The prospect of 'regional conflagration' is greatly overblown in my opinion. After the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan, the country was in chaos for years. The surrounding countries, including the Russians, acted prudently, trying to influence the situation through proxies rather than committing their own troops.

The leaders of the Iraqi Arab Shiites are pro-Iranian, but the common people are more distrustful of Iran. They were in the trenches fighting Iranians while many of their present leaders were enjoying Iranian hospitality.

The present situation suits the Iranians well. Sending their own troops in would backfire. They know their neighbors too well to fall prey to the 'greet us as liberators' delusion.

I grant the Turks are somewhat more likely to intervene, as the present situation doesn't suit them. The drift towards Kurdish independence threatens Turkey to a degree that's hard to overstate. But an invasion would trap them in a quagmire while uniting the region against them materially and the world against them morally.

The Turks might decide invasion is the lesser risk, and might even be right, though my guess is it would be a huge blunder. But I wouldn't expect Iran or Syria to respond with their own troops. Why go toe-to-toe with a NATO-equipped army, when they could bleed it with the Kurds as proxies? Moreover, the Kurds themselves rightly distrust all their neighbors. They would welcome arms and cash, but they would be guerrillas on the supply lines of an invasion from any direction.

I don't see any reason for post-American Iraq to be so different from post-Soviet Afghanistan. The neighbors will meddle, but I don't think they'll let themselves be sucked in.

Posted by: David Tomlin at October 19, 2006 10:01 AM | Permalink to this comment

There's an obvious flaw in the Dayton analogy. It didn't get foreign forces out. It brought them in.

The post-Dayton occupation force was one of the models looked to by all the think tanks and study groups that estimated 400-500,000 troops would be needed for Iraq. (Larry Diamond, Squandered Victory, pp. 282-285; George Packer, The Assassins' Gate, pp. 110-113)

We didn't have them then, don't have them now, and aren't going to get them.

Posted by: David Tomlin at October 19, 2006 01:09 PM | Permalink to this comment

The Democrats appear to lack the leadership and credibility to sell re-engagement to the American people, who, generally speaking, don't like casualties when it looks like we're losing and don't like sacrifice. Unfortunately, in order to accomplish what you've set out, a great deal of sacrifice will be needed.

A year or so ago, I attended a New Yorker roundtable discussion at the Town Hall. on Iraq. Among the participants was Mark Danner. He remarked at one point that he opposed the war from the outset because he did not believe that US voters were prepared to provide the resources necessary for the nation-building effort that would be required after Saddam was removed.

That's not a party issue. That's the fundamental difficulty that any democratic state will face when engaging in a imperialist adventures. The last major imperialist fiasco--Vietnam--led to the voters forcing politicians to forego an essential tool for future adventures, the draft. The elimination of the draft created a firewall that should have prevented wars like this one from ever taking place again. It led to the Powell doctrine. It led to the recognition by every administration up until this one that the US simply does not have the military personnel to engage in an extended conflict.

It's odd to single out democratic leadership. Aside from the fact that the Congress can't do much in regards to how a war is waged, the bleak future can be laid at the White House door and nowhere else. The failure here is the administration's (and many republicans') bizarre inability to perceive reality. The notion that this war could take place without sacrifice--with decreased taxes, no increase in the size of the army and no commitment to nation-building--comes entirely from the administration and its mouthpieces. We're still on the same path. No mention of the draft. No suggestion that rather than lowering standards for enlistment we should increase pay, combat pay and family support. No suggestion that this (whatever "this" is) can be done with the current collection of resources.

The reason, of course, for the continued commitment to this bizarre notion is that it would be politically suicidal to speak the truth. And they are far, far more committed to keeping their seats and to continue to loot the treasury than they are to America, Americans and America's soldiers.

But at least they wear their lapel pins.

Posted by: jayackroyd at October 19, 2006 02:48 PM | Permalink to this comment

you correspondent writes:

So, why won't this work? Domestic reasons mostly. If the Democrats win control of one part of Congress, it will be seen as a victory for those who opposed the war and want to withdraw. There will be investigations aplenty but with a goal of criminal indictments and political point-scoring, not fact-gathering. The White House will be too occupied with burgeoning investigations and related document shredding (is Fawn Hall back at the NSC, yet?) to focus on dismissing the incompetents in its midst and shaping a strategy that protects American interests rather than its political/personal interests. The Democrats appear to lack the leadership and credibility to sell re-engagement to the American people, who, generally speaking, don't like casualties when it looks like we're losing and don't like sacrifice.

