 |
November 14, 2006Iraq: A Final (Bipartisan) Push?With the nomination of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, the important role of the Baker-Hamilton Commission in forging a new approach in Iraq becomes even clearer. Gates was formerly one of the principals of the Commission, and now finds himself thrust into a critical policy-making role, one where he might well end up implementing some of the Commission's recommendations. The challenge that James Baker and Lee Hamilton (the co-chairs of the so-called Iraq Study Group (“ISG”)) must now grapple with is how to forge a bipartisan consensus on Iraq policy. Without one, the Commission will not be able to issue a recommendation that meets with the approval of all the Commission members (who range from Democrats like Leon Panetta and Vernon Jordan, on the one hand, to Republicans like Ed Meese and Alan Simpson on the other). The goal is clear: recommend a credible and actionable game plan on how to move forward, while helping a divided American nation find broad, if elusive, consensus regarding what to do next in Iraq. A huge challenge, to be sure, but the good news is that the last best hope for Iraq might well involve a mixture of policy positions some of which are popular with Democrats and others with Republicans. For instance, the Democrats (not to mention quite a few non-ideological Republicans) will find engaging Syria and Iran in high-level, direct talks of interest. In addition, an attempt to provide deeper autonomy to the main Iraqi groups in relatively secure, organized manner will appeal to leading Democratic foreign policy players like Richard Holbrooke who have been influenced by Les Gelb’s calls for an Iraqi confederation. Republicans, on the other hand, will find talk of bolstering the remnants of central authority in Baghdad of interest, so as to keep alive the prospects of a unitary state, as well as increasing troop deployments in Baghdad, so as to not have to rotate forces out of Anbar Province. And both Democrats and Republicans will find some common ground with regard to embedding more U.S. military advisors with Iraqi units to enhance the training and equipping effort, hammering out an oil revenue sharing protocol among the key Iraqi constituencies, working to better disarm and disband the militias, more attentively monitoring growing Turkish-Kurdish tensions, and more comprehensively backstopping national reconciliation efforts. The most contentious issue, of course, will be what to do with the approximately 140,000 troops in Iraq. Some observers, including this one, believe that forces must be increased by not fewer than 30,000-50,000 additional men, at least so as to provide for a temporary massive ‘surge’ style operation in Baghdad. This, however, not only will put greater strain on the military, but also will be hugely controversial with Democrats who see their victory in the recent elections as a mandate to begin troop withdrawals in Iraq. To persuade the Democrats to entertain introducing greater troops into Iraq, so as to have a fighting chance to re-assert order in Baghdad (an absolutely critical goal)--the Baker-Hamilton Commission will likely have to introduce the notion of benchmarks--so that Democrats can point to achievement of certain goalposts as constituting conditions for continued deployment of significant numbers of troops. All the above aside, however, I will stress again in these cyber-pages that a dramatic move to regionalize our approach to the Iraq issue is desperately needed. Not only will this signal to the American public that ‘stay the course’ is over and done with, it will also convince skeptical European capitals and chanceries that we are truly moving in a new direction, not merely providing a fig-leaf for a sequenced withdrawal that does not constitute a convincing new plan (offering Europeans and others non-discriminatory access to reconstruction bids is also advisable on this score). In my view, and as I’ve previously stated, we should convene a major Iraq Contact Group consisting of the Americans, British, Germans, French, Russians and Chinese—with full participation by each of Iraq’s neighbors (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait), as well as other critical Arab and/or Islamic countries as observers to the Contact Group (Egypt and Morocco, for instance). To represent the U.S. at the Six-Plus-Six Contact Group we should appoint some of the very best envoys the country has at its disposal. One critical priority must be addressing directly the wider regional tensions Iraq has exacerbated so that the conflict does not spill over to other countries. There might well be surprising areas of common interest among many of the regional Contact Group members on this score. A variety of goals will need to be tackled, and the diplomatic might of the entire key “Big Six” of the Contact Group must be marshaled to 1) build on Syria’s (still not convincing enough) efforts to make the Iraqi-Syrian border less porous, 2) continue to assist Riyadh in minimizing insurgent flow from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, 3) bolstering via diplomatic and other efforts countries facing growing religious radicalism from within like Jordan and, less noticed, Syria, 4) engage Iran full-bore on the Iraq agenda (to include as necessary other issues of mutual concern on a discrete case by case basis) to assure that the most radical elements in Teheran are dissuaded from providing arms and materiel to the worst of the Shi’a militias (lately groups splintering away from Moktada-al-Sadr), 5) dialogue more closely with Turkey to assure that her vital interests are not being imperiled by Kurdish resurgence, and 6) get Arab countries more involved generally with the situation in Iraq (greater Arab influence, in terms of bolstering the Sunni position, might well help serve to contain some of Iran’s growing influence, while also perhaps reducing the appeal of the ‘alliance of convenience’ between Syria and Iran, the former 70% Sunni, the latter a predominately Shi’a country). This is an impartial list, but the point is clear: a massive, full-scale international effort comprising all the great powers and the key regional actors must be convened to, around the clock, tackle the Iraq crisis. Many readers ask: what will we gain from direct discussions with Syria and Iran? I can think of several actions, without limitation, that the Syrians could take if we extended various carrots to them (such as facilitating a return to negotations with the Israelis over the Golan Heights issue), including: 1) making the Syrian-Iraqi border less porous, 2) reducing Iraqi Baath money floating about Syrian banks and thus ultimately getting to insurgents, 3) cutting down on former deviationist-type Iraqi Baath who fled to Syria during Saddam's regime trying to cut a non-Saddamite, neo-Baath resurgence in Iraq, and 4) inducing Damascus to be more cooperative with Maliki's government so as to help stabilize the national government in Baghdad. As for the Iranians, it's no secret they are hedging their bets and, not only supporting Shi'a militias, but also Sunni insurgents. Similar inducements (mixed with the specter of punitive actions) could get the Iranians to reduce support to some of the groups causing us the worst problems, whether Sunni or Shi'a. Neither Damascus nor Teheran want a total meltdown in Iraq--which would also involve large refugee flows to both their countries--countries with their own somewhat disgruntled minorities (Azeris in Iran) or indeed majorities (Sunnis in Syria). In diplomacy, as in life, you talk to your opponents on occasion to get results. Hope and 'they know what to do' isn't a plan. In the above context, I also believe it is high time for America to reclaim the mantle of “honest broker” in the Arab-Israeli dispute, not only to reduce the horrific human suffering on both sides in the Holy Land (but of late particularly among the Gazans), but also to help provide for improved regional dynamics that would better allow important countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia to more easily align themselves with American objectives in the region. The most critical objective, of course, is to stabilize Iraq, which is closely linked to a related goal of preventing an overly resurgent Iran from wielding too much power as something of a local hegemon bestriding the Persian Gulf via too much lebensraum in Iraq. In this, our Arab allies can probably be doing more to help us, if we do a bit more to help them. This does not mean appeasing the Arabs on the backs of the Israelis, however. American Administrations across both parties remain steadfastly committed to Israel’s existence and security, and nothing I recommend here would jeopardize these strong bonds. If anything, Israel’s security would actually be enhanced if the peace process were to make progress so as to improve dynamics between the parties, to include allowing for a rapprochement between Israel and Egypt, better relations with a potential national unity government in Ramallah, and even improved relations with Damascus and Beirut. In short, a final and convincing attempt to stabilize Iraq, via a combination of autonomy devolving to the regions but with powers related to border control, national defense, oil revenue sharing, and foreign policy all remaining the province of a sitting national government in Baghdad--one strongly backed by the collective might of the international community--must be seriously considered (to include a convincing road-map for the regions to move towards greater centralization at a future date, of which more another time). This will require troop increases in the Baghdad area (but with the introduction of benchmark concepts as palliative for Democrats) which, make no mistake, will be difficult to ask the American people—exhausted by three plus years of war and increasingly uncertain of Iraq's broader utility in the war on terror (itself a concept in need of a significant rethink). As mentioned, some ideas will appeal better to Democrats, others to Republicans. But the broad center of American society likely realizes that a rapid-fire withdrawal from Iraq will lead to a massive, full-blown civil war that will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands more Iraqis, perhaps even ultimately millions. Can America allow that country to erupt into total chaos? What would it mean for the region’s stability? What would it mean for the reputation of this country? What of all the blood and treasure that has been expended these past years? Will it have been for naught? Yes, who are we in the cheap chattering classes to ask another soldier, to paraphrase John Kerry, to be the last man to die for a mistake? But can we be sure one last attempt to stabilize Iraq, undertaken on a broad bipartisan basis, might not be the best way to honor, not only our fallen men and women, but also those still serving in this so difficult war, and those who might be deployed in a final push for victory through 2007? And do we not owe the Iraqis, who lost a horrid dictator only to gain anarchy and mass carnage--do we not owe them one last attempt at establishing a semblance of order and the serious prospect of a viable polity there? Comments
