November 8, 2006
IRAQ....Max Boot, who has been writing many strange columns of late, has outdone himself today. He starts out well:
First, let's get one thing straight. Contrary to the suggestions sometimes heard on conservative talk radio, the terrible headlines out of Iraq aren't an invention of liberal news media. They all too accurately reflect the grim reality.
That's some bracing tonic for the Kool-Aid drinkers in right blogistan, and props to Boot for serving it up. But then things gets weird.
In the rest of the column, Boot literally brings up and dismisses every possible solution for stabilizing Iraq. A political compromise? Nobody wants one and nobody could make it stick even if they did. Cutting a deal with Iran and Syria? They don't want to help and couldn't do much in any case. Partition? Just another word for civil war. A benign dictator? Nice idea, but no one can make this work without a functioning security service. More troops? We'd need another quarter million and we don't have them.
It sounds grim, but I hardly need to tell you how this ends, do I? Maybe we can't win, but that doesn't mean we should withdraw. That would be disastrous. So we should just stay forever with no prospect of success in sight. This is, apparently, called "being honest with ourselves."
—Kevin Drum 1:02 PM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (39)
The article below will, of course, be dismissed immediately by the extremists in the Bush administration (and by the robo-trolls in the PA comment threads), but it's got some reasonable and detailed suggests concerning Iraq. Worth a read.
"The Way out of War"
http://www.harpers.org/
Posted by: Wonderin on November 8, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK
It sounds grim?
Well, it is grim. An American redeployment isn't ging to bring peace to Iraq or Afghanistan, reduce Hamas pressure on Israel or reduce the shipment of Syrian/Iranian missiles to Hizbollah.
Posted by: MatthewRMarler on November 8, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK
Who remembers why we are in Iraq? C'mon, really!
I mean the original justification that resulted in the March 19th, 2003 invasion. Not the 50 or so variations that Bush has offered since then.
Wasn't it because we feared (w/evidence or not) that Saddam had nuclear intentions against us?
Wasn't he bombed out of office 2 weeks later?
Wasn't he captured a few months later?
Wasn't he just sentenced to death?
Now, return to the 1st question please.
Posted by: wishIwuz2 on November 8, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK
when the baker report comes out and says we must talk to iran and syria - well, bush will ignore it, but still...
Posted by: benjoya on November 8, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK
Well, it is grim. An American redeployment isn't ging to bring peace to Iraq or Afghanistan, reduce Hamas pressure on Israel or reduce the shipment of Syrian/Iranian missiles to Hizbollah.
No. But it will not bring war to Iraq or Afghanistan, increase Hamas pressure on Israel, or increase the shipment of missiles either.
It will, however, reduce the number of Americans being killed by Iraqis and of Iraqis being killed by Americans -- to zero, in fact.
Posted by: brooksfoe on November 8, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK
Contrary to the suggestions sometimes heard on conservative talk radio, the terrible headlines out of Iraq aren't an invention of liberal news media.
The claim is not that they are an invention, but that they are biased information. The place could be in civil war by some definitions, or could explode into a civil war like the American Civil War; yet at the same time the electricity and petroleum infrastructure are being rebuilt, and the water treatment facilities are being rebuilt, and so on.
Posted by: MatthewRMarler on November 8, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK
> I hardly need to tell you how this ends, do I?
Invade Iran?
Posted by: goethean on November 8, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK
"So we should just stay forever with no prospect of success in sight."
Don't forget: "...and blame the Democrats!"
Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on November 8, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK
I'm not sure what this post is saying. Is it meant to suggest that staying in Iraq indefinitely with no prospect of great improvement in the situation is self-evidently wrong? Maybe that is the best alternative in a bad world, where many people hate us. After all, we expect, say, to keep the New York City police department deployed "forever"; nobody considers that a failure. (Admittedly the death rate there is a little lower.) And the British had troops deployed in Northern Ireland for decades. So staying in Iraq is certainly possible.
Posted by: sean on November 8, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK
After all, we expect, say, to keep the New York City police department deployed "forever"; nobody considers that a failure.
This just in: New York City is part of the freekin U-S-of-A!
Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on November 8, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK
Thanks Max. Now shut up.
Posted by: Xanthippas on November 8, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK
Quaker, my only point is that some problems are insoluble. There isn't some policy option that would eliminate crime, only an ongoing effort to minimize it. I would like Kevin or someone else to explain, rather than assume, why staying in Iraq indefinitely is not the best choice in a bad world.
Posted by: sean on November 8, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK
"Maybe we can't win, but that doesn't mean we should withdraw. That would be disastrous. So we should just stay forever with no prospect of success in sight."
Funny how the Democrats have been tagged as the party of "defeat" since it was Republicans who engineered this scenario, which has resulted in defeat. Refusing to admit it now won't change the inevitable outcome. The only way to win would've been to not play the game. (Or to go in with more international support, but we can't unbreak those eggs.)
Why are we staying in Iraq, apart from the Pottery Barn rule? Surely if Saddam had choked on his hummus and Iraq spun into chaos, we wouldn't send troops in to such a chaotic situation. We did so in Haiti, sure, but we hardly responded in Liberia and certainly not in Darfur.