To fault the Democrats for a "lack of leadership and credibility to sell re-engagement" is simply an effort to score partisan points. If Democrats win in November, it will be because the American people are demanding "disengagement" --- and not acting in a manner consistent with disengagement would be the real indictment of the leadership and credibility of the Democratic Party. Democrats can't "sell re-engagement" because Congress has scant power over how that re-engagement is accomplished -- that power relies almost entirely in the Executive Branch, and Bushco has demonstrated time and again that it has neither the aptitude nor any interest in the kind of rational foreign policy that would give "re-engagement" any chance of success.

As to the likelihood of military intervention by Syria and Iran, I think both countries would be more than happy to provide "stabilizing" forces if their efforts were supported by the international community. Syria was forced out of Lebanon not because of internal opposition, but international pressure, and Syria would be quite willing to help "pacify" western Iraq (and go after al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.) And given the increasing level of chaos that exists in Iraq right now, I think Iranian security forces would be far more welcome in the Shiite areas that your correspondent seems to assume.

A Democratic victory in November can accomplish a great deal --- first and foremost by beginning to restore the world's faith in the democratic process in the USA. By showing the world that our electorate is capable of making responsible decisions, the international community will be provided a reason to begin to consider ways to resolve the Iraq war though efforts that include international co-operation. An effective Democratic Congress -- through its investigative powers -- can completely discredit not only Bush, but the entire mindset that Bush and his cronies represent -- while the American people know that Bushco's policies don't work, they really don't understand why they aren't working. When "No more Iraqs" will join "No more Vietnams" as the overwhelming consensus view of Americans, the rest of the world will be more willing to help the US get out of Iraq once Bush is gone.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at October 19, 2006 02:59 PM | Permalink to this comment

....it must publicly commit the monetary and human resources (read: draft or dramatic expansion of the volunteer army) to execute the mission...

I think only a draft would work at this point. Because right now, the Army is dumbing down its standards in order to maintain current levels of recruitment, and other modest targets. Standards on aptitude tests have been lowered, max age limits raised, past behavior that used to disqualify accepted, fewer recruits are kicked out of boot camp for infractions that used to warrant expulsion, signing bonuses increased, etc.

Against this backdrop, how would the military manage a "dramatic expansion" absent a draft? If treading water is barely manageable, setting out on a mile swim isn't really plausible.

So, why won't this work? Domestic reasons mostly. If the Democrats win control of one part of Congress, it will be seen as a victory for those who opposed the war and want to withdraw.

Ah yes. But if the GOP enjoys a resounding victory, then we can expect Bush/Cheney to implement the above mentioned suggestions. Why would anyone doubt their willingness to adapt, adjust and accept criticism? There track record has been most impressive on these fronts.

Posted by: Eric Martin at October 19, 2006 03:01 PM | Permalink to this comment

While we may be able to shrug off the moral calamity that would follow our exit . . .

I'm growing weary of bloody shirts and crocodile tears.

In the run-up to the 1991 Gulf War I listened to a lot of C-Span call-ins. At first I was impressed with how many people seemed sincerely concerned about the suffering of the Kuwaitis under Iraqi occupation.

The occupation killed hundreds of Kuwaitis. The liberation killed tens of thousands of Iraqis.

I didn't expect this outcome to change people's minds about the war. I did think the C-Span callers who were so upset about the Kuwaitis would spare a word or two for the tragedy that had befallen the Iraqis.

I mean that literally. I was really surprised as caller after caller exulted over the victory, some expressing sadness over American losses, along with relief that they were as light as they were, without saying a word about Iraqi losses. Only those who had opposed the war thought dead Iraqis were worth a mention.

When restoring the Al Sabah dynasty to power in Kuwait was widely perceived as an American interest, few cared how many Iraqis were killed in the process. If withdrawal from Iraq comes to be so perceived, doubtless the same will be true.

I don't want to leave the impression that I accept without demur the unargued assumption of 'the moral calamity that would follow our exit', which I assume means a moral calamity greater than the one now in progress.

Posted by: David Tomlin at October 19, 2006 03:40 PM | Permalink to this comment

And given the increasing level of chaos that exists in Iraq right now, I think Iranian security forces would be far more welcome in the Shiite areas that your correspondent seems to assume.

The chaos didn't prevent a decline in the popularity of American security forces.

Posted by: David Tomlin at October 19, 2006 04:15 PM | Permalink to this comment

As a popular political blogger, I know you’ll be interested in learning more about our recent study on American attitudes toward current foreign policy and the nation’s place in the world. Please read on for more information! Feel free to contact us or to blog away on our intriguing findings.