I tend to agree with your prescription, Greg. I hope Washington is reading this blog. Posted by: Mitsu at November 14, 2006 07:54 AM | Permalink to this comment
The problem is, of course, the Syrians and Iranians want things we really do not want to grant. The Iranians want their bomb. The Syrians want the Hariri investigation to go away, and Lebanon -- probably far more than they want the Golan Heights. Now -- do we need to engage. Of course. But is engagement going to be terribly successful. I don't know. What does the US really have to offer either country, that isn't really pretty unacceptable?, when we consider our own interests? And the US as honest broker? The only people who really think we serve as an "honest" broker in the Mideast are US citizens. We are allies of Isreal. The US sees itself as such. So does the rest of the world. Any administration that gets too tough with Isreal really does start to have domestic difficulties. And the Palestinians? Well, does this proto-country have any idea on how to negotiate in good faith? Do we owe Iraq one last shot? Yes. But only if Iraq shows some signs that this would do any good. If these folks really want their civil war, they will surely have it. I will say this -- given the US election results, the Iraqis are surely paying attention. The message they should hear is this -- do not depend on us in the long term. In the long-term, you will mostly have to deal with yourselves. Posted by: Appalled Moderate at November 14, 2006 08:57 AM | Permalink to this comment
Great analysis, Greg, though I mostly disagree. While we "negotiate" with Iran, we won't be putting on sanctions for prior treaty violations with respect to nukes. Remember nukes & WMDs? Your strategy for Iraq almost guarantees that Iran gets nukes. "One last chance" for Iraq. Why so? Why not "One last decade of continued support for the Iraqi gov't?" Commit to maintaining up to 100 000 troops in Iraq, as requested by the Iraq gov't, for at least 10 years. This is plenty to win any battle, but obviously not enough to stop gang warfare. The Iraqis have to stop the Muslim murders mostly on their own. In all cases, both Dems and Reps should be proclaiming that Muslims doing murder in Iraq is mostly an Iraqi and Islamic problem. The desire to "do it right the first time", and be done with it, is the childish desire to do nation-building faster than is realistic. More troops, now, smacks of this one final try and then we leave, since if this isn't enough nothing is enough. What IS enough is a LONG TERM commitment, longer than a Britney Spears marriage of convenience. More troops now, for a limited time, will almost certainly fail to stop the murders, but will increase the blame against the US for "failure", and thus allow the US to leave. So that the Iraqi civil war goes into a higher gear. The key is to correctly and honestly blame the current murders in Iraq on those in Iraq who do the murders, and those who know about these people but are silent. But again, at least this is a highly positive statement of what should be done, far superior to many prior ones. (And again, I was wrong to be so pro-Rep -- I'm increasingly glad the Dems won Congress, so now it becomes the Dem war, too; and thus America's war.) Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at November 14, 2006 10:00 AM | Permalink to this comment
The Iraq War is lost as the country devolves further and deeper in the inferno of full-scale civil war, and American voters have expressed their disillusion with the war during the midterm elections. Throwing 30,000 to 50,000 more American soldiers into the country for a surge-style tactic of securing Baghdad represents a delusional state of mind, either unable to grasp the reality on the ground or perhaps using the defense mechanism of denial to contemplate the full extent of the foreign policy debacle. But I do agree that you are representative of the chattering class, who are so divorced from reality and lost in their intellectual and political talking points, they think that they can somehow avoid what grand fools they have been in their support for this war.
A reasonable plan for late 2003. Today, not so much. How many Iraqis still believe that the US knows how to or really wants to act in their best interests. Everything that I have seen recently shows that Iraqis are placing their bets on the militias. Why should any Iraqi care what the ISG wants? Our problem has always been our political weakness in Bagdad. No effective Iraqi army or police could be created without a government that they were willing to fight for. Nothing our military can do will solve this problem, not in 2004 or in 2007. Making nice with the neighbors will not solve this either. Please, stop thinking of the Iraqi government as a real government. Think of it as the trade association for the Shia parties and their militias. The government will always be their instrument not vis-a-versa. The PM. spokes model, will make whatever soothing noises the US pushes hard for, then nothing will happen unless it strengthens the Shia parties. They tolerate our presence as long as we keep killing Sunnis for them. They will miss us for about as long as it takes to dial Tehran James Baker, America's first name in bipartisonship? Sorry, but if you don't mind, I will hold on to my wallet, with both hands. PLease, Bush should keep all of the credit for Iraq. He has certainly earned it! Posted by: Bill D at November 14, 2006 11:18 AM | Permalink to this comment
But the broad center of American society likely realizes that a rapid-fire withdrawal from Iraq will lead to a massive, full-blown civil war that will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands more Iraqis, perhaps even ultimately millions. I suspect most americans aren't nearly as cocksure as you, and 'realize' that they have no idea what 'will' happen after a withdrawal. As for how many Iraqis die, I'm confident that few Americans care. I've lived in this country all my forty-some years, and I've not seen a speck of evidence that more than a small fraction of Americans care how many people die in any foreign county. I think most Americans want out of Iraq. Given the choice, they'd like the getting out to be associated with something at least superficially resembling a 'victory', and many still cling to that hope. We've been here before, in the last years of Vietnam. I'm just old enough to remember. I think the people are more savvy now, and won't let themselves be strung along as they were by Nixon. Posted by: David Tomlin at November 14, 2006 11:19 AM | Permalink to this comment
Do you really think, for a minute, that the president is capable of implementing anything as nuanced and complex as this approach? He couldn't even read the post from beginning to end. He'd have to delegate the whole thing to somebody--which is, I suppose, possible. He may spend the rest of his term on his bicycle. But you don't have 30-50 thousand troops. You don't have support from Europe. You don't have any negotiating channels open to Iran or Syria. You can't do this stuff on the fly at the last minute. Troops need to be trained. Relationships have to be nurtured. Talking to the "enemy" has to be a continuous process. Steve Gilliard has said there are three choices: 1) Institute a draft and bring in 100.000 troops, starting in about six months (I note that this would bring the US force level to 2/3rds of the planned Iraqi security forces.) 2) Start withdrawals immediately. 3) Set up a timeframe and follow it. That's not a happy list. Each choice means a different kind of conflagration in Iraq. But this talk of diplomacy is bootless. There is nobody there to run diplomacy. He's still trying to jam in Bolton, for heavens sake. The president sees any exit strategy as an acknowledgement of failure. Rightly so, I guess, because it is. But we're gonna keep bleeding on a failed venture to preserve his ego. His legacy is shot. All he's got left is "staying the course" until he leaves office. Unless, of course, Barney changes his mind.
For many intelligent people, accepting the realization that we have lost this war, and that escalation of our efforts will only lead to greater losses, is so painful, so unimaginable, that they must cling to the idea that victory is still possible. But that ship has sailed. Its over, over, over. I'm glad the Dems are there to make sure Bush doesn't make a mockery of the course of action that Greg suggests. Posted by: Nathan at November 14, 2006 01:30 PM | Permalink to this comment
I have a friend, Marine, just returned from Anbar for rehabilitation of an arm ripped apart by sniper fire, and from him I've gotten the straight goods concerning what the 'brave men' serving in Iraq think of the place and what they might like to see happen - and doing the 'honorable' thing in some grandiose push for 'victory' for the beleaguered Iraqi people is most decidedly not on the list. They want the hell out. They do not trust, do not want to work with and in most cases have nothing but contempt for the Iraqi soldiers they are forced to man ops with. They seem to not feel much different when it comes to the Iraqi people in general. These guys are warriors, not peace makers, and walking into towns dodging IEDs and snipers to kick in a few doors or hand out soccer balls and crayons to children is NOT what they signed up for. Have an open and unfettered talk with guys on the ground in Iraq and you come away with the distinct impression that the situation is lost and beyond recall and that the linchpin of any ostensibly feasible remedy - the Iraqi army - is a complete sham organization marked by incompetence, conflicting interests, corruption. So if these perceptions are true and general throughout the country - and there seems to be a fair amount of reporting that suggests such is the case - then right away Greg your ambitious plan is DOA, which is the problem with all such plans insomuch as at crucial points in the reasoning they have to make some rather broad assumptions. As in your assumption that regional powers will back a contact group because their best interests will be served. One, we may have some idea of what we think their best interests should be but that doesn't mean that's what they are; and two, even if some tentative consensus can be reached people throughout history have shown a remarkable tendency to not act in their best interests especially if they've imagined a viable alternative with more perceived upside which is most certainly the case with Iran. And why do you say Iran is 'hedging its bets' by supplying arms to both Sunni and Shia? Isn't it more likely if such is the case that they are seeding chaos knowing full well that the Shia will emerge victorious in the end but that the chaos serves their ends well right now - or that they're pursuing two separate initiatives, one to firm up Shia militancy as the source of real power in Iraq and the other to embarrass, tie down, make life unpleasant for the American military?
