecuted, what if we call such prosecutions a War on Theft? Can we then just say that it is 'just like' the War on Drugs and therefore doomed to failure? To me, a perfectly acceptable libertarian case can be made that there is a freedom cost to prosecuting property crimes, but there is also a freedom dividend. Government isn't the only bad guy. Freedom from the aggression of stronger individuals is at least as important as the freedom to dispense of the fruits of one's labor.

There are lots of other details that distinguish the war in Iraq from the War on Drugs. One is a war on voluntary exchange, the other is a war waged agaist a despot, for example.

|7.22.05 @ 6:04PM|#

I wasn't making an apples to apples comparison of the War on Drugs to the War in Iraq.

I was responding to your notion that:

"and an investment that would allow for the at home police state to some day be ratcheted down."

It takes a great leap of faith to think that government will ratchet down its power after it has seized it. The first Gulf War didn't mean removing the troops from the Islamic holy lands - something that clearly gave Al Qaeda an enormously effective recruiting slogan.

If the rationale is to wage war against despots we better have conscription because the list is long.

|7.22.05 @ 8:29PM|#

First of all, I will say I never bought our glorious leader's reason for involving us in an additional war (oh yeah, hows Afghanistan doing, still blowing up you say, oh my)

Second, I being an engineering student not yet qualified by the state to practice my craft, will admit a great deal of ignorance in terms of military conduct and country building (I think I cover that next semester)

But, I do feel we are left with two choices. Leave or increase troop levels. the third choice of keeping troop levels the same leaves us with continued escalation of violence. And the more people die, the more anger increases from those who survive while loved ones rot in the ground. And the more they hate the US. And the more that join the insurgancy or rebel groups (aimed at taking revenge on insurgants families) and the further this country slips into civil war.

Now, if we leave, two things might happen. The insurgants may decide they have won and negotiate with the government to join the government. Or, more likely, they will topple the government they see as illegitimate and institute pockets of leadership in cities where they have support. Unfortunately, the majority of Iraq (assuming the insurgancy is mostly Sunni), will not like this and form militias to topple the self appointed rulers and reek havoc on the Sunnis. As the Sunnis are a minority, expect to see a refugee problem begin while the Shias assert power. The wild card are the Kurds, who may or may not wish to work with the Shias. Assuming they do and Saudi Arabia does not take up the Sunni cause, then in 3 years, stability of a form should return to Iraq under a Shia/Kurdish government (possibly theocracy, possibly not). Meanwhile, angry muslims will find other ways to amuse themselves, such as continuing to blow themselves up in Israel, irritate Turkey's secular government and stir up trouble in Saudi Arabia.
Bombing outside of the middle east is hard to predict, but it will surely not stop being attempted.

The other option is to try and escalate troop levels in Iraq to stamp out the insurgants. As I have said, I have not studied military strategy, therefore I know neither the amount of troops needed, nor how they would be applied. But under the assumption that US forces are more an irritant to peaceful Iraqis than outright evil (as comments I've read from most Shias, Sunnis are rarely interviewed I've noticed), enough troops to push the insurgants to the borders (preferably Iran where the Shias in Iran will not be welcoming them) will ease the tension the presence US troops cause currently. Then, recruiting an Iraqi army can proceed and semblence of security will encourage politicians to actually attempt to hold office and finish the constitution. This of course will have to coincide with efficiently trying and releasing prisoners, either to iraqi prisons or to their families. It is an untenable situation for the US to continue holding these prisoners. Deescalation of troops must begin in the cities where iraqi police can control teh populace and continue in perimeter fashion around the cities, carefully monitoring ingress and egress and drawing any further attacks away from civilians. The timetable for this seems reasonable for 3 years, possibly sooner.

This is purely my opinion based on my limited knowledge and I welcome any corrections to my ideas. I am well aware of the complexity of political nature of countries and unfortunately I don't have the expertise or authority to provide specific plans. I hope experience will provide me answers to the many "ifs" I provide.

In conclusion, I offer my sincere condolences to Iraqis for the suffering this situation has caused them. I, as a westerner, do not want to impose my ideals and morals on the middle east, merely hope that a popular government that is responsive to the needs of its people can be formed, whether a religious base or not is up to the people, not the US government.

|7.23.05 @ 9:55AM|#

LIT, I don't disagree that the status quo is untenable.

However, it seems to me that the suicide bombings, which are largely wacko foreign Islamists would dry up after the US withdraws. In the absense of a US troop presence, this violence would seem to be entirely directed at Iraqis and since their is no longer a direct "they're working for the Americans argument" it seems it would eventually run out of suicide recruits.

The question of the Sunnis is very important. The answer here is civil war or negotiation. Given how little real sectarian violence we've seen to this point, an all out civil war seems unlikely. Rather I suspect the problem Sunni areas would have a degree of autonomy (the Shia will not want to go in there to fight) and in the end a political settlement is possible. The die hard Bathists who insist on regaining control will be the biggest problem. They may cause trouble for some time but they don't engage in suicide bombings against civilians.

|7.23.05 @ 11:57AM|#

"As to your comments about minarchism (as you may have guessed, I am anarcho-capitalist) - my view of minarchists is that coercive force is to be used ONLY when ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Not when it might be nice. Not when the benefits MIGHT outweigh the costs, but only when using it will definitely, concretely, protect life or property."

I suspect we differ on what we mean by absolutely necessary. In fact, given that you are an AC, I know that is the case. All I am interested in is maximizing liberty - same as you. I am concerned that the despotic nature of many middle eastern countries allows terrorists to attack with impunity and hide behind some phone notion of sovereignity and even thumb their noses at us on the grounds that they aren't wearing military uniforms, so our hands are tied. This is not, to me, an 'it would be nice to eliminate' consideration. It is a primary consideration in how terrorists can be dealt with.

We are essentially having a discussion over whether the tyranny of the government enforcing property rights outweighs the deterrent effects on criminal individuals. You are suggesting that that the government never relenquishes power and there can be no offsetting freedom from allowing the government to employ force, and I am saying that I know the government tends to hold power, but I do happen to think that there is an offset. These are things that libertarians can disagree on.

I am also concerned that the military serves its role in several ways. One is direct protection of the borders, to be sure. Another important aspect of maintaining a standing military is its deterrence value. No diplomacy or negotiations can take place with tyrants unless there is a credible threat to them somewhere in the picture. Prior to this conflict, I don't believe we had any such credible threat from the perspective of anyone running a middle eastern country, and I therefore believe the military was incapable of performing its mission.

Lastly, I see no non initiation of force prohibitions about removing any tyrant from his throne at any time, any more than I see a problem with 3rd party interventions to stop a violent crime. Despots have all, by definition, forfeited their right not to be interfered with just as has the rapist. But what about forcing people to pay for it, you say? If it falls within the context of securing the nation from external threats, then, yes, I think it is morally justifiable to the same extent that any action by the military is morally justifiable. I see nothing particularly moral in forcing a standing military to only ever act on US soil. My perception of what constitutes a threat is broader than yours, and my defninition of self defence is consequently broader, as well.

So, there is no obvious libertarian moral constraint on using the military in the way it has been used here from my perspective. Contra sleuth, this is not all about eliminating despots, ergo I'm saying that such always should be done. What I'm saying is that doing so is morally permissible. Whether it is wise or not requires an analysis of consequences, costs, and benefits.