New at Reason

December 7, 2006

Michael Young dives into the just-released report from the Iraq Study Group.

Comments

|12.7.06 @ 5:11PM|#

...the United States has both a national and a moral interest in doing what it can to give Iraqis an opportunity to avert anarchy.

Anarchy -
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control.
Seems to me anarchy already exists in Iraq.

Ashish George|12.7.06 @ 5:12PM|#

"That's because all Baker and Hamilton ever intended to give Bush was a diagram for defeat, a device for him to go down without losing face."

Um, could that be because our best option now is defeat without losing (too much) face?

Good grief, do people like Young not realize or not care that negotiating with people we don't like is all we can do?

Warren|12.7.06 @ 5:51PM|#

Iraq was a bad idea that gets worse every day. Of course things are going to "deteriorate" and the US will "loose face", nothing can change that. This is the Mid-East we're talking about. The sooner we Cut-n-Run the less it's going to end up costing us.

lovecat|12.7.06 @ 6:17PM|#

Robert Pape's study on suicide bombers suggests that if we leave Iraq, there will be fewer suicide bombings, as they overwhelmingly occur only where there is foreign occupation. Sectarian violence will continue, but not necessarily get worse.

If we admit to the world that we lost, and leave, the Iraqi people will feel a certain jubilation in having defeated the foreign invader, and this in itself will be a unifying factor. In celebrating, they will forget, at least temporarily, their sectarian differences.

We should throw all the "isms" out and concentrate on increasing the personal safety of the people. This is best done by relying on policing help from adjacent Arab countries.

Embedding fellow Muslims with Iraqi security forces makes much more sense than having them fight along side Americans.

We are foreign invaders with the best of intentions, but foreign invaders nevertheless. We must be emotionally and spiritually mature enough to put the personal safety of the Iraqi people above our need to save face.

|12.7.06 @ 6:29PM|#

The sooner we Cut-n-Run the less it's going to end up costing us.

In case anyone hasn't been keeping track, it's already a tidy sum.

|12.7.06 @ 6:31PM|#

The Middle East is a weird weird place --

If Syria is shipping Sunni extremists into Iraq to kill Americans and Shiite (and Syria is run by Shites) and Iran is arming Shia insurgents (although we are told Iraq was awash in arms before the invasion and lots looted from the old Iraq army, how much arming are they doing?) Then how are Syria and Iran working together to arm Hezbollah?

It all comes back to Lebanon and Israel don't it? Those Sunni's being shipped across Syria to Iraq are presumably coming from Lebanon's Palestinian refugee camps and from Norhern Lebanon Sunni villages? While Hezbollah's fighters are an effective deterrent to Israeli aggression and an occasional thorn in their side -- turned huge thorn in their side is they take control of the Lebanese government...

|12.7.06 @ 9:13PM|#

spur, I would bet that most of the Sunni fighters are coming from Saudi Arabia.

Juanita|12.7.06 @ 9:24PM|#

S-S-S-S-S
-T-T-T-T-T
--A-A-A-A-A
---Y-Y-Y-Y-Y
----
-----T-T-T-T-T
------H-H-H-H-H
-------E-E-E-E-E
--------
---------C-C-C-C-C
----------O-O-O-O-O
-----------U-U-U-U-U
------------R-R-R-R-R
-------------S-S-S-S-S
--------------E-E-E-E-E


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!WUZZUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it's JUANITA man

there are christmas trees with octopus feathers on Mars.

|12.7.06 @ 11:21PM|#

we are using the US military to train Iraqi soldiers.

Why are we believing that training will not be used against us? Is it the Iraqi soldiers that are trustworthy? or by hoping to train ex-enemies how it is we fight that we will be at peace?

|12.7.06 @ 11:32PM|#

tarran:

Certainly they have come from Saudi Arabia but I believe at least 50+ suicide bombers in Iraq have come Lebanon...mainly from Lebanese based Palestinian refuge camps...

|12.8.06 @ 3:29AM|#

Ashish,

do people like Young not realize or not care that negotiating with people we don't like is all we can do?

You could be the next Jimmy Carter with a line like that.

There's no need for us to negotiate with anyone. You want to stay in Iraq? Fine, who's going to make us leave? You want to leave? Fine, who's going to make us stay?

The only "people" we need to negotiate with is ourselves. Now, if you don't like ourselves, then I suppose your statement could make some kind of sense.


lovecat,

If we admit to the world that we lost, and leave, the Iraqi people will feel a certain jubilation in having defeated the foreign invader


We should throw all the "isms" out and concentrate on increasing the personal safety of the people.