I think you lost the Administration right around the second sentence's "bipartisan consensus," Greg. The only thing they'll understand are cutting off the supplemental appropriations. I mean, he's already kicked his poodle on this one. Posted by: norbizness at November 14, 2006 01:54 PM | Permalink to this comment
The post is long and rambling and blows lots of smoke. I guess I can't blame a die-hard hawk for wanting to look at the situation through a haze. For this comment I'll just select out some of the policy recommendations. . . . forces must be increased by at least 30,000-50,000 additional men, at least for a temporary massive ‘surge’ style operation in Baghdad. . . . so as to have a fighting chance to re-assert order in Baghdad (an absolutely critical goal) It would be nice to accompany this with some discussion of where the troops will come from. However, I don't doubt 50,000 could be scraped up. The rotation schedule could be shortened, though that might mean sending some units into battle under-equipped, under-trained, and/or under-rested. Troops could be borrowed from other theaters, like Europe and Korea. But, what for? To what larger strategy is restoring order in Baghdad a 'critical goal'? There can be none, for the bolt will be shot, the cupboard bare. By Greg's own statement the 'surge' will be 'temporary'. There will be no troops to spare for following up the success, if there is a success. Such an operation would be an Ardennes offensive, a futile gesture. For what? To save the faces of our politicians? This means the Democratic concept of benchmarks could well be used adeptly to ratchet up pressure on the Iraqis to achieve goals ranging from the disarming of militias to agreeing an equitable oil revenue sharing scheme, so that some Republicans might see some value in it. I don't know why Greg calls benchmarks a 'Democratic concept'. As best I can tell it was Bush who introduced the term. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501635.html There's an obvious problem with expecting this administration to do anything 'adeptly'. (Sorry for the cheap shot, but it needed to be said.) The more fundamental problem is that Shia and Sunni alike rely more on their militias than on U.S forces for security. They might prefer both, but it would make no sense for them to give up the former to keep the latter. . . . engaging Iran full-bore on the Iraq agenda . . . There is a difficulty here that is almost never mentioned. Last September, the Congress passed and President Bush signed the Iran Freedom Support Act. http://www.bakerbotts.com/file_upload/IranFreedomSupportActSignedIntoLaw.htm http://mysite.verizon.net/lardil/id70.html 'It is the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support regime change for the Islamic Republic of Iran and to promote the transition to a democratic government to replace that regime.' This law replaced an earlier one, providing for sanctions on both Iran and Libya, which I think may have included a similar 'regime change' provision for Iran. If I were an Iranian leader, I would consider the Iran Freedom Support Act to be tantamound to a declaration of war, and I would demand its repeal as a precondition for any cooperation with the U.S. Such a repeal is probably a political impossibility, as the Israeli lobby and its allies would be strongly opposed. Again there is a more fundamental problem. Iraq in chaos is not in itself in the interests of Iran and Syria, but it is probably preferable to a stable Iraq under U.S. influence. I think they would be willing to help only if there were some arrangement to 'neutralize' Iraq, which I doubt would be acceptable in Washington. I also believe it is high time for America to reclaim the mantle of “honest broker” in the Arab-Israeli dispute . . . I agree, but it's too late for that to matter with regard to Iraq. And do we not owe the Iraqis, who lost a horrid dictator only to gain anarchy and mass carnage--do we not owe them one last attempt at establishing a semblance of order and the serious prospect of a viable polity there? No. We owe them no such thing, even if we had the power to give it to them, which we don't. Posted by: David Tomlin at November 14, 2006 01:59 PM | Permalink to this comment
In the above context, I also believe it is high time for America to reclaim the mantle of “honest broker” in the Arab-Israeli dispute Not to create an echo, but does Greg think there's ANY chance of that under the present administration? Even assuming (implausibly) good intentions on our part, I just can't imagine that Bush has any credibility left with the necessary parties. Posted by: Anderson at November 14, 2006 02:07 PM | Permalink to this comment
It's the cliche of the hour and of the season - but it's Vietnam redux, circa 1970-72, when 'Vietnamization' was in the air and the illusion of some kind of (what do they call it - Pyrrhic?) victory was still being clung (clinged?) to. It's the illusion that we could still have a say in what's going on even when we're past the point of having any say - death squads, whether Sunni or Shi'ite, don't need the U.S. to approve or disapprove of them doing what they damn well want to anyway. The only difference is that the South Vietnamese government had the semblance of a slightly-more functioning government than the Iraqi one now. But the similarities are striking - an army far inflated in numbers and materiel on paper beyond credibility on-the-ground; police and other law enforcement personnel practically indistinguishable from the guerillas/insurgents; a civilian population whose living rooms and front porches become front lines at any time, and do an inproportionate amount of the dying; a corrupt and venal political crony culture more interested in jockeying for power and position and knowing where to stand or sit when things change, and so on and so forth. The more I read this blog, the more impressed I am at the attempts to come up with nuts-and-bolts policies, even though I disagree with much of the ideology and the people often endorsed within its roll. But given the venality of our own political culture of the last six years, with one (and maybe two) stolen presidential Greg, you still seem to be moving in the direction of a Dayton-style accord, which the Iraq Contact Group appears to be a harbinger of. I've advocated that in other comments I've posted before, and I can't imagine what else there is to do at this point. So...in lieu of anything else... and while this is going way off the subject...how about a similar accord or summit with ourselves? An inventory of our imperialist role internationally when the dust appears to be settling? An inventory of exactly what our role is in the world, and what we can do better? Because the question is not how much the world must support our adventures when we go off on a tangent over this dictator or that regime, but whether the world should care when we so spectacularly fail at it. Posted by: sekaijin at November 14, 2006 02:34 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg, Appreciate the effort you've made to think your way through this. I have to say though that I disgree: your analysis, while well done, might have been useful 2-3 years ago but events have passed it by. If I could pound on the point begun above by Jay -- Gilliard points to three options: 1) Institute a draft and bring in 100.000 troops, starting in about six months (I note that this would bring the US force level to 2/3rds of the planned Iraqi security forces.) 2) Start withdrawals immediately. 3) Set up a timeframe and follow it. His readers offer three more: 4) Stay the course for two more years and let the next administration clean up the mess (Bush's current plan, in essence). 5) Get chased out. Helicopters on the roof in the Green Zone. A rout. 6) Get Saddam out of jail and put him in office. #1 simply will not work. There will be no political support for a draft. Even if there were, the time horizon for training the conscripts is too long. The latter point could also be made regarding drafting Iraqi troops if the idea were not laughable on its face; in any event 100,000 new Iraqi troops simply means 100,000 better trained insurgents. #4 converges to #5. How soon? Anybody's guess -- probably on the order of months. If you have reason to think differently I'd like to hear your thinking. #6 is tongue-in-cheek -- it's doubtful that even Saddam could run that place now, but at least we've realized, much too late to do us any good, why he ran it the way he did while he was doing so. Upshot: the more #3 converges to #2 the more viable it becomes. The more it converges to #4, the more irrelevant. Do you disagree with this? Do you see any real options? Yes, we can talk to the Iranians and the Syrians all we want but do we seriously think they're going to save our bacon on this? In other words does such talk really gain us more options than the 6 above? Does it gain us any time? If you don't disagree then my question becomes, if you and I and Gilliard and his commentariat can come up with this in 15 minutes on a Tuesday morning, what the hell is the Iraq Study Group besides a talking shop? They've been in business since what, March? And furtermore, why should we expect Baker -- who's at the end of a life career as a consigliere to the Bush family -- to put forward any option that will negatively impact their interests in any serious way? Posted by: VidaLoca at November 14, 2006 04:04 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg-- I appreciate your analysis, but I am skeptical about the necessary troop levels. Are you suggesting 30,000 to 50,000 combat forces plus support, or just a total of 30 to 50 K? I fear that this is a step in the direction of gradualism, albeit at the high end. But it is also probably the absolute maximum that the Army and Marine Corps are capable of at this point. My overall worry is that we have maxed out the services, with the exception of the Air Force--plus Naval air--and you and others are therefore pulling numbers together that refect the limits of our capabilities rather than a thorough analysis of exactly what force levels might be necessary. Posted by: George Hogenson at November 14, 2006 04:08 PM | Permalink to this comment
Consider the mass kidnappings today. Does anyone think that Iraq is not going to spiral quicker and quicker into total civil war? Does anyone think that a mere more 30-50K American soldiers is going to keep the country together? The best thing we could do is help the middle class get out, airlift them in mass to somewhere peaceful, help them recreate their lives, and leave the rest be, who seem determined to have a civil war no matter what. It's developing into the 200 years of religious war in Europe between the Catholics and the Protestants. The wars finally died out, whether because people finally realized that all this war just meant more dead people, or because all the real fanatics were killed off. Maybe that 's the best we can do--give the fanatics opportunities to kill each other while protecting the moderates. Posted by: grumpy realist at November 14, 2006 04:22 PM | Permalink to this comment
