Kevin, we cannot retreat. Remember, if we do not fight the terrorists in Iraq they will eventually come over here.

It's an article of faith (and not entirely untrue) that the withdrawals from Beirut and Somalia (and Israel from Lebanon) encouraged terrorism. "Losing" in Iraq would, by that logic, encourage the terrorists to expand their campaign.

It's probably true, too. Just because withdrawal is a bad option, though, doesn't mean that all the others can be worse.

There have already been terrorists "over here" (and several of them, including the ones you link to, were domestic).

Staying in Beirut and Somalia would have encouraged terrorism. That's not a article of faith, that's a fact. Iraq proves it.

....Unable to access intelligence, forced to rely on news reports, blogs and other sources for information, I don't have an alternative master-plan to win either.

Andrew Sullivan is just one more Republican among countless hordes of them who doesn't have any kind of plan for Iraq -- but just wants to stay here and hope that the situation changes magically on its own.

Or rather, he wants the troops to stay there until something magically changes.

The main reason Republicans can't stomach a withdrawal: it will cause them to lose standing among voters and hurt them politically. Withdrawal is not glorious victory, withdrawal is a tacit admission that Bush and Republican hawks failed, withdrawal feels too much like the failure of Vietnam all over again.

As long as troops stay in Iraq these guys can and will invoke the flag and the fallen and 9/11 to drown out the uncomfortable voices calling them out on their incompetency and mendacity.

Alternatively, the Bushies want to keep the war going because it strengthens their hand at home, giving them an automatic advantage in elections and allowing them to keep their actions secret under the guise of "national security".

Bush needs to be a war president until the end of his term.

Well, guess what. While Rove et. al., are carving the Dems a new one for being cutters and runners for suggesting a timetable for withdrawal, the Iraqi government, with the help of Ambassador Khalilzad, are quietly negotiating a peace deal with Sunni insurgents that would include a UN-approved timeline for withdrawal of US troops. It isn't clear that Bush will accept the deal, but I wonder if the Republicans will start calling Khalilzad a coward and cutter and runner. Hypocritical bastards, all of them.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2239088,00.html

Pretty much what 'trex' says. If you don't want to ask Sullivan about what he fears if we withdraw, ask him what he expects should we stay indefinitely. I don't think anybody in the "stay the course" camp can give a coherent and remotely realistic description of what "victory" means. They just like the way the word sounds.

And damn it, we needs those troops at home right now, defending marriage! After all, that's the most pressing issue of the day.

Sullivan's out of denial in one respect (the administration is run by tactical maladroits) but still deep in it when it comes to the fantasy of ``victory.'' He refuses to see that the victorious spread of democracy is no longer part of the objective. The permanent base in Iraq to monger fear and intimidation, and a nation on permanent war footing with revenues stripped from social programs and permanently funneled into the military-industrial complex -- that's the objective now.
He doesn't get it. Probably never will.

As usual, your comments and questions are right on target. I cannot wait to hear Andrew's responses!!!!!! Press ON!!!!!

It's an article of faith (and not entirely untrue) that the withdrawals from Beirut and Somalia (and Israel from Lebanon) encouraged terrorism. "Losing" in Iraq would, by that logic, encourage the terrorists to expand their campaign.

You were doing okay for the first five words. Scratch everything out after that and go do some serious, or even casual history reading - ideally books focusing on events and not opinions. It's absurd to think that terrorism would increase following a withdrawal from Iraq. Ordinary Muslims who are not part of terrorist groups right now, in 2006, do not flock to the cause because we withdraw from Iraq, thinking, "gee, I bet we can *conquer* that frickin' country now!". This is awful logic. To the extent that ordinary Muslims are joining up with terrorist groups right now, it's because we're in Iraq, not because we're gone. Iraq is the crucible, the training ground, the 'history in the making', the evidence against our country in the eyes of an Arab.

In support of this, please go to those history books:

When the US pulled out of Vietnam, rather than being encouraged by our cowardly withdrawal to go get in fishing boats and paddle over here to blow us up - the war stopped.

When Israel pulled out of the majority of South Lebanon, open conflict with Hezbollah slowed to a trickle. When Israel left the security zone, it dried up. These aren't opinions - go look at the casualty figures from Lebanese organizations during the occupation vs. after.

When France pulled out of Algeria, the Algerians didn't chase them over to Corsica. Israel has left Gaza, and immediately Fatah and Hamas began to bleed each other instead of cooperating. Abbas now has Hamas on the verge of accepting a document that rules out violence in pre-67 Israel. The historical record clearly shows that violence wanes when the occupying army packs up and goes home. And no f***ing suprise, is it? I mean, how do reasonably intelligent people get so deeply lost in ideology so as to begin to overlook the most basic logic for the war's existance?

Why are Iraqis trying to blow up our troops in Iraq? Because we're running their country with our army. When will they stop? When we leave.

Now, it may be that amidst the 98% that celebrate victory and settle down to killing each other when we leave, there's a 2% that will continue to plot attacks on us.

That's what Predator drones are for. The war we're fighting contributes nothing to that war - the GWOT.

Kevin pretty much assumes it's our call when we leave Iraq. It's not. It's up to the Iraqis. It is their input that the UN seeks when deciding whether to renew the mandate we and our allies have in maintaining troops there. It's in consultation with them (not with the mood of the American public) that we must decide drawdowns. It's that kind of foreign policy that will ultimately earn us standing in the eyes of the world.

From the Iraqi of view, no matter how much they wish we were already gone, they want us to stay until their army and police forces can provide security on their own. This is a nuanced position that calls for a phased withdrawal independent of progress on the ground fails to accommodate.

If Dem foreign policy boils down to going to war if and only if Germany, France, Russia, and China agree that we should, and withdrawing from war whenever we grow tired of it, the foreign policy of the Bush administration, for all its manifest faults, is preferable.

"He wants the troops to stay there until something magically changes."

