New at Reason

January 22, 2007

Does Jonathan Rauch think the slim odds of a successful "surge" mean we should nix the plan? You'll be surprised at the answer.

Comments

thoreau|1.22.07 @ 8:33AM|#

Jonathan, do you know the definition of insanity? It's doing the same thing over and over and expecting...

Oh, never mind. Here, take these pills. No? Fine, then you'll have to wear the jacket that lets you give yourself a hug.

Garth|1.22.07 @ 8:52AM|#

By the logic presented an ever "better" idea would be to vastly increase the US military presence. If 21,000 additional troops is a good idea, then why not swing in 210,000 and give this idea an even greater chance of success? Oh, I know why not: it won't work regardless.

It's too late: the sectarian genie is out of the bottle and only an immediate restoration of iron-fisted secular government way back much closer to the beginning of this fiasco would have had an even remote chance of calming the situation.

It's time for partition of the country, significant reparations paid to the newly displaced, a loose federation to share trasitional oil proceeds (diminishing over a 20-year period to soften the transition of the oil poor to their new reality). The troops we have should be used to police the new borders for a brief time as we train others to take that role but otherwise get out of the cities altogether.

alkali|1.22.07 @ 8:59AM|#

So why shouldn't the Democratic Congress block such an unpromising strategy? Three reasons point, I think, independently in the same direction.

First, the Constitution. ... Second, politics. ... Third, morality. ...

Here's an idea, genius: if you're so excited about the Constitution and politics and morality, why don't you and 21,499 of your friends go over there to help out, and leave the troops out of it.

|1.22.07 @ 9:03AM|#

I actually agree with him. Looking at the political landscape, the surge seems to be about the only way we are ever going to get out of Iraq. When it fails, Republican support for staying will wither, and an exit plan should be forthcomming. Republican sentiment is critical, not to keep the country "united" as Rauch suggests, but because they are the ones in charge and Dems haven't shown the slightest inclination to oppose them.

Charlie|1.22.07 @ 9:07AM|#

Dumb. Just plain dumb.

alkali|1.22.07 @ 9:12AM|#

To elaborate a little on why I'm so ticked off: if you send 100 troops to Iraq, figure 5 come home with serious wounds and 1 doesn't come home. Accordingly, if you think something is worth sending 21,500 troops to Iraq, you are betting it's worth 1,000 severely wounded soldiers and maybe 200 dead. Those kind of numbers make anything that looks like a "Hail Mary" kind of plan much less compelling.

thoreau|1.22.07 @ 9:16AM|#

if you send 100 troops to Iraq, figure 5 come home with serious wounds and 1 doesn't come home.

And 94 stay there under a stop-loss order.

|1.22.07 @ 9:16AM|#

So, is it too soon to pick out a spot on the Mall for the monument, or should we wait until this clusterfuck turns into a debacle to start planning?

I think the author of this piece would be well advised to read the analysis at the Defense and the National Interest website. www.d-n-i.net

How many more American troops are going to have to die for the prestige of George Bush and the United States government?

And after Iraq, how many more times is the US going to get embroiled in other peoples' civil wars?

|1.22.07 @ 9:21AM|#

Jonathan, do you know the definition of insanity? It's doing the same thing over and over and expecting [different results]

Does this aphorism have any clinical basis? I'm not being cutesy here. I'm really wondering if this increasingly popular saying (variously attributed to Einstein, the ancient Chinese, etc.) has any legitimate psychiatric foundation. Otherwise it's mere playing with semantics.

After all, I could easily invent an adage -- say, "The definition of evil is using the Internet on Monday morning" -- and hope it catches on, available for use by people who might occasionally need to disparage Monday-morning Internet users.

(The preceding is entirely apolitical.)

Ashish George|1.22.07 @ 9:23AM|#

"I actually agree with him. Looking at the political landscape, the surge seems to be about the only way we are ever going to get out of Iraq. When it fails, Republican support for staying will wither, and an exit plan should be forthcomming. Republican sentiment is critical, not to keep the country 'united' as Rauch suggests, but because they are the ones in charge and Dems haven't shown the slightest inclination to oppose them."

Obviously then a better option would be to urge Democrats and skeptical Republicans to be more vocal. A surge is just a down payment on withdrawal with American blood, as the families of 27 American servicemen and women can attest after this past weekend.

Warren|1.22.07 @ 9:46AM|#

First, the Constitution. It provides for one commander-in-chief, not 536. A determined president can evade all but the tightest congressional attempts to override his military decisions, and any sufficiently tight congressional strictures are likely to emasculate the presidency and fracture the Congress.