VidaLoca what the hell is the Iraq Study Group besides a talking shop? I assume that Bush was dragged kicking and screaming to setting this up, in order that they could get off the "stay the course" talking point. There is no interest in policy in this White House. This group gave cover to Republicans seeking reelection, and may well have saved some House seats, given how small some of the margins are. Now that they've lost, this group serves no purpose. It may present an opportunity for reality-based discussion to take place, but I have seen absolutely no sign that the president is interested in reality-based discussions. And they're stilll playing hardball. At a time when they should be trying to find some bridges to minimize the damage of their minority status, they are trying to jam through appointments and legislation that will stand no chance of passage in January. During the last six years, they have dismantled much of the apparatus for bipartisanship on Capitol Hill. The Democrats may, in the national interest and in reflection of the broader ideological positions in their party, reestablish some of that apparatus. But they may not; playing hardball at this stage essentially ignores a very clear mandate from the people (not one republican challenger won). They will get what they deserve if Pelosi and Reid decide to treat them the way the minority has been treated. What this portends is Bush refusing to change policy in Iraq until we hit the helicopters in the Green Zone phase. As Gilliard has said, without a draft this war is unsustainable. And, as you have said, there will be no draft. Can Baker convince Bush of this? They met for all of an hour yesterday. If not, despite what Pelosi has said, impeachment may end up on the table. Posted by: Jay Ackroyd at November 14, 2006 04:29 PM | Permalink to this comment
what I owe the Iraqis: nothing. They aren't my family. They aren't my friends. What I owe my brother in the army: everything. Bring him home now. Posted by: Mr. F. at November 14, 2006 04:30 PM | Permalink to this comment
Jay -- Now that they've lost, this group serves no purpose. Well, no, unless you count rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenberg as a purpose.
If we can't come up soon with some reality-based alternative policies, these reality-based discussions are going to end up getting a lot of people killed.
Greg, If you want to give it one last shot fine. But adding troops won't help so just forget about that. We don't have them, and if we did it wouldn't matter anyway. Here's the only viable plan. Demand the Iraq government disarm the militias immediately. Give them 30 days and monitor the progress. If significant disarming hasn't occurred within 30 days, say sayonara and leave them to the destiny they've chosen. Now understand, this plan has zero chance of succeeding. But at least we could claim we gave them a chance. Iraq has been over for quite a while. If we feel we need to save some face this is probably the best we can do. Posted by: Davebo at November 14, 2006 04:47 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg--that seems the best hope right now. I know that troops alone are not the answer, not now. But a surge combined with a new plan might work. One of the worse tragedies of this war is liberating an area, making contacts and connections with Iraqis, only to leave and having those people who cooperated with us beheaded and killed. This has happened again and again, especially in Anbar. Al Qaeda litterally is a virus, attacking those members of the Iraqi public, the potential future leaders that we need most to protect and foster. Posted by: Joe at November 14, 2006 04:50 PM | Permalink to this comment
The Baker-Hamilton group is looking for a new approach and forge a bipartisan consensus on Iraq. Bob Gates appointment is perhaps the first step in correcting the military disaster that has befallen the US due to that incompetent fool Rumsfeld, who wanted to be the military general and the civilian planner and ended up failing at both and led the US at the verge of a potentially humiliating situation. Now at least Bob Gates, a consummated bureaucrat, would let the Generals make the military decisions and his job would be to sell it to a restive and cynical US Congress and the US public. The three ingredients needed for the new approach: The Humble pie number 1: 1. Look for a political solution. This administration has badmouthed the UN so many times that going to the UN would be the last thing it would accept. To soften this blow, create a focus group of the same countries above outside of the UN. Humble pie number 2. A) Announce a timetable for the US withdrawal. Cheney would probably resign before he allows el Presidente to sign on this but this must be shoved down the administration’s throat. Otherwise, the disaster in Iraq will continue and there is no way the US public or the new Congress will wait for two more years of inaction in Iraq. Negotiations: Drop bucket loads of money for compensation for the dead Iraqis. Give the Sunni tribal leaders the authority to distribute money as they please. Ask Saudi Arabia to announce amnesty for it citizens that are fighting in Iraq. This is a little known secret but 90% of foreign insurgents in Iraq are perhaps Saudi citizens who blend with the local Iraqis well. The Baathist would also like them to leave the country. Start deploying the UN forces in different Iraqi Provinces and seek cooperation from the tribal and religious leaders. Once the UN deployment is complete, let all groups in Iraq start talking about the future.
If we can't come up soon with some reality-based alternative policies, these reality-based discussions are going to end up getting a lot of people killed. Yes, that is the problem. But do you see any alternative policies other than withdrawing and letting them have their civil war? Positioning some number of troops in Kurdistan and negotiating with the Turks and the Kurds to preserve that border? Can you really think of anything else? Thoughtful, well-reasoned approaches like Greg's are, as you've already said, no longer possible. There isn't time to train another 50 or 100 thousand troops, and no where to get them from. The Iraqi army is a failed army, and was never going to be properly equipped in any case. The idea of permanent occupation with the US controlling air and armor, the central (and unspoken) part of the plan, has been proven chimerical. Thoughtful, well-reasoned approaches were never on the table anyway, and I cannot think of one that the ISG can come up with, other than phased withdrawal. And I reiterate my belief that the formation of this group was purely political and that it's recommendations, whatever they are, will not be followed. Posted by: Jay Ackroyd at November 14, 2006 05:17 PM | Permalink to this comment
HP Who do you see serving up this humble pie? What makes you think the president will eat it? I guess the Rumsfeld firing might be one indication that he's prepared to change direction in some way, but I cannot believe that there will be any substantive change. The suggestions you make are pretty much unworkable in less than three Friedman units. The US has no relations with Iran and Syria. Iran and Syria have absolutely no incentive to do anything but wait and watch as the US armed forces are depleted. The UN just got a fresh snub this week with the lame duck Bolton appointment. Woodward reported that Bush was staying the course no matter what. He may well agree to claim to be undertaking yet another approach--sending Condi around the world again, say. But there is no evidence I can see that would lead me to believe that there will substantial withdrawals any time soon. In the spirit of hope, I can make a constructive suggestion to add to your list: make sure a substantial fraction of oil revenues goes directly to citizens. This will lessen the Sunnis fear of impoverishment and will create a disincentive for interfering with production. Posted by: Jay Ackroyd at November 14, 2006 05:24 PM | Permalink to this comment
It may be that immediate withdrawal is the best thing that can be done now, but if anyone thinks that we won't likely be back in the Persian Gulf, in force, within the next 30 years, they are mistaken. We won't be attempting nation building next time, however; abattior management will be the primary objective. I don't even know if it could have been avoided. What a Prussian general in 1914 called "the iron dice" may have been tossed the moment the oil was discovered in the region, and it was just a matter of time before their tumbling stopped. Throughout most of human history, economically and militarily weak populations stting atop critical natural resources, and imbued with religous or cultural hostility towards far more powerful populations who have extraordinary demand for said resources, have either been slaughtered or enslaved, or usually both. This has always been a race against time, in which the muslim populations of the Gulf would achieve the ability to self govern and interact with the rest of the world in a non-hostile manner, or they would be destroyed. One may assert that the industrialized nations of the world have been just as responsible, if not more so, for the hostility which exists, but it matters not a whit. The fundamental fact is that the oil is in huge demand, by billions of people around the globe, and it is going to be extracted. If many of the people atop the oil are hostile to those who demand it's extraction, and act on that hostility, they will be crushed. That's the way what Twain called "the Goddamned human race" behaves. Posted by: Will Allen at November 14, 2006 05:24 PM | Permalink to this comment
One thing that hasn't been mentioned regarding increased troop levels is that this would guarantee an increase in US casualty rates. Good luck selling increased casualties in what is already perceived as a lost cause back home. Additionally, what possible motivation do Syria and Iran have to help the US out of the hole it's dug itself into? It seems like Russia, China and any card carrying members of the Axis of Evil (i.e. Iran) or junior members (i.e. Syria) would be happy to see the US bleed lives, money and credibility indefinitely in Iraq. Also, what possible expectation does anyone have that BushCo will suddenly now see the light? You reap what you sow Greg and you suported these mendacious tools in 2000 and 2004. Heralding Baker, the architect of the Florida power grab of 2000 as the saviour of the Iraq debacle is rich irony indeed. Let's face it, the pullout is going to happen. The Iraqi civil war will continue as events play out over the next few years, probably with a de facto ethnic cleansing of Sunnis, a dominant Shia majority closely aligned to Iran and a pseudo-autonomous Kurd north. This road will be paved with a few hundred thousand Iraqi lives. The neocons will claim that the democrats are responsible for losing the war since they initiated the pullout and will embrace a new myth, much like Vietnam, where victory was lost due to lack of will, liberal treachery and an insufficient willingness to kill a lot of wogs. They'll be assholes for thinking this when they're the ones who pushed for this pointless, loser of a war in the first place. But then they always were.