What foggy paradise do you live in, and what did you have to smoke to get there?

There is no need to admit "defeat" because our military has not been defeated in Iraq. Our military has not pacified the civilian population, but that is not the purpose the military. [dear US president and congress: did you hear that?]

US troops aren't fighting a regular army in Iraq, they're chasing little gangs of piss ants around the block. If anybody knew where that can of Piss Ants Be Gone went, then everybody's personal safety would be assured and there'd be no more reason for us to be there anyway.

|12.8.06 @ 3:37AM|#

Stan,

Why are we believing that training will not be used against us? Is it the Iraqi soldiers that are trustworthy? or by hoping to train ex-enemies how it is we fight that we will be at peace?

A gold star for actually asking an intelligent question. Why indeed.

|12.8.06 @ 3:53AM|#

There's no need for the US to "admit defeat". It would be dishonest to do so, not to mention comically foolish.

There's also really no "saving face" problem left to worry about, if anybody would just fess it up. We invaded Iraq because it was thought to pose a big threat to our security. We were wrong there, but that cat is already out of the bag.

Bush should just say "these people have very deep seated psychological problems and I can't fix them", then pack up the tanks and humvees and come home.

What's keeping the US in Iraq at this point, is a deep seated sense of guilt. Now, we're asking the US military to "fix" a problem it cannot possibly contend with.

No amount of guilt, wrung out over any number of years, will ever atone for this kind of guilt, nor will it change the fact that Iraq is a really fucked up place.

If you find out that you took a wrong turn, a while back, then the only thing to do is put it in reverse, step on the gas, and get back to the missed turn asap.

Michael's criticisms of the report at valid. But in truth, the way to fix this problem is not hard. We will end up leaving anyway, sooner or later, and when we do Iraq will still be a really fucked up place. Deal with it.

We can defeat anybody's military. That doesn't mean we can make a horse drink water -- although there are idiots who think otherwise (like the guy who wrote "The Pentagon's New Map").

|12.8.06 @ 6:51AM|#

We invaded Iraq because it was thought to pose a big threat to our security. We were wrong there, but that cat is already out of the bag.

I don't think the Bush administration seriously regarded Iraq as a threat. The main reason was, I believe, that they wanted to occupy a country in the Islamic heartland and somehow establish a free-market, American-allied democracy in it. This would trigger a "domino effect" which would then defuse radical Islam throughout the region. This was always a ridiculous theory, although there's a few holdouts who think they can still make it work.

|12.8.06 @ 7:14AM|#

There's no reason for the military to admit defeat as military can only win or lose military objectives. But Bush's objective wasn't just military. It was also political and cultural. He wanted to get rid of Saddam and bring democracy and stability to Iraq. He failed. What's more, it's clear that there's no way he can succeed as you can't force people to live democratically who don't want to. For this broader goal, Bush indeed should admit defeat. He was ignorant or stupid or both. If he had any integrity at all, he will admit he's made a huge fuckup and withdraw all troops immediately. There's no way to "fix" this problem now. We only make it worse the longer we stay. But I don't think Bush has any integrity. He's a weasel and will desperately try to find a way out; he'll do anything but face the truth. Maybe he'll find some strongman in Iraq (the next Saddam Hussein), sell out democracy and the principles he justified this war on, and try to say he succeeded. Sort of anyway. He'll probably go to his grave never admitting he's made a huge mistake even though deep down he must know.

|12.8.06 @ 9:38AM|#

ISG report is just more cover for Bush. All of this post-sitting just makes me puke.

A stable Iraq is either a vital US national interest or it's not. If it is, hold station, reinstitute the draft, put in the 0.5M troops needed to PACIFY the country till the Iraq government is stable and our "ally". If it's not, we should pull out immediately and let the region do what it's going to do (which will be either horrible, bad, or mediocre); this is exactly what will happen on any of the variable timetables we are currently on will result in anyway. Absent the pacify option, this is all sunken cost, it's just a matter of how much.

|12.8.06 @ 9:54AM|#

Mr. Young still fails to grasp that merely wanting things to happen in Iraq, and throwing our soldiers into the breech, doesn't mean they're going to happen.

"If Iraq is all this, then does it make sense for the U.S. to abandon the country if its leaders don't play ball?"

It makes sense if keeping American troops in Iraq is doing nothing to improve the situation, or is actively making the situation worse.

He offers this binary choice: leave, and Iraq descends into civil war and becomes a haven for terrorists, or stay and avoid all that. In the real world, Iraq has descended into civil war and become a haven for terrorists even as a 150,000 American troops have done everything they can.