Exactly. He wants some eighteen year old who signed up to get an education to stay there. Why them and not him? For Sullivan and the Neocons, soldiers are pawns for the reality changers like them. So what if a few thousand pawns die? History is the life of nations as Tolstoy said, and they're changing those national lives no matter how brutishly. Our new Napoleons can't die in Iraq. Who would change history?

Ron Suskind, "Without a Doubt", New York Times Magazine

The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

I think the unspoken rational these days for staying in Iraq has to do with the perceived need to be seen by the Saudi's as protecting the Sunni from the Shia. This kills two birds with the same stone in that by supporting the Sunni's in Iraq we are also maintaining a protective barrier which keeps the ruling Sunni's in Saudia Arabia in power while at the same time we are protecting (somewhat?) the Israeli's from further action by the Iranian backed Shia.

Did I mention the need to protect the oil fields of the area from further devastation?

"If Dem foreign policy boils down to going to war if and only if Germany, France, Russia, and China agree that we should"

Who suggested that Sir troll.

Jim is right to herald the deal that the president of Iraq and US ambassador to Iraq are trying to hammer out with Sunni insurgents. Any suggestion that these attempts are not going on with the full backing of the Bush administration, is, so far as I can see, totally baseless.

It's in consultation with them (not with the mood of the American public) that we must decide drawdowns...From the Iraqi of view, no matter how much they wish we were already gone, they want us to stay until their army and police forces can provide security on their own....If Dem foreign policy boils down to going to war if and only if Germany, France, Russia, and China agree that we should, and withdrawing from war whenever we grow tired of it, the foreign policy of the Bush administration, for all its manifest faults, is preferable.

Ah, I see. So according to the Republicans we can't allow the American voter to decide when we can leave Iraq, but we can only do so when the Iraqis let us ("it's in consultation with them...that we must decide drawdowns...they want us to stay"). If Republican foreign policy boils down to giving Iraq a veto over where and when America deploys its armed forces, then the foreign policy of the Democrats, who favor leaving these decisions in the hands of Americans, is preferable.

If Dem foreign policy boils down to going to war if and only if Germany, France, Russia, and China agree that we should, and withdrawing from war whenever we grow tired of it

Strawman.

Worse yet, that's exactly the position you advocate in the first paragraph when you say the U.S. can only withdraw when the U.N. decides whether or not to "renew our mandate" based upon the input of the Iraqis.

Which is it? Or is it that we can go to war whenever we want on whatever flimsy basis no matter what the world community thinks -- but can only cease war and withdraw with a permission slip from U.N. and the occupied country?

From the Iraqi of view, no matter how much they wish we were already gone, they want us to stay until their army and police forces can provide security on their own.

Polls seem to suggest a divergency of opinion in this matter split on sectarian lines.

Polls also show that roughly half of Iraqis feel it is legitimate to attack our troops as long as we're on Iraqi soil waiting until "army and police forces can provide security on their own."

Actually, there are rules against invading another country, particularly if that country hasn't already attacked yours, and isn't on the verge of doing so. In such cases the support of world opinion is pretty nearly a prerequisite. Germany's neglect of that consideration in 1914 and 1939 cost it dearly.

Look, if we hadn't stayed fighting in Vietnam until now the Communists would have taken over that country, the dominoes would have fallen across Asia and into the Pacific, and we'd now be fighting the NVA on the streets of San Diego...oh, wait. Never mind....

It is their input that the UN seeks when deciding whether to renew the mandate we and our allies have in maintaining troops there.

Moron. We have no UN mandate. From the point of view of the UN, our unprovoked invasion was an illegal act of aggression.

Any suggestion that these attempts are not going on with the full backing of the Bush administration, is, so far as I can see, totally baseless.

Ah, I see, so the Bush regime is now negotiating with terrorists?

In the worst case, the Shiites will beat them once and for all after we're gone.

What if that looks like Rwanda in 1994? That will certainly hurt our international standing even more.

Worst case scenario

Dear Mario,

sorry if I misled you by contextualizing the view that any US-led attack or invasion of another country requires pre-approval from the UN Security Council. Otherwise, on this view, it is illegal.

I am well aware that the Clinton administration did not so argue when it intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo or bombed Sudan, Afghanistan, or Iraq. But it was the standard that many anti-war activists held the Bush administration to in the runup to the war in Iraq.

I take it, therefore, that you recognize that this particular anti-war argument does not pass a reality test. If so, we are in agreement.

A methodical phased withdrawal may be the best policy. But as long as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are running the show, I cannot say I am optimistic that it will succeed.

Stefan,

we have a UN mandate to have troops in Iraq now. Please do a little more reading. It's not open-ended, either, but subject to review.

And yes, the Bush administration is attempting to broker peace with the Sunni insurgents. That's appropriate, whereas negotiating with the likes of al-Qaeda is not. Surely you are able to see the difference.

sorry if I misled you by contextualizing the view that any US-led attack or invasion of another country requires pre-approval from the UN Security Council. Otherwise, on this view, it is illegal.

Legally that is indeed the case. Articles 2.3 and Article 2.4 of the United Nations Charter, a treaty which the US is a signatory to and which is therefore supreme law of the land, provide that:

2.3. "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

2.4. "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

There are only two exceptions to the prohibition on waging warfare: (i) the first is every state's natural right to self-defense (Article 51 of the Charter), while (ii) the second, under Articles 42 and 53 of the Charter, allows the Security Council to sanction member states, or regional alliances, to use force if a country is in clear violation of the U.N. Charter.

Otherwise, under international law, no state may legally use force against another outside of the above narrowly tailored exceptions

There may be many war supporters who are sincere about the dillemma enunnciated by Sullivan, but most of them support the untenable position of staying the course only because it is expedient for them to do so for achieving their political ends.

How many more Americans (let alone Iraqis) will have to sacrifice their lives to keep the Republicans in power?

What if that looks like Rwanda in 1994? That will certainly hurt our international standing even more.

At this point, the suggestion that we piss away even more lives and wealth in the name of an abstraction like "our international standing" reads like a sick joke.

John FH, name me one war that Clinton started. Anti-war people wanted to let the UN inspectors finish their job. Bush couldn't allow that. No WMDs and all that jazz.