Posted by: Grumpy on November 8, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK
"So we should just stay forever with no prospect of success in sight. This is, apparently, called "being honest with ourselves."
It is being honest with ourselves. These clowns have maneuvered the US into a position where there are no good choices, AKA "no prospect of success in sight." It's pick your poison time, a job W plans to leave to his successor if he can.
Posted by: just sayin on November 8, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK
Clear and Present Bullshit.
Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on November 8, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK
continuing to fight a war that can't be won because you're afraid of the result is insanity.
Merely fighting a war is not a policy unto itself. If a war can't be one, as the American people have clearly concluded, then it's over. There is no good solution for the Iraqi's, as has been accepted nearly universally at this point. All we can do is make the choice that's best for ourselves.
The bottom line is, Kevin Drum supported a war that was clearly always going to be a bad idea. He supported it when it was clear the American public had severe misgivings. They have every right to bring their children, wives, and husbands home. Forgive them for valueing their loved ones over strangers. You'd do the same damn thing.
Posted by: soullite on November 8, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK
Boot is a frequent "guest" on C-Span...WJ and other spots...he does the same thing in the course of an appearance...all over the place...and still looked to as another of the media's "expert pundit"...that NUMBER ONE on my list...let's throw out these bums too...and find new media people who know how to do the job!!! Meantime we really don't need them anymore...let's let them know that!
Posted by: Dancer on November 8, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK
An American redeployment isn't going to bring peace to ..., reduce Hamas pressure on Israel or reduce the shipment of Syrian/Iranian missiles to Hizbollah.
I see Hamas pressured Israel in to killing 18 people yesterday.
I am certain the new Democratic Congress will not reduce military aid to Israel, which is why yesterday's electoral victory is bittersweet. Meir Kahane would be pleased, though, and that pleases Emanuel and Schumer.
explain...why staying in Iraq indefinitely is not the best choice in a bad world
Having US soldiers killing Iraqis and raping Iraqi children indefinitely is not the best choice in a bad world. It is the worst choice possible to make the world even worse.
Posted by: Hostile on November 8, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK
I would like Kevin or someone else to explain, rather than assume, why staying in Iraq indefinitely is not the best choice in a bad world.
How about, "because it's not our country"?
Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on November 8, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK
As opposed to the "staying the course" disaster? C'mon Kevin, did you ever think that maybe our military in the streets of Iraq is one of the biggest reasons for the civil unrest. I think we gradually step back and let "democracy" takes its course. If their democracy ends up being Saddam lite,so be it.
Posted by: American Idiot on November 8, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK
Sean:
Isn't it a staple of talk-radio argumentation that "liberal policies" have failed because the problems they are meant to address (poverty, crime, education inequalities) persist? In fact, in the world of talk radio, New York City should abandon crime prevention, because it has failed to "solve the problem."
If you're going to argue that this is not a realistic way of looking at the world, you're going to find few outside of Rush, Hannity and their listeners who will disagree with you. But I don't think you can make a good case that we got involved in Iraq in order to manage a problem that cannot in fact be solved.
Heck, maybe allowing Iraq to slip into a "hot" civil war and reach its own resolution, even if that means the emergence of a state closely tied to the Islamic Republic in Iran, is the best option. I don't know the answer any better than you do. But keeping troops in a foreign land, where they're both profoundly unwelcome and easy targets, and where they may actually be increasing instability and hampering the emergence of a new order, all the while contributing to bloodshed and mayhem, just can't be the best alternative.
Quaker, my only point is that some problems are insoluble. There isn't some policy option that would eliminate crime, only an ongoing effort to minimize it. I would like Kevin or someone else to explain, rather than assume, why staying in Iraq indefinitely is not the best choice in a bad world.
Posted by: sean on November 8, 2006 at 2:07 PM |
Posted by: keith on November 8, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK
There are only two workable options for the USA in Iraq. One is to leave. The other is to act the way that occupying empires have always acted, and to be brutal enough towards Iraqis that they are more afraid of us than they were of Saddam. These were really the only two choices from the beginning, for a successful campaign. This is what Iraqis are used to in a government, and they haven't got the education to be a democracy.
Since we are a country that claims to have at least a bit of moral decency, I would say it's best to stick to our morals and get the hell out.
Posted by: Extravagent Gryphon on November 8, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK
As to the question of which plan to excricate ourselves from Iraq, whether and/or how many more troops we might be able to deploy, it's important to follow the money to who has been benefitting from the war profits.
I am posting here because I have a theory to put forth that I am asking all of you fellow-bloggers to bat around and spread. As a UAW member and a Ford worker, I am convinced that this current "CEO" administration regards our military in EXACTLY the same way major corporations regard their workers, especially unionized ones. They think of our military and our workers as people "on the dole," on their "rolls." They regard veteran benefits exactly the way they do pensions -- as "entitlement programs." They would rather pay more, be it from their profits or OUR TAX dollars, to outsource the work to their corporate cronies than hire more workers or expand the role of our troops.