Additionally, what possible motivation do Syria and Iran have to help the US out of the hole it's dug itself into? It seems like Russia, China and any card carrying members of the Axis of Evil (i.e. Iran) or junior members (i.e. Syria) would be happy to see the US bleed lives, money and credibility indefinitely in Iraq. When, in the late 70's, the US saw the Soviets run into the quagmire in Afghanistan we were cheerfully ready to throw them an anchor. Now, we find that we managed to get our legs wrapped in the chain. Why would Russia, China, Iran, Syria, or anyone else want to do the least thing to help us out of this mess that we chose to commit to? They'll stand back and laugh their asses
I'm a leftist, and I would have never imagined American right-wingers to be totally stupid conserning war. Posted by: ND at November 14, 2006 06:16 PM | Permalink to this comment
Jay, As I see it, we have prepared the humble pie already and now it is up to our new reps to serve it. I doubt that the elections were an exercise in futility. However, we will surely see a lot of resistance from the administration but the public opinion at this time is not on their side. Sending the armies out on a war is relatively easy but the task of brining them back without a victory can get nasty. Since there is no hope for a victory in Iraq, the public opinion would continue to bear down on the admin and the Congress to bring the troops home. Your pessimism is well founded but the events on the ground and the forces of change are stronger. I doubt that there is any sane American left out there who would relish the status quo in Iraq. Once the administration accepts the notion of change, it is everyone’s job to keep them moving in the right direction. This admin will continue to slide downwards on a slippery slope and that will give plenty of opportunities to the right-minded people to press home the advantage. I know the admin has a huge mental block about talking with Iran and Syria and that is why I think either the UN or a focus group consisting of the countries I mentioned, would perhaps help break the ice. I am sure you are aware of some rendition flights that took some terrorists to Syria and back. So, the US does have a channel open to talk to Syria. “The suggestions you make are pretty much unworkable in less than three Friedman units.” If you are referring to Friedman six-month unit, then you are right. There is no solution in Iraq that will take less than a year. So initially, a timetable for one year would probably get the ball rolling.( Btw, I don’t read his articles.) “Iran and Syria have absolutely no incentive to do anything but wait and watch as the US armed forces are depleted.” I don’t subscribe to that. The situation in Iraq also creates problems for both countries. In a civil war like the one we have in Iraq, the warring groups seek new hideouts and the fights begin to spillover in the neighboring countries. The ongoing civil war in Iraq may create refugee situation for both countries too. Lastly, no country cherishes living next to a war zone. The US withdrawal from Iraq would establish Iran as a regional power and I think Iran would prefer that the US armies leave the area.
The US withdrawal from Iraq would establish Iran as a regional power and I think Iran would prefer that the US armies leave the area. Well, I'll grant you that diplomacy costs nothing -- and since it has not been tried yet, perhaps it's worth trying. Like all the rest of this mess I don't think we have a large window of opportunity to get a diplomatic initiative started however. By the time The Decider decides to negotiate our position may be so weakened that diplomacy will not accomplish much. We surely cannot afford to see a denoument like the Paris Peace Talks where we spend 3-4 years "negotiating" with the Iranians or the Syrians (over an outcome that's become a foregone conclusion!) while we pour blood and treasure into the sand. If the Iranians prefer that the US armies leave the area enough that they allow our forces to withdraw in good order to Basra in return for not attacking their nuclear facillities, perhaps that's the best we can hope for. I doubt that there is any sane American left out there who would relish the status quo in Iraq. Yeah, but it's the insane ones that we need to worry about. Posted by: VidaLoca at November 14, 2006 08:00 PM | Permalink to this comment
Boy, we've just given Iran the whole of the Middle East. Well done Mr. Bush! You realize that if we go to Iran and ask them for help, they will come back and ask that we leave their nuclear program alone. Then they will help us. Who is holding the best deck of cards in the Middle East today? Iran. Oh the foolishness and the vanity of the Bush administration and its supporters! To think this war could have solved all our Middle East problems. "The road to Jerusalem is through Baghdad" they said. How tragically wrong they were, and still are. Posted by: Dan at November 14, 2006 08:40 PM | Permalink to this comment
Can anyone here imagine a course of events that could have made the Iranians happier than this? To their west, their mortal enemy, Sadaam Hussein has been overthrown, in a manner that inflicts great harm to their second mortal enemy, the US. This harm includes costs in money, lives and more importantly, a diminished global reputation as a serious player diplomatically, as a good ally, as a credible military threat, etc. The resulting chaos in Iraq allows them to expand their influence in the region and is a key enabler of their goal of regional hegemony. Another enemy to their east , the Taliban, has been overthrown but the job was done on the cheap in a way that doesn't threaten any of their interests (which a more secure and stable Afghanistan would have done). I continue to believe that the Iranians posess the ability to use their proxies in Iraq to dramatically escallate the violence and associated US casualties and this provides them with an effective deterrence against the US, allowing them to pursue their nuclear ambitions unimpeded. Posted by: ramster at November 14, 2006 08:55 PM | Permalink to this comment
Here's why I mostly agree with Greg's proposal. We don't now and never did have adequate forces to maintain security in Iraq. If we simply added 30K-50K troops *without* planning to leave, then surely it would be a futile gesture. But, as many people fail to realize --- war is political. If we set a timetable for withdrawal, and basically say --- we're going to leave, Iraqis, better get your act together --- the insurgents may well think that they've "won", which might reduce violence. At this point we temporarily increase troop levels to at least give us a chance of providing security in some areas, while preparing to withdraw. The net effect might be (might) that since we've said we were leaving, the increased forces might just have enough deterrent effect to be able to provide security in the short term. The fact that we're planning to leave might get the Iraqis to get serious. Regardless, after a short period we start to really withdraw, and hand over day to day to the Iraqis. I don't see a better alternative out there. Posted by: Mitsu at November 14, 2006 09:22 PM | Permalink to this comment
But Mitsu... If we simply added 30K-50K troops *without* planning to leave, then surely it would be a futile gesture. It surely would, but it always comes down to that 30K-50K troops. Say we come up with the best plan ever to leave... where are the 30K-50K troops going to come from? The troops we've got have done multiple tours over there already. Training new troops (if we could produce them somehow) takes a year, and the place is coming apart at the seams -- we don't have a year to spare here. Posted by: VidaLoca at November 14, 2006 09:43 PM | Permalink to this comment
Out now! They are Arabs, they are Muslims, i.e. they are crazy, degenerate losers Full-scale civil war, Syria dragged in, Iran dragged in, Sunni-Shiite mass killings. I'll check out the casualty reports with relish!!!! Out now!
To get Iran on board would most certainly mean acquiesing to their nuclear program, but we may have no choice. Posted by: gregdn at November 14, 2006 10:33 PM | Permalink to this comment
One of the commenters on Pat Lang's blog makes a point that I thought was relevant to the conversation here:
Just sit there and speculate/fantasize about what will happen when "the Iraqi Constitition is voted on...the new government is agreed...the U.S. elections are over...the ISG reports..." The most important job for the ISG is to concoct a new series of milestones for us to sit, hands folded, and wait for what happens next. Our brains have been trained by too much television. The newscaster says: "And now this" and our minds shift effortlessly from a car accident to the CMA awards to an election to the weather. The items in the series have no logical connection..and we don't need or want one. We just sit and wait to see what's "up next." [See Neil Postman.] Meanwhile, in Iraq, our relatives, neighbors and fellow citizens find themselves in a situation that grows more precarious by the day.