Sounds good to me. How soon do you think they can get that done?

|1.22.07 @ 9:50AM|#

Very brave of Mr. Rauch. Now he's not as brave people like Rich Lowry and Bill Kristol, who have been eagerly playing "army" for years--not with little plastic soldiers, but with real flesh-and-blood Americans. You know, our fellow citizens.

Still, Mr. Rauch is offering up more American lives to achieve 3 objectives which, on their face, are irrelevant to any long-range Americans interests, which should be the ONLY guide for the commitment of American troops anywhere, any time. The first two reasons stated are solely for internal political purposes--I am not going to ask any American to die for that crap. The third, "morality", would be more convincing if coupled with holding those responsible for this debacle truly "responsible", which I have seen little sign of. The same bullshitters who advocated this disaster are pimping "the surge" and magically still supposed to have credibility. Until the day comes when these morons are removed from office (if they are politicians) or considered completely discredited (if they are "pundits"), I am not interested in hearing about buying "morality" with the blood of other Americans. If we can't hold out own evildoers accountable, fuck trying to uphold "morality" at the cost of more lives--under such circumstances, all talk of "morality" is bullshit.

creech|1.22.07 @ 10:02AM|#

NeonCat, historically troops have mainly always died for the prestige of their leader and their homeland. Or for personal loot.

|1.22.07 @ 10:35AM|#

To paraphrase: "We might as well give 'em some more rope to hang themselves with. Maybe their heads will pop off."

I think the Fallujah Campaign offers us an enlightening lesson on the force and effort necessary to effectively carry out a "pacification" of Baghdad. I am not optimistic.

|1.22.07 @ 11:04AM|#

What I love is that the administration's line is that the only two options are a surge and withdrawal. And they refuse to speculate what they'll do if the surge doesn't work, they'll "evaluate their options" afterwards. Unless a failed surge somehow creates more options, it would appear the only option left would be withdrawal.

|1.22.07 @ 11:20AM|#

"Second, politics... Many Republicans would believe that the war was winnable and that Democrats lost it. If the United States is going to leave Iraq, it should do so when even Republicans agree that there is little reason to stay..."

The real political reason that congressional Dems don't want to vote to cut off funding or find any other way of blocking the surge? If we're still in Iraq in November 2008, George Washington could rise from the dead and run as the GOP nominee and he wouldn't be able to beat Dennis Kucinich.

|1.22.07 @ 11:36AM|#

Hey, would this be a good time to mention the only way to have "won" the Iraq war would have been never starting it in the first place?

I know, not very helpful now, but something to think about as we set our sights on Iran (or wherever).

|1.22.07 @ 11:36AM|#

I remember the run-up to this ill advised aggressive invasion/belligerent occupation.

my city's young republicans club festooned the neighborhood with "Support Our Troops-Invade Iraq" campaign-season style yard signs

like it was our soldiers fondest wish to get shipped to a broken dick foreign nation, where they dig in and risk death by violence while our leaders grapple with the domestic political ramifications of a reconciliation with reality?

it's insane for us to continue down the criminal and immoral path set by the Bush league when they decided to engage in the botched liquor store heist writ large that our adventures in Iraq have become

I want a cut-and-run solution that actually addresses the problem:

get our boys out of there

and indict the Bush league for conspiracy to defraud the United States into a war of aggression

fraud is illegal

even (especially?) if it's the POTUS as perp

|1.22.07 @ 11:44AM|#

When it fails, Republican support for staying will wither,

I was under the impression that it largely already had.

As for Rauch's 3 reasons...let's consider those...

First, the Constitution. It provides for one commander-in-chief, not 536.

Indeed, but this issue concerns not only the president's authority to command but the legislative branch's authority to declare war and to fund it.

Second, politics. Blocking the president's last-resort plan would divide the country for years to come. Many Republicans would believe that the war was winnable and that Democrats lost it.

I think your overestimating the credibility of the Republicans on this one. The only person who lost this is Bush & Company. Even the Republicans know this. The public damn sure does and so does the military.

Third, morality. America has not quite discharged its debt to Iraq.

That would be your opinion. Any "debt" is based on actions now proven to have been a dreadful mistake. So pouring more heartache and American lives into a mistake to pay a "debt" seems a waste.

But even if it were, to whom do we owe this debt? In practical terms, "Iraq" as a country, institution or people no longer exists.

And what is our debt anyway? To establish democracy? Does that seem rational to you? If the payment of the debt is impossible, does that mean we allow soldiers to die to prove we did all we could?