"If the Americans are in a mindset of drawing down their forces, how easy will it be for the Iraqi government to disband the country's militias, which requires national reconciliation?"

It will quite likely be easier, because the presence of American troops, de facto taking the side of the Shia as they "stand up" government troops who spend their off hours waging civil war against the Sunnis, is making national reconcilliation much harder. As all 16 of our intelligence agencies, the head of the British mission in Iraq, and the Iraqi people themselves keep telling us - however much Mr. Young would like us to believe otherwise.

"If a civil war is so frightening, then it doesn't explain why Syria has systematically destabilized Iraq by funneling foreign Sunni jihadists into the country to murder Shiites--increasing the chances for full-scale sectarian warfare. The same can be said of Iran, which continues to arm both of the main Shiite militias, despite the fact that they have been involved in countless rampages of sectarian killing." Because we're there. Because they fear an American military adventure even more than a collapsed Iraq. How can someone who spilled so much ink arguing that American military action in Iraq can transform the politics of the Middle East be so dense about the fact that the ongoing American military action in Iraq is influencing the political situation in the Middle East?

"For one thing, Baker and Hamilton ignore that Iran's stated goal in Iraq is to get the Americans out of the country--and perhaps the region." Uh, yeah, the way they link the redeployment of American military forces out of Iraq with the negotiations with Iran aimed at achieving America's goals sure does say to me that they're completely ignoring Iran's desire for use to redeploy out of Iraq. Is this disingenuous, or just clueless?

"That's because all Baker and Hamilton ever intended to give Bush was a diagram for defeat, a device for him to go down without losing face." George Bush already has a diagram for defeat, and has been following it scrupulously for four years now. Apparently, Mr. Young hasn't noticed this.

In the end, it is very easy to pick apart any strategy for Iraq, because the situation is so very awful, and our ability to clean up our mess is so very limited. Still, any sane person is going to ignore the advice of the people who made that mess, and still proclaim their faction to be the only one with the decency and wisdom to be listened to.

|12.8.06 @ 10:00AM|#

"We invaded Iraq because it was thought to pose a big threat to our security."

Just so I can keep my scorecard straight, Genghis, we're now back to WMDS and Al Qaeda connections as the reason for the war? That whole Grand Democratic Crusade this isn't operative this week?

I can barely keep up.

|12.8.06 @ 10:38AM|#

Yong Kim,

There's no way to "fix" this problem now. We only make it worse the longer we stay. But I don't think Bush has any integrity. He's a weasel and will desperately try to find a way out; he'll do anything but face the truth.

You're right, but the whole freaking Republican congress is not without blame here. And it looks like the Democrats are now lining up to share that blame, because -- as Michael Young very astutely points out -- congress does have the power to deny his little escapade further funding.



tbone,

Amen. It could be argued that pacifying Iraq is vital to our security, for sake of insuring that it doesn't become (remain?) a terrorist training ground. In which case, ramp the troop levels up and finish job. But if that isn't the case then, get the hell out.

I have very mixed feelings here, but lean toward "get out because even with a million troops the outcome would be in serious doubt".

The fact that Bush & Co. keeps the troop level at half-ass commit level, demonstrates a lack of integrity in my mind. It means that in truth, he is not in fact committed to any principles in this whole fiasco.

If he really wanted to democratize the place, he'd argue that the security interest is vital and ramp the troops up. That isn't happening.....



joe,

Just so I can keep my scorecard straight, Genghis, we're now back to WMDS and Al Qaeda connections as the reason for the war?

I stopped trying to keep track of what the offical cover is.

But I'll say this. I used to think this adventure made sense (because I once thought there might actually be a threat in Iraq). You, OTOH, have been against it pretty much from the start as I recall.

Well, you were right. I wish I (and a whole lot more people) had been there, a long time ago.

|12.8.06 @ 11:09AM|#

Thank you, Genghis. Although to be fair, I wasn't saying before the war that there were no WMDs or WMD programs, just that they didn't pose a threat serious enough to justify war at this time.

That point is still current, not just "I told you so." The fact that there is a threat at some level - the possibility of some level of an ongoing WMD program in Iraq, the threat of a civil war creating a terrorist haven in the Sunni triangle - does not necessary mean that hundreds of thousands of American troops killing people and breaking things is a good idea.

I am very much a Pottery Barn guy, in theory. I fear that all of the terrible things Republicans predict will happen if we withdraw from Iraq could very well come true. I just don't see how staying the course is going to do anything to prevent them.