The Iranian Mullahs gangbanged Bush with sandpaper condoms. All because Bush didn’t have the balls to go after Bin Laden. Then again, Bush does represent the United States. So we all get to share the bruises.
To get Iran on board would most certainly mean acquiesing to their nuclear program, but we may have no choice While I don't think the diplomatic reach-out to Syria and Iran can work--it's just too late, there's no diplomatic foundation, it will take too much time, this team has nobody who can do it and they have no reason to to make nice with the US--I don't think the nuclear program is relevant at this stage of its apparent development. That can can be kicked down the road.l Posted by: Jay Ackroyd at November 15, 2006 12:17 AM | Permalink to this comment
The Iranians will get what they want: humiliation of the Americans, without any negotiations. They simply want to be "seen" to win. In addition, the other powers, China, Russia, and the Europeans, wish us to be seen to be humiliated as well. Unfortunately, this will leave Iran with workable atomic weapons. What the Democrats never understood was the simple equation that follows: inevitably, there will be atomic war. The outlines of this war will be terrible, its casualties, unknown. You all are going on about the Baker-Hamilton commission as if that means anything. Nuclear weapons will be perfected and used, if not by the Iranians, then by others in the Middle East once the Saudis, the Turks, and the Egyptians get in the game. This is not a situation like that of the U.S. and the Soviet Union, where Serious Men stood watch over a balance of terror for 50 years. This is much, much worse. Now the True Believers gain the secret knowledge that Oppenheimer cursed himself for having passed on to Groves, LeMay, and Tibbets. And they will use it. Do not say you were not warned, no matter how deserved the scorn this blog and many others have poured down on Bush and Rumsfeld. Do not say that Ahmadhi-Nejad and others have not spoken the language of mass extermination and genocide-because they have. Language has been used in the Middle East, by leaders, that has not been seen since the Fuhrerbunker in April of 1945, and the reaction of the world has been a huge yawn. Yet the consensus on this blog and others is to indulge the fanatics, to give them what they want. Maybe then they will go away and leave us alone. They will take what they want, and then some. Rational minds always come up short when faced by the iron will of determined fanaticism. As always, in situations like this, it helps to recall Mr. Churchill's first reaction to the Munich catastrophe: "The Western Democracies had a choice between dishonor and war. They chose dishonor. They will have war." It gets worse from now on. Much worse. You may indulge yourselves in gutter partisanship by blaming Bush, but we're all in this together. Perhaps the political class in Washington will realize this before it is too late and discover that, as Americans, we have common interests after all that transcend mere party. Posted by: section9 at November 15, 2006 01:02 AM | Permalink to this comment
section9 sure loves the taste of sandpaper. Posted by: ME at November 15, 2006 01:24 AM | Permalink to this comment
Ahmadinejad has called for a one-state solution for Palestine, to be achieved peacefully by referendum. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/21/AR2006092100829.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1772198,00.html I understand that Zionist fanatics equate such a peaceful solution with 'mass extermination and genocide', but I know of no evidence that Ahmadinejad does. Posted by: David Tomlin at November 15, 2006 01:48 AM | Permalink to this comment
Greg: I appreciate your views on how to solve this little imbroglio. I think your dance has too many steps. Have the US troops move to the margins - Syria and Iran - and cut off all unapproved movement across those borders, with "hot pursuit" ROE whenever we bust somebody there (even if it leads to B52 raids on, say, Damascus or Tehran, whom we should advise publicly that this could happen). Let the Iraqis fight it out among themselves in Bagdad and elsewhere inside the border for as long as it takes. Move US troops forcefully to kill Moqtada al Sadr and/or any other Iranist Shia when he attempts again to control Najaf. Protect the Kurds against Turkey. In time, this Tarawa-sized affair could yield important benefits. Your respondents are depressing - seemingly a mixture of KosKids and Pat Buchanan isolationists. God forbid. "At ease, I'll be in the area the rest of the day"
Greg, Two thoughts for you: 1) Do you suppose the Iraqis might be invited to the Iraq Contact Group you propose? Many commentators seem to forget that, whatever its many flaws and weaknesses, Iraq has a sovereign, democratically elected government. It's a little late in the day for folks such as Leslie Gelb to sketch out Churchillian ideas on napkins. 2) Have you considered that Iraq's neighbors might actually *prefer* Iraq to be instable? After all, every Saudi/Jordanian/Iranian/Syrian jihadi who blows himself up in Iraq is one less jihadi causing trouble for those neighboring countries' governments. 3) Don't you suspect that Iraq's neighbors' alleged fears of refugees are overstated? After all, Saudi Arabia, for example, doesn't need to have a messy political fight before simply building a fence on its border with Iraq; in fact, it is building one now (interestingly though, more than three years after the start of the Iraq War. Could it be the Saudis wanted to give their jihadis maximum time to enter Iraq, before they locked them in?). Posted by: David P at November 15, 2006 03:17 AM | Permalink to this comment
Sorry, that was three thoughts. But while I'm correcting myself, allow me to add a fourth and fifth thought: 4) What percentage of the world's military spending does the U.S. represent -- 40%? Why not use more of our half a trillion dollar defense budget and do what it takes to win in Iraq? E.g., multi-billion dollar jobs programs -- get every Iraq male of military age laying sewage pipes and otherwise building their infrastructure. Let them use shovels instead of machines, to maximize the number of laborers and have them to tired to commit mayhem at night. Or what about multi-billion dollar weapons buybacks to dry up the supply of IED parts? If you think outside the box and beyond the headlines, it seems ridiculous that, with a defense budget larger than the GDP of Iraq and its neighbors we can't get things down to a low simmer there. 5) Alternatively, why not keep a division or two in Kurdistan and let the Shiites and Sunnis kill each other for a decade or so? And if that leads to a proxy war between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia, would that be so bad? Posted by: David P. at November 15, 2006 03:42 AM | Permalink to this comment
Yes, yes, Mr. Tomlin, one has to be a "Zionist fanatic" to interpret the following.... "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation.The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm." ....as something other than a call for a peaceful solution. Really. Quite. Posted by: Will Allen at November 15, 2006 03:44 AM | Permalink to this comment
You confidently assert that "forces must be increased". We "must" do this -- no alternatives considered. Frankly, not considering the alternatives is how our government got into this mess. So let me suggest an alternative approach that could do your readers (including me) a significant service. You're a perceptive guy. Write a thought-out post that seriously examines the strategic alternative. That is, assume for sake of argument that US troops withdraw from Iraq soon -- before the current situation improves materially -- and draw out the consequences. How would the next 5+ years likely play out in Iraq, the Mideast, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Korea, etc.? And in the US itself? For this purpose, the most-likely scenarios are more interesting than best-case or worst-case fantasies. If the consequences of withdrawing are bad enough, then you've made a case for increasing the forces. If not, then you've made a case for withdrawing. Either way, you've made a worthwhile contribution. Posted by: pireader at November 15, 2006 03:46 AM | Permalink to this comment