Here at Public Agenda, we’ve created a new tool to track Americans’ opinions on foreign policy issues, providing a basis for political commentary. Similar to the Consumer Confidence Index, the Foreign Policy Anxiety Indicator provides policy makers, journalists and ordinary citizens with the public's overall comfort level with America's
place in the world and current foreign policy.

An essential tool updated twice a year, the Indicator will consistently provide much-needed information on the public’s perception of more than two dozen aspects of international relations.

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.

Eight in 10 Americans feel the world is becoming a more dangerous place for Americans, yet they're also skeptical about most of the possible solutions, such as creating democracies or global development. Only improved intelligence gathering and energy independence have substantial support, with energy firmly established as a national security problem
for the public.

In fact, the public lacks confidence in many of the measures being taken to ensure America’s security. Less than 33% of Americans give the U.S. government an “A” or a “B” grade for its execution of the following foreign policy issues: reaching goals in Iraq and Afghanistan, maintaining good relationships with Muslim countries and protecting U.S. borders from illegal immigration. And these are just a few of the findings of the survey.

These are some of the other startling findings:

- 83 percent say they are worried about the way things are going for the United States in world affairs (35 percent worry "a lot", with an additional 48 percent saying they worry "somewhat.")

- 79 percent say the world is becoming more dangerous for the United States and the American people

- 69 percent say the United States is doing a fair or poor job in creating a more peaceful and prosperous world

- 64 percent say the rest of the world sees the United States negatively

- 58 percent say U.S. relations with the rest of the world are on the wrong track

Want to learn more? Go to http://www.publicagenda.org/foreignpolicy/index.cfm to download the report.

Public Agenda is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group devoted to public opinion and public policy. The confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index is developed in cooperation with Foreign Affairs with support from the Hewlett and Ford foundations.

Posted by: William Hallowell at October 19, 2006 04:50 PM | Permalink to this comment

The chaos didn't prevent a decline in the popularity of American security forces.

talk about apples and oranges.

First, Iraqis blame the US occupation forces for the chaos

Secondly, Iran has a clue about Shia culture, and would be unlikely to make the same mistakes Bushco did.

Thirdly, the Iraqi Shia were not exactly enthusiastic participants in the Iran/Iraq war -- especially those Shia who were the most religious. Since the end of that war, the Shiite mosques became the only outlet for those who were unhappy with the Hussein regime --- and as a result the majority of Shiites are now far more favorably disposed to Iran and its form of government than they were in the immediate aftermath of the Iran/Iraq war.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at October 19, 2006 05:17 PM | Permalink to this comment

It still seems to me that you're overlooking the two elephants in the room:

(1) As several of your respondents point out: where are we going to get adequate troops for this purpose? Especially since the American people themselves have pretty much written off Iraq as a bad job, and would be enraged at any proposal of reviving the draft for the purpose.

(2) Why should we use whatever troops we do get for this purpose (disastrous though the breakdown of Iraq is) and not for the higher-priority purposes of trying to prevent Iran's acquisition of the Bomb and dealing on an emergency basis with any crises created by the fact that North Korea and Pakistan already have it?

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at October 19, 2006 06:24 PM | Permalink to this comment

Greg:

The way I read your pen pal:

1. America must have a big huge commission to figure out who to blame for the foul up; and THEN

2. America must reinstitute the draft, and commit more taxpayer dollars and troops to salvaging Iraq.

Then maybe, somebody will help us.

OK. because, as a nation, we've been naughty because we were silly enough to re-elect Bush, we need inflate our deficit farther, eat more spinach (hopefully e-coli free), send more of our young to sacrifice for us because they were likely too young to mistakenly vote for Bush in 2004.

*sigh*.

Y'know, though we have a lot on our national conscience relating to Iraq, we are not 100% responsible for all the bloodshed there. A lot of Iraqis decided now was a good time to start killing each other. And, frankly, since our soldiers keep things from being as bad as they could be, this has freed a lot of Iraqis from the ultimate consequences of their actions. I think Iraq going to civil war is horrible for this nation and a horrible thing for Iraq. Pulling out is a major defeat and it will have major consequences. (Remember the 70s? I wish I didn't.) But...

If this e-mail is he best proponents of a continued war effort can do, they need to check out the political realities of 2006, and resign themselves to a withdrawal, sooner rather than later. Because investing indefinite time and material in Iraq (at the cost of great domestic dissent) in an effort that looks unlikely to succeed is more harmful to our national interest than having our country admit defeat now, and start dealing with the fallout.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at October 19, 2006 08:26 PM | Permalink to this comment

I suspect the only thing to do is to have some national referendum, an actual vote, where the question is specifically on whether to have a draft, raise taxes, deploy a large number of troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, and stick it out, or to withdraw ASAP.