Pursuing political solution, and prodding it along by out redeployment, is only a little more likely to work than staying the course, but it has a couple of other advantages. First, if it fails just as badly as staying the course, we will be out of there. Second, by no longer wasting our military, financial, and diplomatic capital in Iraq, it becomes freed up to pursue other interests tha we have allowed to languish.

I seem to recall something about a bearded man in a cave along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border; an Islamist dictatorship committing genocide in a Saharan country and destablizing its neighbors; a rather tenuous new democracy in central Asia that is opposed by large armed militias in the hinterlands; another rather tenuous new democracy surrounded by hostile Persians, Turks, and Arabs (and just a short drive from our troops' current deployment!) and a few centuries of military doctrine that promote the wisdom of having a strategic reserve to deal with the unexpected.

|12.8.06 @ 11:26AM|#

Yup yup yup.

|12.8.06 @ 12:24PM|#

"The fact that Bush & Co. keeps the troop level at half-ass commit level, demonstrates a lack of integrity in my mind."

Hey Genghis,

Here's a chilling thought. The troop level is half-ass now because it was half-ass from the start... when the main objective was securing small, highly mobile, hard-to-detect WMD caches and labs in a CA-sized country with porous borders so they would not fall into the hands of Islamist terrorists.

|12.8.06 @ 12:29PM|#

WMD worries aside, can you imagine what it must felt like to be a junior officer discovering a conventional weapons dump during the invasion? You call it in with the expectation of securing or destroying it only to be ordered to 'drive on' even as you saw "looters" on the horizon.

|12.8.06 @ 1:35PM|#

I'd never thought of it quite like that, Patrick.

Jeebus.

|12.8.06 @ 1:47PM|#

That is a chilling thought.

What the HELL were the bosses thinking?????

|12.8.06 @ 7:05PM|#

I think the best approach now is probably going to include some kind of timetable or clear set of objectives for witdrawal; and the prospect of US and coalition troops leaving will have to be part of a diplomatic effort to resolve the conflict. Joe mentioned something like that on a previous Iraq thread. However, I have a few questions about the details:

Should witdrawal from the Kurdish Autonomous Zone be considered a seperate issue from witdrawal from the rest of Iraq? Suppose after the coalition leaves, some militias that want to create an Islamic State gain the upper hand and try to put the kurds under the theocratic boot as well. Should the US help the Peshmerga fight them off if most kurds request that we do so?

What will Baathist holdouts do after the US leaves? Should the coaltion at least stay until they hang Saddam so baathists don't have a leader to rally around? And would they have any chance of regaining power or would they be bitch-slapped by shia militias and others?

How will al-qaeda fare in a post-occupation Iraq? Should there be a provision in the witdrawal announcement saying something like: "If someone favorable to al-qaeda takes over, we're coming back just to take them out of power but we're not staying. If the government looks the other way while al-qaeda operates training camps, we'll periodically bomd the training camps and maybe launch the occasional incursion, but we won't stay then either."?

I am afraid I have more questions than answers.

|12.8.06 @ 8:44PM|#

What were they thinking?

My perception since the "axis of evil" speech is that, particularly among Rove and the neocons, defending political narratives had eclipsed dealing with reality. It reached the point where not only was the narrative disconnecting from reality but the narrative itself began lacking its own logic.

I suspect the troop level issue reflects the neocons' desire to discredit the Powell Doctrine and Rumsfeld's desire to validate his armed forces transformation plans.

Another strange bit of reasoning was that we would "take the battle to them" in Iraq making it the central front in the WOT (the "flypaper" strategy).

In the process, we would liberate the Iraqis so they could build a stable democracy respecting individual rights and embracing freedom in general... in the middle of the central front in the WOT.

Many posters here feel, after more than 200 years of democracy and individual freedom, Americans would likely pitch most of it if terrorist activity increased here. If that is logical then the belief that the Iraqis, with no experience with democracy and individual freedom, would embrace them as terrorist activity increased there has no basis.

|12.9.06 @ 7:36PM|#

BG,

A liberal foreign policy would work to pursue the establishment of liberal, democratic regimes through the support of legitimate, indigineous movements and governments, where, when, and how our assistance is supported by the people. These are necessary conditions both for reasons of principle, but also of pragmatism. Counterinsurgencies are impossible if the public is with the insurgents.

In Kurdistan, we would continue to be welcomed by the public, and we would be defending a fairly liberal, democratic regime (and retain the capacity to make it better, which it needs to do). I say we stay there.