The wisest words said in the run-up to this war are still the ones of Colin Powell about the "Pottery Barn rule": you break it, you own it. Well, America broke it, now America owns it. This talk about the "ungrateful" Iraqis who have "chosen" civil war and themselves should solve it is frankly disgraceful. You do owe them. America (yes, in the form of Bush) pushed really hard for this war, against the strong opposition of the rest of the world. Well, you got it, now deal with it. And no, saying that you voted for Gore and Kerry won't cut it. We don't care if you're Dem or Rep, deal with the situation your President has created! (In Greg's case, he can't even say that! But then again, Greg is aware of America's responsibility for the situation and is making constructive suggestions. Not many of those around elsewhere among the "talking heads".) Do I feel sorry for the U.S. soldiers stuck in this quagmire of their Commander-in-Chief's making? Yes, and my heart goes out to them and their families. But Iraq's civilians are the ones that get the most of my sympathies. They haven't signed up for anything, and they are living in hell. I'm belatedly reading "Night Draws Near", and it's heartbreaking. Anyone advocating wars of choice in the name of "freedom and democracy" should read it. Iraq's civilians are the "eggs" of your "omelette", and, no, the price is not worth paying. Yes, we have to stand up to tyrants and aggression, but waging aggressive wars in the name of freedom only means that your vision of freedom is utopian in nature, and you know what the road to hell is paved with. And, proudly "shocking and aweing" the civilians you purport to liberate amply demonstrates the inherent paradoxes and folly of such an enterprise. So what can be done? Not much, but something has to be tried. Greg's idea of Six-plus-Six talks is a very good idea, but as many have pointed out, the talks must be filled with substance. No repeat of the Six-party talks on NK, please. Being an Honest broker between Israel-Palestinians does not mean abandoning the alliance with Israel, but does mean stop giving carte-blanche to everything the Israelis feel like doing. Alas, also unlikely. Massive increases in troop levels would of course also be necessary, together with a more aggressive "force posture". Easy? No. Impossible? Probably not. Relocating troops out of Europe, even Korea and Afghanistans would be necessary, as would prelonged tours. Realistic given the quality of present American leadership? Not in the slightest. Increase in casualties? Yes. Not easy and not in any way attractive. But what is the real alternative here? Withdrawal would entail Iraq finally slipping into a disastrous civil war, which will sooner or later involve its neighbours and perhaps set the whole region in flames. Iraq will really be the terrorist training ground that it was not under Saddam. As someone commented, would withdrawal from Iraq mean that the U.S. will not have to deal with violence and committ militarily in that region again? Please. Saudi Arabia has apparently been quite successful in quelling an islamist insurgence, but does anyone believe in the long-term stability of that country? What would happen to Saudi with a full-blown civil war on its doorstep? Withdrawal at this point is therefore not an option. Not morally, not "realistically". Sorry for all of you with loved ones in harm's way. Posted by: Michael af W at November 15, 2006 04:13 AM | Permalink to this comment
Greg's article is a thoughtful, incisive analysis of the problems & choices we face in Iraq. One year, or two years ago, the situation there was salvageable. I hope I'm wrong, but I believe that the situation in Iraq is irretrievable. At this point, a sensible, limited strategy would be to: If we don't get agreement from the Iraqi government that we forcibly disarm or destroy major militias, then we pull out our troops. Posted by: Adam at November 15, 2006 04:16 AM | Permalink to this comment
David, 4) What percentage of the world's military spending does the U.S. represent -- 40%? Why not use more of our half a trillion dollar defense budget and do what it takes to win in Iraq? E.g., multi-billion dollar jobs programs -- get every Iraq male of military age laying sewage pipes and otherwise building their infrastructure. Let them use shovels instead of machines, to maximize the number of laborers and have them to tired to commit mayhem at night. Or what about multi-billion dollar weapons buybacks to dry up the supply of IED parts? If you think outside the box and beyond the headlines, it seems ridiculous that, with a defense budget larger than the GDP of Iraq and its neighbors we can't get things down to a low simmer there. The United States spends 47% of the world's total arms sales. The problem with using this $470 billion dollars towards anything other than what it is currently used on is that most of the budget goes to the purchasing of nuclear submarines, high tech air craft carriers, F-16s and other Cold War relics that cost in the billions to produce. You step on mighty big feet if you think you can cut those out of a budget. Not only will you have military brass up in arms, but the defense contractors, who have politicians galore in their pockets will make sure your life is a living hell. Welcome to the Military Industrial Complex. Posted by: Dan at November 15, 2006 04:19 AM | Permalink to this comment
Yes, yes, Mr. Tomlin, one has to be a "Zionist fanatic" to interpret the following.... "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation.The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm." ....as something other than a call for a peaceful solution. This (unsourced) quote is not a call for anything. It is a quite sensible warning of what is likely to follow if the Israelis persist in their aggressions. And, yes, refusing to see the distinction between a regime and a population is fanaticism. Posted by: David Tomlin at November 15, 2006 04:23 AM | Permalink to this comment
Michael, That is a good analysis of why you think a withdrawal is not a good option. However, I am interested in hearing what option you think will work in actually quelling the situation, and perhaps even get it on a right path. Moreover, an even more important point, that seems to continually be put on the sidelines (like most Americans do these days when problems arise), how are we paying financially for fixing Iraq? Are we going to put it on another credit card and hope we can pay it off sometime soon? Or are we sending this bill to our children as well as the current $200-$300 billion we've already spent on Iraq? Why are we not talking about the financial problem that arises from making this war? The way America runs its finances right now should send shocks through our system. Who is buying our bonds? China. Who is effectively owning America financially? China. If we send our bills to our children, filled to the brim with interest, just how free will they be? We're worried about our freedoms now, but don't seem to even think about what effect this will have on our childrens's world. The epitome of the baby-boom generation: Selfishness. Posted by: Dan at November 15, 2006 04:26 AM | Permalink to this comment
Whatever happened to "Anyone who supports a terrorist will be treated the same as the terrorist"? Just as defending South Vietnam without taking the war to where it was given birth and sustenance in North Vietnam was unlikely to be successful, just trying to defend every point in Iraq while Iran and Syria fund, encourage, train and arm an insurgency that can strike at any point of weakness is also unlikely to succeed. Why should Iran or Syria negotiate when this struggle costs them virtually nothing. Either you take the war to them and create enough pain for them that making war on their neighbor is not so attractive or you follow the Nixon doctrine of offering air support and arms to Iraq as long as it can field an army worth supporting but withdraw our ground forces and leave policing and guarding duties to Iraqis. Posted by: Kent Webb at November 15, 2006 05:11 AM | Permalink to this comment
Oh, yes, Mr. Tomlin the fact that I didn't provide the link is oh so notable. Really. Also, the prediction of the "annhilation" of a political regime is quite commonly associated with the peaceful treatment of the population which elected the regime. And really, of the differing groups in the region, it is the Israelis who have been the most notable in their aggressions. Posted by: Will Allen at November 15, 2006 05:22 AM | Permalink to this comment
Michael, You make some good points, particularly w/r/t "you break it you bought it". Your emphasis on our responsibilities to the Iraqui people on whom we have foisted this hell is appropriate. As to negotiations with Iran and Syria, it seems like a path that should be explored aggressively though I'm not sure I see why they would not prefer we bled to death in the sand. You seem to hold the premise that, if we were to reach a deal with them (and an expensive deal it would be, too) our problems would diminish as the factional fighting in Iraq decreased. This may be true to some degree; whether the degree would make a difference is not clear. There are certainly enough high explosives and "free agent" bad guys operating beyond the control of either Iran or Syria to make life unpleasant for us and the Iraqui civilians, even if we were to give the store completely away to those two countries. As to a more aggressive force posture and increased troop levels -- l'm not sure it's even possible; at any rate we agree it's unrealistic. You probably know more about our global credibility than I do; I can only assume there's precious little left of it now and that the situation will get worse for us rather than better. I can't see how we don't come out of this with a huge defeat, a broken military, and a mountain of debt. Syria and Iran come out the winners. You say that withdrawl is not an option. Morally you are right. Realistically I see two options: orderly withdrawl relatively soon, or disorderly withdrawl (simply put, a rout) slightly later.