I remember the debate about Vietnam. We used to talk about the implications of withdrawal and of staying. There seemed to be no good alternative. Losing a war was not considered an option by many, many Americans, myself included, but we could see no way to stay and win. It was when we realized that the North Vietnamese were not merely part of the faceless communist horde (I know they are communists but they are Vietnamese first)that we also realized that we were watching bigger historical themes at play--the end of colonialism and an old civil war among the Vietnamese. When we grasp those truths we finally understood that colonial empires were obsolete. In the long run a determined force of indigenous fighters using asymentrical warfare would wear down any colonial power. We were the first indigenous people to do so in 1776. We also realized that we had no business picking sides in the civil war between Hanoi and Saigon. When those two truths became evident to the electorate, it became possible for Nixon to pull our troops out. Many of us hated the idea of letting the Godless communists win, but we were wrong. In the long run we had no business trying to capture a lost French colony and it was their civil war anyway.

The lessons we need to learn from Vietnam are we have no business trying to create a colony in Iraq, and how the Shiites and Sunnis resolve their age old problems are none of our business.

I would suggest one caveat, the Kurds have been strong American allies. We need to make sure they can emerge from any civil war with the minimal amount of damage possible. We didn't do that for the hill folk of Vietnam, much to our great shame.

Well, the Army has upped the enlistment age to 39, so that's one kind of barometer of what staying the course means.

And yes, the Bush administration is attempting to broker peace with the Sunni insurgents. That's appropriate, whereas negotiating with the likes of al-Qaeda is not. Surely you are able to see the difference.
Posted by: JohnFH

are you agreeing that they aren't terrorists, then? are they freedom fighters?

we have a UN mandate to have troops in Iraq now.

Secretary General Kofi Annan doesn't seem to think so. Speaking on September 16, 2004 Annan said, "I have indicated it [the US invasion of Iraq] was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

But if there is a mandate, please cite the date and number of the resolution so I can look it up.

How many Americans will respond yes to the following question: Do you think we should stay in Iraq and sacrifice more Americans for the purpose of keeping the Republicans in power and those addministration officials safe from prosecution who might have broken some laws in the prosection of the Iraq fiasco?

Well, the Army has upped the enlistment age to 39, so that's one kind of barometer of what staying the course means.
Posted by: cyntax

The new age is 42:

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=9197

From the excellent Times article that Jim linked to, the proposed government peace plan includes the following:

The 28-point package for national reconciliation will offer Iraqi resistance groups inclusion in the political process and an amnesty for their prisoners if they renounce violence and lay down their arms, The Times can reveal.

The Government will promise a finite, UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq; a halt to US operations against insurgent strongholds; an end to human rights violations, including those by coalition troops; and compensation for victims of attacks by terrorists or Iraqi and coalition forces.

A halt to U.S. operations against insurgent strongholds? Tacitly accusing coalition troops of human rights abuses? That certainly doesn't jibe with the wingnut talking points expressed daily on this site and elsewhere about the need to hunt down every last insurgent or that coalition troops haven't committed any abuses.

With all that appeasement and America-hating talk, if one didn't know better one might think Nancy Pelosi were brokering this deal, not the Prime Minister of Iraq.

*sigh* Why does Prime Minister al-Talabani hate America?

Well, the Army has upped the enlistment age to 39, so that's one kind of barometer of what staying the course means.

Actually, it's 42 as of today:

US Army raises maximum enlistment age to 42

WASHINGTON, June 21, 2006 (AFP) - The US Army said Wednesday it is raising the maximum age for enlistment from 40 to 42 in an effort to expand its pool of potential recruits.

The move comes just six months after the army raised the maximum age from 35 to 40, reflecting continuing concerns about recruiting even though it has met its monthly goals for the past 12 months.

That would be President al Talabani, not Prime Minister.

It was staying too long that did the damage.

Exactly. But the grassroots Republicans, Mayberry Machiavellis, want to stay there so the next president, presumptively a Democrat, will be forced to unilaterally withdraw and they can complain about cutting and running and Democrat failure.

And yes, the Bush administration is attempting to broker peace with the Sunni insurgents. That's appropriate, whereas negotiating with the likes of al-Qaeda is not. Surely you are able to see the difference.

The question isn't whether we can see the difference (any reader of this blog knows we've seen it all along), it's whether the Bush regime can recognize the hypocrisy of its position. Bush spent three years conflating the two groups, calling Iraq the "central front in the war on terrorism" and pretending that every Iraqi resistance fighter is Al Qaeda, but then, when things turn bad for us suddenly they're not terrorists anymore. Considering that the homegrown Iraqi rebels make up 95% of the resistance, and that they'd stop fighting us the minute we leave, why exactly are we staying to fight them?

Actually, it's 42 as of today:

US Army raises maximum enlistment age to 42

Ah, good. See the news can always get worse.

Still waiting on the cite of that UN mandate....

If the only way to win a war against Islamic jihadism is by invading and occuping Muslim countries, we're going to lose. Luckily, it's not the way to win.

Thank you thank you thank you.

At last, the clear ring of truth.

Trex,

your surprise at what the Bush administration and the president of Iraq are up to might give way to qualified praise for the protagonists in question rather than nonsensical statements about Talabani (and by implication Khalilzad).

And no, we have no moral obligation to the UN or the Security Council when it comes to Iraq. But both the UN and the UN-sanctioned occupying forces in Iraq have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people and the government they elected.

Nads,

the al-Qaeda folks are terrorists pure and simple. Negotiations with them would be a waste of time.

Sunni insurgents who do not target fellow Iraqis but "only" American soldiers are terrorists of a kind as well, just as the IRA committed terrorist acts against the British in northern Ireland. That example teaches that negotiations with such groups may eventually pay off. But not in the context of a pre-announced disengagement. Surely this point is obvious.

But the grassroots Republicans, Mayberry Machiavellis, want to stay there so the next president, presumptively a Democrat, will be forced to unilaterally withdraw and they can complain about cutting and running and Democrat failure.