Giving it to the voters like this would shield either party from sole responsibility, thus making politically difficult decisions easy.

Putting it plainly like this would give voters the ability to weight the actual costs. People might vote to stay *if* they know the administration won't try to keep muddling through half-assedly, bleeding men and money for no good reason.

Posted by: Jon H at October 19, 2006 11:48 PM | Permalink to this comment

To Reader#1, re: "U.S. citizens, myself included, are ultimately responsible for the folly of our elected officials."

NO.

There are those of us, MYSELF INCLUDED, who foresaw what is happening now, who argued against an immoral invasion, and who fought tooth and nail against that path that "our" elected officials took. Feel free to wallow in misery for where you and your kind have gotten us, but I feel NO responsibility for what is happening and your lack of foresight.

You disparage indictments, but have you considered that perhaps a few dozen or hundred indicted high officials might serve as a deterent for those that follow? Perhaps it might be a good idea to punish those who knowingly lie. Perhaps it might give pause to presidents in the future.

And good luck on your plan of getting Europe to bail us out, or as you put it, "come to the table. " Bush et al. have isolated our allies to the point of no return; promising to finally be fair with contracts (oh, sorry, "largess," in your shockingly honest terminology of corruption) is of little value, as the offense has by now gone far deeper.

Sacrifice in the service of a noble cause is a fine thing. For an imbecile president in the pocket of special interests, what might it be? (Exercise for the reader.)

Posted by: James at October 20, 2006 07:17 AM | Permalink to this comment

Y'know, though we have a lot on our national conscience relating to Iraq, we are not 100% responsible for all the bloodshed there.

How exquisitely precise the moral calculus has to be when the aim is to avoid responsibility for your actions.

Posted by: Warbo at October 20, 2006 12:53 PM | Permalink to this comment

warbo:

What does taking responsibility involve, really? As a nation? Parading Bush down Pennsylvania Ave in tar and feathers? Having a group of North Koreans pick citizens at random and subject them to waterboarding? What?

There will be consequences to the US as a result of Iraq. I am not sure what they are, but there will be consequences that we all really will not like. And Bush will go down as the worst president since Buchanan.

To put this one back to you, warbo, what do you do when a child you have raised badly (even with the best intentions) turns out a mess? Throw more money at him? Help him out of every scrape? Get him into rehab, then give him more money?

Sometimes, the more you do, the worse off you make the one you are trying to help. This may be where we are with Iraq.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at October 20, 2006 02:03 PM | Permalink to this comment

Y'know, though we have a lot on our national conscience relating to Iraq, we are not 100% responsible for all the bloodshed there. A lot of Iraqis decided now was a good time to start killing each other.

Y'know, there's a Geneva Convention concerning occupation, and it's the responsibility of the occupying power to provide domestic security. So we are indeed "100%" responsible for all the bloodshed.

So, why won't this work? Domestic reasons mostly. If the Democrats win control of one part of Congress, it will be seen as a victory for those who opposed the war and want to withdraw.

Let me see if I understand this. We have a group of policy-makers as sagacious and disinterested as Kennon, Marshall, Acheson et al. And they want to commit vast resources to Iraq which will be carrried out with brilliant diplomatic finesse and superb managerial execution. And all that stands in the way is the peril of the Democrats taking one house of Congress? So if the Republicans hold both houses, all the wonderful things will come to pass?

Posted by: Roger Bigod at October 20, 2006 10:18 PM | Permalink to this comment

The chaos didn't prevent a decline in the popularity of American security forces.

For those who didn't get your point, I'll extend it:

US forces have the reputation in iraq of shooting anybody they get close to, as a potential threat. They have the reputation for shooting women and children in vehicles that either get too close or that don't get sufficiently out of the way. When shot at, they shoot at everybody.

US forces have the reputation in iraq of detaining people at random and putting them into Abu Graib and similar places, where it takes 6 months to a year to get out.

US forces have the reputation in iraq of not knowing arabic and depending on translators who might mislead them into random or malevolent action.

Suppose somebody went to a bunch of iraqis with the following question: "We are considering stationing american security forces in your neighborhood to reduce the chaos, but we won't do it without your permission, what do you say?"

What answer would you expect? Based on iraqi polls (which remember tend to sample moderates preferentially, as the least dangerous people to interview), I tend to think the answer would usually be a resounding no.

Posted by: J Thomas at October 21, 2006 07:41 AM | Permalink to this comment