"Falling Victim to Our Own Propaganda"

Marc Lynch is a political scientist at George Washington University and the author of the insightful blog Abu Aardvark. Here he is at the Cato Institute, offering a sharp and sobering take on the state of the surge:

Lynch's remarks were part of a panel discussion that also included Cato's Chris Preble, RAND's James Dobbins, and The Weekly Standard's Daveed Gartenstein-Ross. To watch the whole program, go here.

Comments

[Ashish George]

I can't get that video to run on my computer, but I have a question. Since Reason doesn't have magazine editorials, where do the individual staff members stand on what to do in Iraq?

If I had to guess I would say there are two camps. The first says, "Let's get the fuck out." Most of these people opposed the war from the beginning and haven't seen anything since to change their mind about the wisdom of being in Iraq. I would suppose Walker, Sanchez, Weigel, Doherty, Gillespie, Bailey, Sullum, and Howley would be in this camp.

The second camp is made up of the Big Responsible Thinkers who realize we can't just leave the Iraqis holding their dicks. This camp is made up of both the Youngs and Michael Moynihan.

Am I wrong?

[Ashish George]

Sanchez isn't listed as a Reason staff member any more. Did I miss an announcement? I also see I forgot to include Balko in the pro-withdrawal camp. And I'm not sure about Jeff Taylor and Katherine Mangu-Ward. The latter used to work at The Weekly Standard, but she seems a lot less insane than her former co-workers. (Feel free to include that line as an endorsement in your resume, Ms. Mangu-Ward.)

[Urkobold?]

I SENSE THAT Ashish George HAS A PURGE OF SOME SORT PLANNED.

Ashish George,
ARE YOU NOW OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN A MEMBER OF PETA?

ANSWER THE QUESTION!

[ed]

Good question, George the Ashish. Reason's (at least H&R's) official editorial policy when it comes to Iraq is this: Snark. Not much of a policy, but it entertains the rank and file, and it provides a platform for crackpots to vent their frustrations. The wider and more legitimate question as I see it is this: Does a free and moral people have a right (not an obligation) to take down a gangster regime? If it is in their best interests, should they do it? How does a country define its best interests? Are we capable of convincing good and capable and educated individuals to run for national offices? Or do we deserve the cretins who inevitably run--and through default-- are elected?

[Taktix?]

I saw, err... my coworker saw Ashish George go to PETA meetings.

[joe]

It is true that the good news from Anbar is only limited - it doesn't get us any closer to the success of the mission Bush and Cheney are trying to accomplish.

But screw their mission. It was an idiotic pipe dream from the beginning - shooting people into being our democratic allies!

We have a better opportunity than we've had in years to put together an exit strategy that has a chance of producing a non-disasterous outcome for us.

It's too bad that the White House would rather blow the last three grand in the bank account with one more spin of the roulette wheel than just walk out of the casino while we can, at least, still pay the mortgage.

[joe]

ed,

If my thinking had led me to support a catastrophe of this magnitude, I wouldn't be striking a superior pose about how serious my thinking was.

[Ashish George]

You say purge, I say a blood-on-the-streets coup against the politician-pundit complex behind this war. To-may-to, to-mah-to.

[Les]

Or do we deserve the cretins who inevitably run--and through default-- are elected?

If it's a given that cretins run the country (dishonest cretins, at that), why would anyone trust them to competently take down a gangster regime or honestly define its best interests?

[J sub D]

ed - I going to take a crack at your quiz.

Does a free and moral people have a right (not an obligation) to take down a gangster regime?

No.

If it is in their best interests, should they do it?

Whose best interests? Actually, it doesn't matter, still no.
How does a country define its best interests?

Speaking for myself, not the country, I define the following as in our best interests.
One - A credible, capable defense establishment.
Two - Freedom for our citizens that doesn't infringe on others freedoms, these freedoms/rights are defined in the Constitution of the United States.
Three - Free pizza if the Tigers win.