Bingo.

And with that superb insight you provide the Andrew Sullivans of the world a plan for leaving Iraq they can love.

Stefan,

the UN resolution under which the multinational force is currently operating is 1637 (2005). Use whatever search engine you wish and plug in Iraq, UN, and 1637, and you will find all the information you could ever wish.

And no, we have no moral obligation to the UN or the Security Council when it comes to Iraq.

No, as signatories to the UN Charter and member of the Security Council we have a legal, not merely moral, obligation to the UN and SC.

Sunni insurgents who do not target fellow Iraqis but "only" American soldiers are terrorists

If they only fight American soldiers then they are not, by definition, terrorists but are guerillas and resistance fighters. Terrorists target civilians, not soldiers.

the UN resolution under which the multinational force is currently operating is 1637 (2005).

Got it, thanks.

And so to bed....

Sunni insurgents who do not target fellow Iraqis but "only" American soldiers are terrorists of a kind as well, just as the IRA committed terrorist acts against the British in northern Ireland. That example teaches that negotiations with such groups may eventually pay off. But not in the context of a pre-announced disengagement. Surely this point is obvious.
Posted by: JohnFH

obvious???? what the fuck is the basis of this discrimination????

who exactly the fuck are YOU ... YOU, an armchair patriot chickenhawk ... to decide who does and who doesn't qualify as a terrorist???

which of these deserve permanenet detention in gitmo? which ones are we allowed to torture? how do you differentiate either of these groups from american soldiers?

Stefan says, "Considering that the homegrown Iraqi rebels make up 95% of the resistance, and that they'd stop fighting us the minute we leave, why exactly are we staying to fight them?"

Answer: Because the government the Iraqis elected wants us to. If we didn't, they believe, the insurgents would overrule the rule of the majority by violence and oppression, as was the case under Saddam.

Essentially, we are playing the same role the Brits did and still do in northern Ireland. A thankless task to be sure. The alternatives, however, are even worse.

JohnFH I guess Clinton didn't start any wars did he? So logically you should be able to see why "anti-war" people held a man, Bush, who started a war to a different standard than a man who didn't. Are you "pro-war" by the way? Because being pro-war seems a little like being pro disease and pestilence. LOL.

Essentially, we are playing the same role the Brits did and still do in northern Ireland. A thankless task to be sure. The alternatives, however, are even worse.
Posted by: JohnFH

I'm curious ... do white people like you ever get tired of this burden ... or do you actually REQUIRE that the natives eventually massacre you before leaving?

Geez Nads,

no reason to get so hot under the collar. Perhaps I was not clear enough. I did not mean to imply that the distinction between various kinds of enemies and terrorists and non-terrorists is easy. It is not.

I was saying that you cannot negotiate from a position of strength with Sunni insurgents (however you wish to label them) in the context of a pre-announced timetable of withdrawal. THAT should be obvious.

Mario,

If Clinton was "anti-war" when he took us to war against Milosevic, then so am I. If FDR was "anti-war" when he took us to war against the Hitler and the others, then so am I. If Lincoln was "anti-war' when he led the north in a war against the south, then so am I.

I was saying that you cannot negotiate from a position of strength with Sunni insurgents (however you wish to label them) in the context of a pre-announced timetable of withdrawal. THAT should be obvious.
Posted by: JohnFH

maybe if you kill just a few more of them, they'll allow you to retreat with dignity.

your surprise at what the Bush administration and the president of Iraq are up to might give way to qualified praise for the protagonists in question rather than nonsensical statements about Talabani (and by implication Khalilzad)

You missed my point. I was highlighting the irony that when the political left has similarly criticized human rights abuses in Iraq (Abu Ghraib) or called for a withdrawal -- which in essence is the same as the Talabani plan of not attacking insurgent strongholds -- we've been called traitors.

Now all of a sudden conservatives are embracing those ideas as noble and visionary -- and subtly giving the credit for the plan to Bush.

For the record, I do think this is a good plan. And not just because many of the its elements are ones that we on this blog and others have been suggesting for about two years now.

Well yeah, that and because it makes sense.

Still can't name a war Clinton started? Why? Because there isn't one. Clinton didn't start the Bosnian war, but he sure as hell ended it. That's the definition of anti-war. Ending wars, not starting them and leaving others to pick up the mess like Bush.

Still can't name a war Clinton started? Why? Because there isn't one. Clinton didn't start the Bosnian war, but he sure as hell ended it. That's the definition of anti-war. Ending wars, not starting them and leaving others to pick up the mess like Bush.

Trex,

I beg to differ on your conflation of Talabani's positions and plans and those of the American left, at this moment in time or at any preceding moment. Gimme a break.

But I also want to emphasize that though we agree on some things and disagree on plenty of others when it comes to Iraq, I do not consider you a traitor in the least. I imagine you to be a sincere patriot just as I imagine Russ Feingold to be such. He is a senator from my state I have voted for in the past and will probably vote for in the future.

As long as you remain an independent thinker and refrain from political hackery, you will have my full respect, and I hope I will have yours.

Mario,

in your book, then, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I are anti-war and Lincoln, Kennedy and Johnson are, like Bush II, pro-war.

Somehow I don't think it's that simple.

Oh and by the way, FDR and Lincoln did not start wars either. Have you heard of Pearl Habor or Fort Sumter? Like Clinton, these men were very good at ending wars not starting them.

The Iraq war is over. It has been over since Bush declared Mission Accomplished. Ever since then America has OCCUPIED Iraq. We will not lose the war if we leave now, we will just no longer occupy Iraq. This is what the Iraqi governmnet and people want. This is what the majority of the American people want.
That's not "cutting and running". It is ceasing the occupation!!!

"Maybe if you kill just a few more of them, they'll allow you to retreat with dignity." - Nads

Or maybe they will eventually resign themselves to working for their goals through non-violent means, as the IRA did. More realistically, maybe the Iraqi government will become strong enough to contain the insurgency with limited outside help, as is the case in Colombia.

I beg to differ on your conflation of Talabani's positions and plans and those of the American left, at this moment in time or at any preceding moment. Gimme a break.