Nonsense.

|1.22.07 @ 12:02PM|#

As for this debt we owe the Iraqis: perhaps we could, in partial payment thereof, extradite a certain party (current address, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave) known to have been materially involved in racking up that debt, and allow them to try and execute him.

|1.22.07 @ 12:09PM|#

20,000 troops or 20,000 kilotons? you do the math...I think Bagdad would look good as a smoking glass ruin

|1.22.07 @ 12:12PM|#

There is always the possibility that he would be welcomed as a benefactor and liberator, and be showered by a grateful People with all appropriate gifts and honoraria.

|1.22.07 @ 1:04PM|#

Rauch: "Instead of clearing areas of insurgents and militias and then handing them over to (unreliable) Iraqi forces, the Army and Marines -- along with Iraqis -- will stay put and hold the territory they clear. The idea is to make the population feel safe enough to reject militia protection and support the government."

This is the part where the wheels come off your logic. US troops will stay in the neighborhoods to maintain order, and this will convince the people to support a third party that is demonstrably incapable or unwilling to maintain order. I really don't think that's going to happen.

This whole "are we really sure we've lost yet?" routine is getting old. A majority of Americans are convinced it's a lost cause. A majority of Congressmen and Senators believe it's a lost cause. Consensus among generals, junior officers, and enlisted men is that the music has started and it's time to leave the stage. Why does anyone fear the "blame" of terminating such an unpopular program?

A thing that can't be done is a thing that can't be done, no matter how "vital" it is. A sober judgement, based on cold calculation, tells you when the jig is up. But here's a hint of how the Bush regime operates: the National Intelligence Estimate that would tell us how things are going in Iraq and give an appreciation of what we should do next was delayed yet again because the agencies involved are too busy working on the surge plan. In other words, they are too busy setting the new policy in motion to make an assessment of what the new policy should be.

The NIE was due last fall but was deliberately delayed past the election and is now being deliberately delayed past the deployment of the surge. At this rate, we won't see an NIE on Iraq until we collate everyone's memoirs.

|1.22.07 @ 1:59PM|#

There I was, peacefully eating breakfast and perusing the local paper when what, to my wondering eye, should appear but this little nugget, incandescently hot off the Associated Press News Wire: "Agents Visit Elderly Man Over Letter to the Editor."

Paragraph one:

An elderly man who wrote in a letter to the editor about Saddam Hussein's execution that "they hanged the wrong man" got a visit from Secret Service agents concerned he was threatening President Bush.

---------


I'm 100% certain the Iraqis think of President Bush as their heroic liberator, and would welcome the opportunity to shower him with love and flowers. Honest.

|1.22.07 @ 2:49PM|#

pig ignorant statement of the day:

[i]DADIODADDY | January 22, 2007, 12:09pm | #
20,000 troops or 20,000 kilotons? you do the math...I think Bagdad would look good as a smoking glass ruin[/i]

I think, after the trade embargo over such an atrocity as nuking Bagdad takes hold, poster would look good scrounging his meals outta my garbage cans

for shame

"drrrr...let's nuke someone!"

fucking clown shoes

|1.22.07 @ 3:28PM|#

I think, after the trade embargo over such an atrocity as nuking Bagdad takes hold, poster would look good scrounging his meals outta my garbage cans

He can't help it, KoWT. For years conservatives have been itching to smack someone around in the name of American moral superiority. Lot's of folks warned 'em it was a bad idea. Still, they had to try it.

Now, after the disaster in Iraq, the loopy-headed lunacy of Bolton at the U.N. and the shame of our Prisoner Of War and torture scandals, these idiots still come out of the woodwork.

These shortsighted bunglers can't see that fear isn't the only or best diplomatic tool in the toolbox.

|1.23.07 @ 9:06AM|#

hmmm...panties in a knot? transactional or transitional pick one mode death by a thousand cuts or one massive blow

|1.23.07 @ 10:53AM|#

ahhhhh...."big blow" fantasies

well, at least you're not one of those disgruntled folks praying for us to chuck a nuke in the ME because you have "the rapture" down as your lost shot at happiness

but still...

you can do better

Rob McMillin|1.23.07 @ 4:25PM|#

How did this piece of crap end up in the columns of a magazine called Reason? Shouldn't it be in The Weekly Standard or some other oriface of neocondom?

|1.23.07 @ 7:54PM|#

Rob McMillin,

For some reason, this blog loves posting Jonathan Rauch's crap. I can't quite call it neocon, but it's usually crap nonetheless.