Are we capable of convincing good and capable and educated individuals to run for national offices?
We are, and they do. We just don't elect them.

Or do we deserve the cretins who inevitably run--and through default-- are elected?

As a society, we deserve who we elect. It has been theorized that a problem with representative democracy, is that the people can vote for free bread and circuses. For a short while.

[Syloson of Samos]

Interesting observation about Anbar province leaders seeing their current position as one of a post-victory settlement.

[Kevin Nowell]

I think free people have the right to take down an illegitimate tyrant; they just don't have the right to force anyone else to do it/pay for it.

[Jesse Walker]

Ashish: Some of your guesses are misses. Ron originally supported the invasion, for example, though I don't think he does anymore. Anyway, you can read what the people on staff in March 2006 (plus a bunch of others) thought about the war here. As for the people who joined the staff since then, both Michael and Katherine used to be Iraq hawks but had turned against the war by the time they joined up.

[Dave]

I have a question/observation. I have noticed that there are a lot of people who favor immediate withdrawl from Iraq, but will tell you that they always supported the US going into Afghanistan. The reason for this, they will tell you, is that Afghanistan was where the terrorists were located, so that's where we should have been. Fair enough. What country is now the focus of Al-qaeda and its related groups? So shouldn't we be engaged there, for the same reason that you supported going into Afghanistan?
The first thing that those people will tell me is that there weren't any Jihadis in Iraq before Bush invaded. Putting aside the argument over the total accuracy of that statement, everyone on Earth can agree that they are there now. Since we are stuck with existing now, I would say that my original question still applies. Great Britian is no longer America's number one enemy, the Apache no longer fight wagon trains, and Afghanistan is no longer the main base of operations for terrorist activity. Should we pretend otherwise because you didn't agree with the decision to invade Iraq?

[matthew hogan]

"Afghanistan is no longer the main base of operations for terrorist activity."

In terms of al-Qaeda central, North Pakistan is.

" Should we pretend otherwise because you didn't agree with the decision to invade Iraq?"

No. There's no strategic region to be blundering about Iraq.

[Syloson of Samos]

Would Iraq be any sort of safe haven for AQ sans a US presence there? Probably not.

[matthew hogan]

Does a free and moral people have a right (not an obligation) to take down a gangster regime?

Not sure but can you name me a free and moral people?

-- one that does not massively jail or expel people for smoking a joint, not having the right papers, subsidize education and health care via taxation and which does not have a racial or gun-control environment so severe that people get a death penalty for shooting invaders who barge their door down at night...

and...

(take your pick on this issue)

a) slaughter millions of unborn children by abortion

OR

b) have a large popular movement of people who want to forcible prevent women from exercising reproductive choice through imposition of religious norms

I don't even think Switzerland meets all of the above

[iih]

Does a free and moral people have a right (not an obligation) to take down a gangster regime?

Only if that regime endangers the free and "moral" people. I have problems with the "moral" part. How do you define that (aside from the most basic definitions of immorality, e.g., steeling, killing, etc)? Morals change within one nation, let alone from one nation to another.

The oppressed people under that regime are the only ones to decide to remove their dictator. May be they "like" having their dictator. Many Iraqis, for example, including some Shiites (the non-hardliner types), would rather (as they did before 2003) keep a brutal dictator than have the mess they are in now, where no one is immune from terrorism.

It is interesting to note that there isn't a single statistic (that I am aware of) that said that the majority of Iraqis were pro having a foreign country invade Iraq, and remove their leader.

[iih]

Jesse:

It is good to know that, though I do not think reason is obliged to make such declarations. In fact the less editorial it is, the better.

[iih]

Syloson:

Would Iraq be any sort of safe haven for AQ sans a US presence there?

In my opinion:

It depends. Not having any US presence from the very beginning (i.e., no Iraq war), there would be no AQ there today.

With the Iraq war and current US presence, AQ is in fact there.