Sorry John, you can see Talabani's plan element for element in this post dated November 21, 2005:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007603.php#758243

Also, if you peruse the archives I guarantee you that you that the you will find our suggestions of a phased withdrawal mocked as "cut 'n run" and "appeasement;" you fill find that when we said that insurgents were defending their country just as anyone would (as some of the Iraqi officials are now saying, not to mention the Republican Senators that have jumped on that bandwagon) the trolls here screamed that they were terrorists and we were crazy for suggesting otherwise; and there are literally dozens of threads where we demanded an end to human rights violations and were told that because of ticking time bombs and evil terrorists torture is necessary.

Hell, there was a thread this week on that.

In fact, the Talabani plan contains most of what the American progressives have been calling for...except for not invading in the first place.

Or maybe they will eventually resign themselves to working for their goals through non-violent means, as the IRA did. More realistically, maybe the Iraqi government will become strong enough to contain the insurgency with limited outside help, as is the case in Colombia.
Posted by: JohnFH

... we rushed to illegally invade a country which had no means to attack us, had nothing to do with 9/11, and which suffered first under a dictator which we installed, later under sanctions which we imposed, and now under a violent civil war which we created.

there is NO evidence that the jackasses repsonsible for this have any sense of workable policy, or have made any predictions which have come close to resembling the eventual reality, or have any idea of the unintended consequences of their mis-actions.

in fact, there's no evidence that these fuckers have any abilities beyond klling large numbers of brown people.

... and I have no reason to believe in your misplaced optimism ... you'd have better luck praying to tinkerbell.

Mario,

I'm in favor of ending wars as much as you are. But some have been ended better than others. Nixon-Ford ended the war in Vietnam war in abysmal fashion. We're still waiting for the standoff with North Korea to end so our troops can go home. Reagan and Gorbaciov ended the Cold War in best way imaginable.

The presidential candidate in 2008, Democrat or Republican, who has the best plan to limit our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq while ensuring that both countries do not fall into extremist hands will get my vote.

we have a UN mandate to have troops in Iraq now

Just to add a little context to this, the U.S. asked for the multinational force mandate as a way to put a post facto blessing on an invasion that Stefan correctly stated was at least informally viewed as illegal by the U.N. when it happened, and to which the Security Council (I believe grudgingly) agreed.

Just so we're clear, this wasn't a mandate in the common political meaning of the term, where someone is said to have endorsement or legitimacy through a strong showing in a referendum or electoral victory. This was really just a way of making the best of a terrible political situation and a way to smooth things over in that international body where a powerful nation had ignored the rules and done what it had wanted anyway.

Trex,

I couldn't find the plan you are talking about, but I will keep looking. It's wire reports like the following I'm used to reading (2005):

WASHINGTON, Sept 9 (Reuters) - Iraqi President Jalal Talabani urged the United States on Friday not to withdraw hastily from Iraq and said U.S. forces should be reduced gradually over the next two years.

"For those who call for an immediate pull-out of American troops, we say that we honor the sacrifices the United States has made," Talabani said in a speech at a Washington hotel.

"A withdrawal of American and multinational forces in the near future could lead to the victory of the terrorists in Iraq and create grave threats to the region," he added.

Asked how long he would like U.S. and other forces to stay in Iraq, Talabani said the plan was to gradually reduce U.S. forces over the next two years.

"Not only would we need American forces to fight against terrorism, we need some of them to frighten our neighbors and prevent them from interfering in our internal affairs," he said.

If you are in agreement with Talabani's assessment of the need for the UN-sanctioned multinational force in Iraq for the reasons stated, then that makes two of us.

Saint Ronald ended the cold war, blessed be his name. Right.

The world will heave a huge sigh of relief when we end the brutal occupation of Iraq. As vicious as the insurgents and the al Qaeda-wanna-be are, our armed forces take back seat to nobody.

If only we'd spent a tiny fraction in Afghanistan of the hundred of billions we've poured into Iraq, we might have made some small improvement in the lives of that war-ravaged nation. We've been leveling city after city in Iraq instead, and our leaders accuse anyone who suggests an alternative of cowardice.

If Bush, back in the depths of his alcoholism, ever heard the advice to stop digging once you're in a hole, he appears to have forgotten it.

BTW, Talabani's a Kurdish figurehead; Maliki's the prime minister (however shaky his majority).

"The world will heave a huge sigh of relief when we end the brutal occupation of Iraq." - bad Jim

So will the Iraqis. Ditto the Afghans. But they also know that that day will not come until their governments become capable of taking on the insurgents in their midst without our help. It doesn't take a genius to predict that it will take at least 2 years, and probably longer, to reach that point.

If the war in Iraq is ever seen as a victory for the U.S., the Democrats as a party are dead. They've invested too much in defeat. Pretty much everything you read on this subject comes out of that fact.

If the war in Iraq is ever seen as a victory for the U.S., the Democrats as a party are dead. They've invested too much in defeat. Pretty much everything you read on this subject comes out of that fact.
Posted by: lbj

Recall that we haven't been wrong about Iraq yet.

"Maliki's the prime minister."

And we all hope his schedule for a turnover of 16 out of 18 Iraqi provinces by the end of the year is met.

For analysis, see:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5007864.stm

We won. They've got a government. We can't defend them from themselves.

Some day this will sink in:

Our staying in Iraq is what al-Qaeda wants. It may take many years to fully see the terrible stupidity of the invasion, but its terrible consequences should by now be obvious; it's a recruiting ground for terrorists. It is for them what Spain in 1936 was for communists.

If you're for "staying the course," you're working for al-Qaeda.