Haven't had a chance to scan the comments yet, so apologies if the following has already been covered by others. Convening a major Iraq Contact Group may be your idea of "a dramatic move to regionalize our approach to the Iraq issue" but all I really see you laying out is a laundry list of what you'd like the regional players to do. Much of what you describe runs demonstrably counter to the differing, sometimes shifting, strategic interests of players on the field and of those you're expecting to apply the required pressure, like Russia and China. I can't imagine you believe we'll simply be able to talk everyone around, yet the only carrot you even mention is "facilitating a return to negotations with the Israelis over the Golan Heights issue" in the case of Syria. I'm sorry, but negotiating a return to negotiation is weak diplomatic tea in the context of what you're expecting to gain! So is opening up construction contracts to international bidders as an inducement for the good faith participation you envision from the grownups in the room. That is, and has always been, the central problem of the approach you're recommending. Until you've got a correspondingly substantive list of the incentives on offer, what you're describing is not a realistic initiative, it's wishful thinking -- based on what appear to me to be some rather glib assumptions as well. Saying that, "Neither Damascus nor Teheran want a total meltdown in Iraq," for example, considerably understates both countries' tolerance for chaos next door. I note that your outline also completely ignores the role of Iraq itself, and the Maliki government, in both the decision making and negotiating process. That may actually be one of the stickiest wickets to be addressed, especially when your plan is essentially based on international "ownership" of an independent state. I certainly don't reject the idea of direct talks, but I'll start taking it seriously when someone can tell me what rewards we'll be furnishing in return for the concessions we're expecting. I hope you can do so, because I have yet to manage it myself. Alas, that's what realizing your thoughtful agenda ultimately requires, and that's what will persuade the recalcitrant that you're touting a workable proposition. Posted by: JM Hanes at November 15, 2006 06:31 AM | Permalink to this comment
VidaLoca, there is a perception problem here. You say we could face a rout, a military defeat. But many americans believe that we cannot have a military defeat, that militarily we are simply too strong. There's no way to find out for sure who's right unless we do suffer a defeat. As long as we are undefeated you can believe that the defeat is coming and they can believe that it isn't. Pat Lang has described how such a defeat might happen. Currently nobody owns the roads in iraq. We can make convoys that can punch through wherever we want, perhaps suffering some losses when we do. We can set up roadblocks pretty much wherever we want and block traffic, and our roadblocks are subject to harrassing attack. Anbody else can set up random roadblocks that only a strong force can punch through, and nobody can keep it from happening. Many forces can close the roads, nobody can keep them open. And anybody of any importance in our military travels by air. We can stay high enough that the only danger comes at takeoff and landing, which can be minimised by doing complex evasive maneuvers at night. If iraqis get weapons that can make our supply convoys too expensive then we will be reduced to supply by air and we will be in serious trouble. We will have to withdraw to the superbases that have large supply dumps, and then evacuate them before they run out of supplies. Anybody who gets cut off will probably be lost. This is how we got the russians out of afghanistan. We gave the afghans weapons that stopped the russian ground resupply and weapons that sometimes hit their planes and helicopters. But nobody is giving the afghans advanced weapons. We have to control the borders so they don't, but we don't have sufficient men to control the borders. What we can do is place sensors near the borders and run lots of UAVs to destroy anything the sensors sense there. This is why cooperation from syria and iran (and turkey and jordan and saudi arabia) is so important. If they start letting modern weapons through then we will lose. So it makes sense to bomb their capitals with B52s and commit other direct bloody acts of war against them if that's what it takes to persuadethem not to aid our enemies. Even without that, we have done very well so far to avoid fighting shias. The shias are happy for us to kill sunnis and leave them alone. They might decide at any time to attack our convoys and that could give us a lot more trouble. All it might take is some little incident -- like say a captured special forces guy admitting under torture that we did the Samarra sabotage -- and they might change strategy in a day. Or we could attack them as Jafco suggests. The other side of it is that most of our forces are tied down doing force protection. We need secure bases, and it takes a lot of force to keep them secure. We need to protect our convoys -- more force. We don't have much left to attack the enemy, even if we knew who and where to attack. To reduce our forces as Adam suggests we must either shut down a lot of bases and cede those areas to the enemy, or else we must reduce the offensive troops first. There's a lower limit -- too small a force can't protect itself. And we can't rely on the iraqi army to protect our guys, they're too unreliable. So in detail we could be heading for a defeat. We can't afford to do a partial drawdown, that's an easy way to get hurt. We can't afford to just easl the borders and let the iraqis kill each other while we stop the refugees from leaving. That's -- perverse. And it's a logistical nightmare too. If we don't seal the borders then foreigners might start sending in advanced weapons, playing our own trick against us. But a lot of americans simply don't have the concept that we could suffer a military defeat. It sounds like crazy talk. Just not anything to take into consideration.
David Tomlin, would it be OK if we drop the subject of israel? There will be no peace. There will be no meaningful concessions by israel. Minor concessions by israel will be accompanied by much larger US concessions to israel. Arabs/muslims will be appalled at our one-sided support for israel. We can argue about whose fauilt it is. We can argue about which side are the bad guys and who's morally justified in their atrocities etc. It gets us nothing in the short run. For the foreseeable future -- then next 5 years, that's as far as anything political is foreseeable -- there will be no change in US support for israel. We are their ally and we will support them in whatever they do. They are our ally and they will give us intelligence info whenever they feel like it. Arguing about the morality of anything connected to israel will not help us in any way with our problem in iraq. Nothing useful will be accomplished by such argument. You will confirm zionists in their belief that they are alone and friendless in the world and must do anything it takes to stay on top. You may find random-seeming difficulties put in your way in your individual life if you get the antisemitic label. It does no one any good.
J Thomas, Then we will never see peace in the Middle East. Our relationship to Israel is like having a brother who is addicted to drugs. You try getting your brother to clean up his act and he thinks you're against him, like he thinks the whole world is against him. I'm all for supporting Israel, but sometimes the best friend, the best ally is one who tells you to stop it, the one who tells you enough is enough. If we cannot tell Israel something Israel needs to hear, just what kind of relationship is this? What is in the best interest of Israel? Is it the utter destruction of her enemies? No. Is it living in peace with her neighbors? Yes. Sometimes Israel has to do that which she thinks is bad for her nation. Let me tell you, everyone who says the key to peace in the Middle East lies in solving the Israeli-Palestinian issue is most correct. That is the key. Solve that and you've solved the Middle East. Posted by: Dan at November 15, 2006 12:26 PM | Permalink to this comment
Crooks and Liars links to a post that notes that while the Iraq Study Group is bipartisan, it lacks any experts on Iraq or the Middle East. It's just a collection of fixers. I suppose they can call in experts, but it is, upon reflection, group composed to offer political cover rather than policy solutions. Posted by: Jay Ackroyd at November 15, 2006 01:11 PM | Permalink to this comment
Dan: Everybody is looking for a silver bullet in a world where bullets are merely made of brass. Solving the Palestinian problem would be helpful. But, remember, there were wars against Isreal before the Middle East thought the Palestininas were a problem. I think Iran's current leadership thinks of Palestine in the same way Hitler thought of Sudetenland -- a useful pretext, but if it disappears, another can be found. And those who have decided that the solution of Palestine would solve everything really make negotiation IMPOSSIBLE. The Palestinians are said to have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. There is a reson they keep killing negotiations -- they believe, if they hold out much longer, some general middle eastern explosion will give them everything they want. (Which, at a minimum, is a right to reoccupy most of Isreal through a "Right of Return".) Insisting that Palestine is the key to everything means that the Plestinians to "solve everything" will demand a very high price. Isreal's best interest is a peace it can rely on with its neighbors. Frankly, given the state affairs, that's probably best accomplished with a wall and utter separation from Palestine, which is best to left to fester on its own. Eventually, the Palestinians will get tired and arrange a deal. Question to Greg: Is a deal in Iraq woth selling out Lebanon? Because that's the only outline of a deal that would seem appealing enough to both Syria and Iran. Posted by: appalled moderate at November 15, 2006 01:33 PM | Permalink to this comment
Dan, peace for israel might be the golden key to the box of magic fairy dust, but it isn't coming in the next 5 years. The US codependent relationship with israel is not going to change in the next 5 years either. (Barring some utterly unexpected event like Mossad agents getting asylum in france and announcing to the world that they personally were responsible for 9/11.) Maybe at some time in the future things will change. But for now it's something we have to live with. It doesn't matter what's really good for israel, the USA will support israel in whatever israel wants. Note AM's response, which he might not have noticed suggests peace through putting a wall around palestine and letting them "fester" alone inside it until they're ready to unconditionally surrender. See, israel can't allow palestine to trade freely with anyone else until after there's lasting peace.... But I just let myself get sucked in. Arguing about israel is useless. In any argument zionists will explain that absolutely whatever israel does is morally justified because of what arabs want to do and might someday do. And if you try to argue morality they will repeat over and over that israel is totally morally justified in anything israel does, and keep coming up with justifications. Israel is in mortal danger and any friend of israel, or friend of democracy, or friend of western civilization will support israel unconditionally until the danger is past. Anybody who argues otherwise is an immoral amoral fiend who ... Anyway, the argument can't possibly go anywhere interesting. And if you somehow get past the moral stand and consider sheer pragmatism, then that gets trumped too. Arabs have an irrational hatred of israel, and so they are a mortal threat, and it would be impractical for israelis to stop killing them with artillery, airstrikes, cluster bombs, etc until after their enemies stop hating them. It's vaguely possible that arguing about this might change some bystander's mind, and that over a very long time it might have some sort of political effect. But then, I've never heard of anybody who approved of the Sugar Lobby who wasn't in the Sugar Lobby, and universal mild disapproval has done nothing to reduce sugar tariffs and subsidies. If you start an argument with zionists during a discussion about iraq, it will not accomplish anything useful. The zionists will not hear anything new from you no matter what you say. They will repeat their positions indefinitely. Nothing will happen that could help us in iraq, and the argument about israel will distract from whatever on-topic matters people are discussing. No matter how much good you think it would do to get progress toward peace for israel, there will be no progress and making up stories about about possibilities for peace is useless.
|