There's an old expression among engineers that certainly applies here. "A camel is a horse designed by a commission." The question that is yet to be answered is how many humps this one will have.
Gen McCafry says the war is lost because we do not have the manpower to continue. The military's ability to defend the nation has now been weakened to critical state. That reduces the options to either increase the strength of the military or withdraw. It doesn't matter what the commission thinks the game is over unless the new D congress opts to reinstate the draft. Better odds on hitting the lottery,, twice in a row.
Rodger writes:
"So, maybe the Baker-Hamilton group will tell America that the US has to leave Iraq ASAP, forestall any fantasies of increased troop presence, and minimize fears about Iraq as a terror haven.
"That would be just about the best case."
Kicking the Can
You seem to starting from the premise that Iraq is "unsolvable." If that's the case, what do you expect to happen in Iraq once the U.S. conducts this expeditious withdrawal?
That, of course, is a rhetorical question. We all know what will happen. The more important question is, when everything goes to hell, will the U.S. withdrawal be "enough" to leave those left suffering not to lay blame for their predicament upon America? I suppose that's another rhetorical question.
So, what's your plan, under this "best case" scenario you've outlined, for dealing with the hellhole Iraq becomes, one that will make Afganistan under the Taliban look like Switzerland?
Or, are you content to leave that to be Hillary Clinton's problem?
What you're doing is supporting a course in Iraq that will bring us Saddam II. A friendly thug who will provide the "stability" that has long been the hallmark of American hegemony.
No wonder they hate us.
And how is the present course any better? How are any of the alternatives any better? We've painted ourselves into a corner, and I just don't see a way out. Now, maybe I'm not entertaining enough options (and that may be the case), but what if we squandered our opportunity to "win" back in 2003 or 2004, and as a result, are stuck trying to square a circle (which, as you know, is nie-impossible). We can pour more into Iraq, but its hard to see how that makes any "progress." Indeed, it may simply provoke more resistance and not quell the violence that is destroying the country. We could leave, but as you point out, we leave a mess.
Perhaps we go to, dare i say, the Democrat's plan (and you thought they didn't have one!) such as the one Biden put out-- partition. The current civil war has already largely divided the country, perhaps formaizing that in some way and creating 3 smaller governments might do something....
I don't know, but I don't really see how any of the options under discussion from any end of the spectrum--mainstream or radical--makes the situation "better."
I think it could come to having to admit that we lost this war, having squandered our military victory, and move to contain the damage. And that's not a happy story, at all.
David Johnson asserts: "We all know what will happen" if the US withdraws.
Do we?
One of the links in my post specifically addressed "the case against the case against withdrawal." Credit where due -- that link references a better one by Marc Lynch (aka Abu Aardvark).
Yes, there's a not insignificant risk of civil war -- but that's true of the status quo, with the added "bonus" of US troops on the ground.
Would post-withdrawal Iraq make "Afganistan under the Taliban look like Switzerland"? If you mean it would serve as a base for al Qaeda, then no. Neither Marc nor I think that is likely.
Polling evidence suggests that Iraqis already blame the US for their current suffering. Moreover, withdrawal need not mean complete abandonment. There are many ways for the US to offer assistance short of military force.
Would these measures prove more effective? I think they might.
Saddam 2? That's certainly not what I have in mind. My guess, however, is that very many Iraqis already find the current violence worse than life under Saddam.
I always take the cynical view. bush is using this commision to come up with some "centrist" stalls to keep troops in Iraq for as long as he can. whatever they come up with that looks like staying in iraq for longer he will take and magic marker out the rest. he'll try to make the dems look like radical anti war people for pushing for immediate redeployment
Partition is out of the question because -besides provoking wholesale communitarian migration- just who is going to police the partitions? Moreover, Turkey and Iran would make short work of the fledgling Republic of Kurdistan.
As David Kaiser has suggested in his blog, History Unfolding, it is just a matter of time before the Shia consolidate their hold on Baghdad - and then we'll have a Shi'a dictatorship allied with Iran, a barely tolerated Kurdistan and millions of disinherited Sunni. Come to think of it, how clever of Sheikh Nasrallah to rally the Sunni to the Shi'ite revolution and confirm the peril posed by the US and Israel. Neighboring Sunni states may well calmly acquiesce to the New Islamic Republic of Iraq.
No, no. Once the opportunity was missed in late 2003/early 2004 to depart, the US is embarked on a long 10-year wind-down until the US gets tossed out, all the while strengthening radical Islam.
Peter writes:
"And how is the present course any better? How are any of the alternatives any better? We've painted ourselves into a corner, and I just don't see a way out."
Part of the problem here is that many people have come to accept Dubya's discourse that this is "America's problem." You're doing this when you use "we." You don't include Europeans or Arab states in the region when you're thinking that way.
I think there are a variety of options for more broadly multilateral approaches to solving the problems in Iraq that entail a series of both ideational and material "carrots" aimed at greater European participation and similar "sticks" aimed at Arab states in the region. In a sense, Iraq has become a bigger version of the problems in Lebanon.
The other thing that seems to be off the table is the matter of reconstruction aid. It seems the U.S. has squandered most of that lining the pockets of contractors. Regardless of the military situation in Iraq, things will not get better there without a great deal more reconstruction. And it may be that reconstruction can't occur under conditions of major troop withdrawals.
Rodger writes:
"Would post-withdrawal Iraq make 'Afganistan under the Taliban look like Switzerland'? If you mean it would serve as a base for al Qaeda, then no. Neither Marc nor I think that is likely.
[snip]
"Moreover, withdrawal need not mean complete abandonment. There are many ways for the US to offer assistance short of military force."
My mention of Afghanistan was poorly chosen: I didn't mean to allude to al-Queda but rather to the medieval thuggery visited upon Afghans themselves by the Taliban.
The fact remains that the U.S.--not just the Administration but all of us--has erred tremendously in Iraq. In my opinion we have an obligation to correct the mess we've made. So, please tell us more about the ways the U.S. might provide effective (rather than symbolic) assistance "short of military force." In particular, I'd like to understand your thinking about where the domestic political support comes from for such efforts. Because without such efforts, a U.S. withdrawal will result in another "friendly" Saddam--because you can bet we won't tolerate a new dictatorship aligned with Iran (what those "rapid response" forces Democrats want to leave in the region after withdrawal would be there to "respond" to).
"In my opinion we have an obligation to correct the mess we've made"
if we knew how to do that we wouldn't have made the mess in the first place.
"because you can bet we won't tolerate a new dictatorship aligned with Iran"
the new iraqi government is already very much alligned with Iran. they support irans nuclear program. and they had a massive pro hezbollah demonstration this summer.
the mistakes we made are the types of mistakes we make everywhere, from afghanistan to haiti to kosovo. the problem was invading in the first place. abizaid said it yesterday if you read between the lines: they won't stand up if we don't stand down.
we should have been out of iraq 3 years ago. radical islam is here to stay. the era of the US in the middle east in way over.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