My summary of the situation:
The executive branch of the U.S. government, at least, declared a War On Terror following a horrific attack on the United States.
From the outset, it was obvious it was going to be very difficult to locate the enemy, because they were not a nation but adherents to a cause who were generally spread around many nations, often anonymous, and all highly mobile.
The allegedly incompetent Bush plan boils down to practically simplifying the task: 1) Find terrorists, particularly those who identify with al Qaeda, and 2) kill them.
The intervention and occupation of Iraq has been a remarkable success in implementing those two goals. We have found a battlefield that the enemy was drawn to like moths to a flame. We have killed thousands of them. As long as we remain in Iraq, we will kill many, many more.
War is never a good means of achieving idealistic goals. It works best as a simple tool of revenge or acquisition. President Bush has moved to make it an idealistic war by postulating that re-making Iraq into a more modern, liberal society will actually insure a lasting victory over terrorism and Taliban-style extremism.
Bush is right. A large majority of Iraqis risking life and limb to participate in elections prove he is right. The fact that Sunni, Shia, and Kurds are working together and are governing together prove he is right. Iraqis as a whole are not a hopelessly medieval, bitter, backwards people. That would be Democrats.
War is never antiseptic or predictable. That is because the enemy is in practice likely to do anything that they are smart enough to think of. In the 1945-1947 occupation of Germany, the U.S. encountered thousands of Nazi bitter enders who ambushed and sniped American troops, killed local officials who cooperated with the Allies, and generally attempted to continue to rule the German people through fear and gangster tactics.
The United States quietly snuffed out the "Werewolf" Nazi resistance by summarily executing captured Nazis on the spot with very, very little public disclosure of what we were doing and how often we were doing it. The focus of publicity was kept on the Nuremburg trials and the sins of the Nazis.
The occupation of Japan went much better. Two nuclear bombs and numerous cities being carpet bombed with napalm and other incendiaries convinced the Japanese that resistance was worse than futile. Japan had used up most of its young men bent on suicidal, bitter-end resistance before the conventinal war ceased.

If you don't want to ask Sullivan about what he fears if we withdraw, ask him what he expects should we stay indefinitely. I don't think anybody in the "stay the course" camp can give a coherent and remotely realistic description of what "victory" means. They just like the way the word sounds.

They know what victory means. It means that Iraqis won't contest the Bush-Bremer 100 orders that sold off Iraq's resources, never to belong to the Iraqis again.

Victory means that the contracts that were given to the multi-nationals for everything from oil to frankenseeds remain in place. It's THE reason Bush couldn't cobble together an enthusiastic coalition of the willing (don't you just love these focus group phrases?) - Bush's and Cheney's partners were a little too greedy and didn't want to share. That's why it was all done on the cheap.

Did you know that Iraq, probably the original bread basket of the world, had a seed storage bank with varieties some 8000 years old. Our military destroyed it in the first weeks of the invasion, and have turned the Iraqis into guinea pigs, lab rats, forcing them to only grow frankenseeds for western corps.

There are great reasons why they should hate us. And if they didn't before, they sure do now. There is less possibility for Iraq to exercise free choice in this so-called democracy that has been shoved down their throats than there is for grass roots America to pick their candidates for President. The middle class is fleeing Iraq. Without a middle class, there can be no democracy. Iraq is over, folks; it's the Balkans all over again. Bush isn't leaving for the sole reason that there is a fortune there in oil. He doesn't give a shit about the people, never did, never will.

Exporting democracy to the Middle East? Who is Bush kidding with this rhetoric? Not the Iraqis, and certainly not liberals. Who gives a good goddamn what Andrew Sullivan thinks?

Bush is right. A large majority of Iraqis risking life and limb to participate in elections prove he is right. The fact that Sunni, Shia, and Kurds are working together and are governing together prove he is right. Iraqis as a whole are not a hopelessly medieval, bitter, backwards people.
It's a puppet government, you fool.

Did you know that WE wrote their constitution? And in it, we insisted that they NOT be able to own any of their own resources again. Yeah, the Bush-Bremer 100 orders were put into their constitution, so that they couldn't sue the U.S., couldn't get their property back, could never throw off the shackles of imperialism. They can't even go into business without having a "coalition partner" as their partner.

Do you think any of you yokels who just loves da Bush man had a clue about who and what he really is, do you think you might just wake up and realize that you have no business voting? Of course not. That would take reasoning skills, of which Bush voters seriously lack.

Kevin is a bright and honest fellow, but he often is weak on anything related to military issues. Here, he asserts the following opinons, citing no supportive facts and mostly offering naive speculations:

1. "this administration can't win the war in Iraq," EVEN IS KEVIN'S RAZOR SHARP MILIARY MIND IS GRANTED FULL DEFERENCE, WHAT IS HIS BASIS FOR THIS?

2. "republicans but they can't stand the thought of withdrawing because it seems too much like surrender. So they're stuck supporting a war they know is a losing effort." LIKE WHO?

3. Iraq is already in the middle of a civil war, and a public plan for withdrawal might actually make an expansion of the current civil war less likely. BASED ON WHAT?

4. In the best case, the Sunni insurgency might become less violent once they know we're genuinely planning to leave. SURE, THE SUNNI "INSURGENCY" IS JUST UPSET BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW THAT WE ARE GENUINELY PLANNIGN TO LEAVE AND THEY WILL PULL THINGS BACK ONCE WE SHOW THAT GENUINENESS

5. In the worst case, the Shiites will beat them once and for all after we're gone. WHY IS THIS THE WORST CASE AND LIKE ANYONE THINKS KEVIN CAN PREDICT THE WINNER? THE SHIITES HAVE NOT HAD MUCH HISTORICAL SUCCESS IN BEATING THE SUNNIS. ANY HOW IS THE THE WORST CASE?

6. Because it would give al-Qaeda a safe haven? But why? A Shiite nation with close ties to Iran would be no friend of al-Qaeda. BASED ON WHAT? THERE ARE PLENTY OF INDICATIONS THAT IRAN IS HELPING AL QUEDA.

7. And freeing up troops in Iraq would allow us to beef up our presence in Afghanistan, where a resurgence of the Taliban is a genuine threat. WHY IS THE TALIBAN A GENUINE THREAT BUT THE TERRORISTS IN IRAQ BLOWING UP INNOCENTS AND PLEDGING ALLEGIANCE TO AL QUAEDA IS NOT?