If US withdraws and no diplomatic compromise, I would say AQ will remain there. Firstly, they'll work hard to fight Shiite influence in Iraq (with a subsequent civil war possible), and, secondly, Iraq could be the kind of failed state from which AQ operates.

If US withdraws with a serious diplomatic compromise, then hopefully the answer is "probably not" (as you say) -- i.e., no AQ in Iraq.

[fyodor]

Dave,

The reason for going into Afghanistan was to take out the regime that enabled the terrorists responsible for 9/11 to operate with impunity, and to keep them from continuing to do so. One major factor in the success we had in doing that was the presence of an organized opposition who could make use of our support and become an ally once in power. I hope you can see how this differs from the current Iraq situation in various regards.

[Dave Woycechowsky]

Ron originally supported the invasion, for example, though I don't think he does anymore.

Being right too early is not careerist. Or something.

[Dave]

Fyodor:

So, hypothetically, the US withdraws all troops from Iraq next month. Six months from now, terrorist organizations operating out of Iraq carry out a 9/11 level attack against the US. You favor invading Iraq?

I can see how an organized opposition creates a difference in Afghanistan. And I can see how they continue to fight, in turn, the opposition to themselves, to this day.
As far as a "regime which allowed...them to operated with impunity", what will the important difference be in Iraq? The lack of a regime which allows them to operate with impunity? So the solution to that would of course be to create a new governtment...which is what we're trying to do. The greatest differnce between how you are describing things in Afghanistan and in Iraq seems to be difficulty, not the principle of using our military in the countries where the terrorists are concentrated.
So what's the guiding principle to be? Invade countries where terrorists live and plan out operations against us, as long as they don't have any major urbanized areas (after all, aren't the military situations in Afghanistan and Iraq excluding Baghdad pretty similar)? And if they are operating out of urban areas, then what?
I still don't see how someone could think it was very important to go after the Jihadis when they were based out of Afghanistan, and then turn around and say we should stop fighting them in Iraq.

[joe]

Dave,

What country is now the focus of Al-qaeda and its related groups?

Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Junior League in Iraq is 1) only tenuously related to AQHQ, and 2) being taken care of by the locals pretty effectively, and 3) helped, not hindered, by the continuing pursuit of the Bush/Cheney "Client State Iraq" strategy.

Which is not to say we should be wholly uninterested with them. Striking against them may well be part of cleaning up the mess we have to deal with once we stop using our military to prop up the Baghdad government.

[joe]

Dave,

You noticed what happened to AQI's ability to control, or operate within, Anbar Province once we cut and ran from there last year, right?

That's been the most effective thing we've done to harm international jihadism since the invasion of Afghanistan. More like that, please.

[Dave]

"The Junior League in Iraq is 1) only tenuously related to AQHQ, and 2) being taken care of by the locals pretty effectively, and 3) helped, not hindered, by the continuing pursuit of the Bush/Cheney "Client State Iraq" strategy."

So you're telling me that the terrorist situation in Iraq is being taken care of by the locals effectively? Interesting. I wonder if you will continue to take this position when it's not convenient to the argument. So I guess our nation-building strategy is starting to work after all. As far as the "Junior League" comment, who is killing more people these days, Bin Laden and his direct subordinates, or the people who fight in his name in Iraq?

"You noticed what happened to AQI's ability to control, or operate within, Anbar Province once we cut and ran from there last year, right?"

This seems like a giant mischaracterization of what is going on in Anbar. The US is arming and coordinating the tribal leaders in Anbar, it's not like we just said "peace out" and fled.

[ChrisO]

Prof. Lynch's comments are very interesting. The only thing I'm wary of is that the Arab culture seems to favor bullshittery in public statements--the notion of the "honorable fiction" as I call it. The speaker knows that his audience knows the statements are bullshit, but he makes the statement anyway to save face.

In other words, the Sunni leaders have no honorable choice but to claim victory over the American forces, regardless of the reality on the ground. As such, I'm not sure that their public statements are that much more useful than the spin coming out of the Bush Administration.