8. Staying in Iraq is doing far more damage to our standing in the world than a careful withdrawal ever would. BASED ON WHAT?

9. "pursue a genuine, long-term winning strategy for the broader war we're fighting." LIKE KEVIN HAS PRESENTED A 'GENUINE LONG-TERM WINNING STRATEGY.

That the US has lost Iraq is already apparent to everyone. Withdrawal will merely be acknowledgement of an accepted fact.

I say, let George W. Bush and the GOP have their goddamn war - it's all theirs. I'm sick of these scumbags trying to denigrate the patriotism of everyone who opposes this immoral and illegal occupation.

Everyday the Dems should stand on the floor of the House and the Senate and ask, "How is your war going, Mr. President?" and "When are you going to start paying for your war, Mr. Bush?". They should keep a tally of the number of coffins of Americans over the door to both Chambers and on the front gate of the White House. It's their albatross - let's hang it around their necks prominently!

Remember - War is just terrorism on a bigger budget!

So, it's come this.

The debate over Iraq has become a dialogue between the Mugwumps and the Know-Nothings. The Bush-supporter Know-Nothings pretend good things are happening in Iraq. And the Bush-hater Mugwumps pretend nothing bad will happen if we pull out.

It's a sad day when I have to say these words: Andrew Sullivan is right, and Kevin Drum is wrong.

Bad as things are in Iraq today, they WILL get worse when we leave.

In answer to Kevin's question: The real risk in withdrawal is a failed state next to our allies Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The consequences of such a cut-and-run strategy will either be Iranian hegemony over the former Persian Empire or (more likely) a Afghan-style terrorism incubator along the lines of what we got when this same White House gang cut and ran in the late '80s and early '90s. And, while we DO have a civil war in Iraq right now, there is no question that it will get worse if we leave. Juan Cole has made sure we all can know what happened in Lebanon.

Pretending otherwise will result in no better policy than pretending that continuing to follow a failed strategy will produce a different result than it's produced so far.

"If a Democratic candidate emerged who promised to stick to the Iraq war to victory, but conduct it in a more aggressive, ethical and competent way than the current crew, Americans would be more than receptive."--Andrew Sullivan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wrote Sullivan asking him to define victory. No answer yet. I haven't heard a clear definition of victory from anyone. Bush speaks of Iraq achieving democracy as some sort of benchmark for victory. It's apparent now women will be far more oppressed, subjugated and consigned to a subservient role in Iraq than they ever were under Saddam. This will be true no matter how "free" and democratic the government finally settled upon. This is victory?

ALL the arguments you make Kevin are completely wrong and always have been on this subject - the same goes for most if not all the liberal blogsphere. There are three choices here: one, send in many more troops and lock the country down - but that is never going to happen although McCain wisely keeps suggesting this option; two, recognise that Iraq cannot avoid a meltdown and stay in in an effort to somehow define or contour the outcome; three, get out because there's nothing to be done and you have no choice but to accept the dire consequences of your actions. You obviously Kevin side with three - except for the dire consequences part and therefore your choice is really no choice at all since it is too detached from reality: it is not an answer to just make up or wildly assume scenarios that seem to justify your conclusions.

They're already in a civil war?? They're in a TYPE of civil war, a degree of one, there are many degrees further it can go. Iran will not allow Qaeda a safe haven? Why not? How can you just assume Iran can control such a thing or that even if they could that they won't see some tactical advantage to not controlling it? And how is it you assume that the entire country will but under a Shia thumb? That's pretty convenient. Withdrawing will not demean USA standing in world to a lesser degree than it is now? Again, how the hell do you know this? It certainly will if things spin wildly out of control. Besides, it's not just world opinion that matters: Vietnam did impact negatively, as did Algeria and as did most certainly Lebanon: such 'surrenders' do have effect, they're not culturally neutral, they just don't fade away into insignificance. But of course it's convenient for you to assume they do.

There's nothing more annoying than listening to liberals discuss foreign policy: it's like having to discuss football with your wife. Pointless and dreary.

Steve --

Women will be "more oppressed, subjugated, and consigned to a subservient role in Iraq than they ever were under Saddam."?

You absolutely need to substantiate this statement.

Kevin,

The concern is not loosing to the Iraqi's, it's loosing to their domestic political opponents. To pull out of Iraq would be to admit that the Democrats were right, and that they are loathe to do.

It must be a testosterone thing; or something in the water like chlorine or flouride.

"We have killed thousands of them. As long as we remain in Iraq, we will kill many, many more."

Bullsh**. We have killed thousands of Iraqis, but you have *no idea* how many are terrorists. As long as we remain in Iraq, we will kill many, many more Iraqis while creating many, many more terrorists.

Saintsimon

You made a nice argument right up to the meaningless and smug shot at "liburls."

You have defined the problem. There is no good solution.

I have a question for you and all the nation building conservatives, what business is it of ours to pick sides in the fight between the sunnis and the shiites in Iraq? It's their damn country. Let them kill each other until another Saddam emerges, or they break up, or they try to develop democratic institutions. All of it their choice.

I can see no reason for nation building in Iraq. At least none any better than the conservatives rightly rejected when they opposed nation building in Somalia. Can you? Why the selective conservative embrace nation building in this case? Why are you all so hell bet to stick your noses in somebody elses business?

Maybe the reason is you and the administration want to steal Iraqi oil. Is that it? Are you just a bunch of imperialists coveting your neighbors goods? Not very Christian of you.

what is so terrible about admitting we can't cut it in iraq? we started the thing, we got ourselves into this mess, why can't we admit we failed, and just "cut and run?" when kevin says we can't just surrender, i'd like to know why. saving face just means more deaths, both american and iraqi, and staying put just postpones the inevitable, which will be a carefully orchestrated flight from the country, with a carpet of air strikes to keep the insurgency quiet until we're gone. nothing we do now, absolutely nothing, will help iraq in any way. all we can hope for is greater destruction and the total loss of infrastructure. there will be no recovery, and especially no "victory." meanwhile our pitiful efforts in iraq are costing us the tenuous but very real victory we won in afghanistan. the argument that we cannot retreat because it will invite the terrorists "over here" is just ridiculous: the terrorists are already over here.
what was terrible about vietnam was not that we left in defeat: it was that we stayed so long in the first place, when everyone knew the thing was wrong, wrong, wrong, and that we could never win.

I don't buy the argument that the Sunni insugency would win, or is winning. The Shia death squads are doing more damage than Sunni belt bombers. If the issue is merely stopping the Sunni terorists, then the solution is to slowly withdraw and let the Shia death squads take care of the matter.

Think. The Sunni are supporting the belt bombers and truck bombers. Evidently they support them because they think they can take back power. Test them. If that is what they believe, then have the US troops stand down and let the Shia death squads deal with the issue.

sorry: i mistook sullivan's comments re the war for kevin's response. i ought to know better than attempt a post before i've had my first coffee. amen, kevin, amen: yours is the only iraq strategy that makes the slightest sense.

Why are people like Andrew Sullivan so convinced that a carefully planned phased withdrawal would be such a disaster?

Simple...it's be a political disaster for the Republicans, tarnishing the jingoistic, macho image they've carefully developed over decades.

Not insignificantly, it'd also be another tacit admission that the opponents of the war -- Sullivan's so-called "fifth column" -- were right in their assessment of the risks, costs and benefits, and they were wrong. By contrast, since Bush insists on paying for the war with a tax cut, and Sullivan and his pro-war cohort generally have no skin in the game, being for the war costs them, quite literally nothing. Except for their reputation for honesty, and since when have Republicans card about that?

Although I'm well to the left of Andrew Sullivan, I respect him greatly. He should be honored for his relentless campaign against the American use of torture and for his condemnation of Bush administration mendacity and incompetence.

But I part company with him over the Iraq war. The Bush administration we both abhor will be running the show for another two years. Nothing will change on the ground in Iraq. We can expect only more American casualties, more misery among the Iraqi people and a continuation of the insurgency and civil war.

World opinion is against the U.S. Our remaining in Iraq will only damage our reputation and our honor further. It is time for us to leave Iraq.

Kevin:

Before someone comes along and sells you another war, please tell us all what you mean when you talk about winning "a war against Islamic jihadism." Define your enemy and your objective before you start pondering strategy and tactics.

If there is a war to be won against "jihadism," it will be fought and settled within its own universe. I don't know what you're talking about, and I'm not sure that you do, either. Who is it you're aiming at? By what actions do they identify themselves to you?

Smitty, reports from various Iraqi cities speak of scenes reminiscent of tales of the Taliban in Afghanistan regarding treatment of women. Roving enforcers dictating how they dress, banning cell phone usage and the driving of cars. There are reports of girls being prevented from attending school.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.codepinkalert.org/downloads/WelcometoLiberatedIraq.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/suri.php?articleid=8784
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/060806Z.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.whrnet.org/docs/issue-amna-0604.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1014/p09s02-coop.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Smitty, google Iraqi women's rights 2006. You can read all day if you choose from a variety of publications spanning all idealogical camps. Most if not all describe a deteriorating state of women's rights in Iraq, especially as compared with their lives under Saddam. Or are you from the Bush "global warming" segment of observers? Maybe you think we need to see how things develop over several thousands of years before trying to discern a pattern?

I still love Al Franken's take on the Republican position that the Dems have "no plan" to get out of Iraq. Of course he says it better...but it amounts to realizing that Bush is saying "I've gotten you this far...now what are YOU going to do!" Like it's up to Dems to clean up this mess...my GOD!!!! Of course they and others will have to try their best to do that eventually if we aren't so far up that "polluted pathway without a proper propellant"....

We must withdraq from Iraq very soon. Not because or in spite these rancorous partisan prideful debates, but because the privations on our Army and Marines are simply too great. Victory, such as it is, is not up to us. We have given the Iraqis a choice between extremist, cultist religion, or the modern world they helped to create. their decision will be indigenous. We have lost at least 3 combat divisions killed and wounded. National prosperity has evaporated in this fool's game. Families have been devastated. We have proved that we can stubbornly cling to a mistake, all that remains to determine is if we are more foolish or more stubborn. We need to call home our good soldiers now. Pride versus cruelty should be an easy judgment to make. We must reserve the right to strike AQ in what remains in Iraq, but we have suffered much for pride's sake.

Ron Byers,
It was when we realized that the North Vietnamese were not merely part of the faceless communist horde (I know they are communists but they are Vietnamese first) that we also realized that we were watching bigger historical themes at play--the end of colonialism and an old civil war among the Vietnamese. When we grasp those truths we finally understood that colonial empires were obsolete.

The problem is that, as with the Iraq invasion, many people knew this from the beginning, and certainly by the time of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and were utterly vilified for even saying so. (It was patently evident to some from 1954-56, when the U.S. undermined national elections.)

It took 12 years and 58,000 American and millions of Vietnamese lives for enough people to abhor the waste of it all, but I disagree with you on the point that significant numbers of Americans eventually caught on to the anti-colonialism history and civil war aspects. You certainly don't see much evidence of this awareness when the subject comes up today, and it's obvious that the lessons were really never learned (and again, the folks who said this before Bush invaded got vilified).

The discourse, as it was then, gets dumbed down to playground level with "cut and run" epithets and "stay the course" admonitions, and I expect "peace with honor" to come back from the grave any minute now. IMO, the invasion of Iraq is even more insane and unjustified than our Vietnam fiasco, but maybe the good news is that it's taken less time for Americans to catch on, despite the Hannity dolts in Congress.

If FDR was "anti-war" when he took us to war against the Hitler and the others, then so am I. If Lincoln was "anti-war' when he led the north in a war against the south, then so am I.

FDR didn't take us to war -- Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us, and we defended ourselves in response. Lincoln didn't lead the North to war -- the South attacked the United States when it fired on Fort Sumter, and we defended ourselves in response.

Now how did we "defend" ourselves against Iraq? When did Iraq attack us, or declare war on us?

Porrofatto, t