And yes, I'm aware that the "honorable fiction" exists within our own government, too.

That said, Lynch is probably spot-on by pointing out that Iraqi factionalization seems to be both splintering and deepening. Instead of a simple tripartite civil war, we could have another Lebanon-style clusterfuck on our hands. In that event, our options are either to clamp down hard and impose a harsh police state on everyone there, or to get out and let them start killing each other. Unfortunately, I believe our choice is that simple and unpleasant.

[joe]

Dave,

The Anbar shieks didn't turn against al Qaeda during our "nation building strategy," but when we left. Did you watch the clip at the head of the post?

The alliance between tribalist, nationalist Iraqi Sunnis and international jihadists is, and always has been, primarily an "enemy of my enemy" alliance of convenience, brought about and sustained by the presence of Americans.

The US is arming and coordinating the tribal leaders in Anbar, it's not like we just said "peace out" and fled.

We are NOW, in response to their requests (what Lynch characterizes as the "peace settlement" they offered us after their "victory"). But, once again, let's keep the reality-based timeline in mind:

1. American troops go in (2003).

2. Al Qaeda comes in (2003-2004).

3. Iraqi Sunnis ally with al Qaeda (2004-2005).

4. US fights combined Iraqi nationalist/al Qaeda forces (2004-2005).

5. US withdraws from Anbar (2005).

6. Local forces turn against al Qaeda, wage war on them in the absence of American presence (2005-2006).

7. Local forces accept aid from Americans, allow us to return in limited numbers to support THEIR war against al Qaeda.

[TrickyVic]

I just found this tidbit in an article on Yahoo.
"""each month some 60,000 Iraqis are voting with their feet against the surge of U.S. forces by fleeing their homes."""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20070927/us_time/accessdenied

Joe, we didn't really withdraw from Anbar. My cousin was there late 2005 - early 2006. But we did pull back into our bases in Anbar and stopped fighting. That's just a technicallity, we were absent in the fighting, but the "allow us to return" is not really correct since we didn't leave. I still agree with the point of your timeline.

[joe]

Thank your for bringing that up.

"Withdraw" has become a nebulous term lately, no?

[TrickyVic]

""""Withdraw" has become a nebulous term lately, no?"""

Defintely.

[Pro Libertate]

Not at all. The Germans withdrew into Poland and France in one or more of those World Wars you hear about.

[Bob]

"It is true that the good news from Anbar is only limited - it doesn't get us any closer to the success of the mission Bush and Cheney are trying to accomplish."

This is the kind of stupid bullshit that makes this site a total waste of time when it comes to the Iraq war i.e. the ridiculous pontification by individuals who think they know more about what is happening in Iraq than the people in charge or our military operations there. Prior to the report by Petraues the people on this site were crowing that Bush would be made to look like a fool when the General stated what they thought they already knew: the surge was not working. Now that Petraeus has said the exact opposite, they find it a bit hard to stick to the same, obviously inaccurate, narrative, but they are sure as hell giving it a try. And they call the people trumpeting the successes in Iraq propagandists? Pot, meet kettle.

"But screw their mission. It was an idiotic pipe dream from the beginning - shooting people into being our democratic allies!"

Actually, this was not our mission in Iraq. But yes, I agree it is idiotic. If it didn't work in Germany and Japan then... oh, wait a second.

"The alliance between tribalist, nationalist Iraqi Sunnis and international jihadists is, and always has been, primarily an "enemy of my enemy" alliance of convenience, brought about and sustained by the presence of Americans"

When are you going to stop believing your own bullshit? It never ceases to amaze on how many subjects you pontificate like you are a bonafide expert. You would probably struggle to find Iraq on a map, so please stop talking about the sectarian dynamics present in Iraq like you are an expert in the field. And please, the next time you make statements like this, at least credit the original source instead of trying to pass it off as your own original thought.