The reason I think it so important to get this metaphor to the right people in both the military and labor orgs is because this kind of political coalition would be so very strong, so very natural and extremely effective and enduring. Please think about these correlations and pass it through the blogosphere -- especially to the smart military groups out there, agitating for better equipment and vet benefits.
This BLUE wave we are celebrating cannot last without these kinds of strong, naturally bound coalitions. Plus, this correlation has the benefit of being solidly TRUE. I can't believe we haven't all seen it, sooner. Today, when preznit was giving his press conference, he kept refering to the latest "plan" for Iraq as "The way forward." I couldn't help but wonder if these numbnuts CEO-types aren't sitting around discussing their idiotic plans for dismantling western civilization as we've known it, because, coincidentally "The way forward" is what the Frod Motor Company has been calling its latest debacle of a "plan."
Posted by: Denise on November 8, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK
Yep, its hard to unshit the bed.
Sometimes you have a fender bender and you send the car to the shop. And sometimes the car is totalled. Iraq is "totalled".
Be careful who you make the "decider". Some decisions are irreversible and you don't want a blustering dumbass making them for you.
Posted by: The Fool on November 8, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK
OK, fine, so we get the hell out, and *then* what happens? It's wishful thinking to say that the cause of Iraqi violence and chaos is the presence of US troops -- the cause of the chaos is more likely the fact that the Sunnis and Shia have hated each other for, what? 1300 years? And it doesn't help that Iraq is an artificial invention of the British Empire; it has never been a healthy, unified state. Lefties who hope the country will settle down once we leave are as naive now as righties were in 2003, when they hoped there'd be no chaos in the first place.
More sensible are the people who say, in effect, well, we don't care if it falls apart, it's not our country. But... well, A, this is kind of a repulsively selfish position, and B, it doesn't really work either, because it assumes that problems in the Middle East can't touch us here. But we know that's not true.
It's not at all a stretch to say that, once we pull out, Iraq could be the next Somalia; well, then what? How does Ahmedinajad react to the vacuum on his border? What if hard-line clerics turn out -- and I don't see who else is applying for the job -- to be the biggest power brokers? It's true that our presence in Iraq fuels terrorist recruitment, but so would our *absence* in Iraq. It may not be viable to stay, but it isn't viable to leave either.
At this point, I am perfectly ambivalent as to whether we should stay or go; I'm just saying that going is not self-evidently better than staying, and that it's not a solution in itself: when you say we should go, you must realize that leaving Iraq would not be the end of the story. It'd just begin a different set of problems -- *for us,* not just for Iraq. They might be better than the ones we're facing now, I don't know, but you have to at least recognize that there're there.
Sorry this is so long; my only point is that when people say "Leave," I have to ask, "Leave and....?"
Posted by: Shoshana on November 8, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK
Leave Iraq now! Who cares what happens to the Iraqi's, if they wanted democracy they have had plenty of time. After we leave, they deserve what they get. If they want freedom let them fight for themselves, and if they don't get it then it's their fault. Just like the South Vietnamese, if they didn't want to be under Communist rule then they should have fought, and they didn't. I have no sympathy for what happens to the Iraqi's - no American soldier's life is worth fighting for any Iraqi's freedom (or the freedom of anyone else in any other country). If people want freedom and democracy let them fight for it themselves. No more foreign interventions of any kind any more.
Posted by: Realist on November 8, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK
OK, fine, so we get the hell out, and *then* what happens?
The same things that have been the guaranteed result, which can be slowed but not avoided, since the botched invasion. Its possible something could have been salvaged, though nothing like the images the right sold, had we put in far more massive forces at the outset with a clear mission to maintain order (yes, I know, getting far more massive forces would have been, to say the least, challenging.) If we hadn't disbanded the Iraqi military. If we hadn't brought the Badr brigades into the political process at the outset of the transition from invasion to occupation but kept the Mahdi Army out. If we hadn't...well, lots of mistakes. But that's in the past.
Our troops aren't serving a constructive purpose there now. There is no route to "victory", just a fantasy that if we keep getting our troops killed there long enough, magically things will improve (or, perhaps for the leadership, at least the task of facing up to failure will fall to someone else.)
the cause of the chaos is more likely the fact that the Sunnis and Shia have hated each other for, what? 1300 years?
There are Sunni and Shi'a communities in other places in the Middle East that aren't butchering each other the way they are in Iraq, so merely suggesting that it is the ancient historical enmity between Sunni and Shi'a and nothing related to the US that is producing the violence in Iraq is, well, somewhat willfully blind.
Lefties who hope the country will settle down once we leave are as naive now as righties were in 2003, when they hoped there'd be no chaos in the first place.
I don't think its going to settle down if we leave, I think that we've guaranteed by our failure that the course there will be horrible no matter what we do. I think we should remove our troops because they aren't advancing the situation there toward any kind of solution, nor is there any prospect for them to do so.
It's not at all a stretch to say that, once we pull out, Iraq could be the next Somalia; well, then what? How does Ahmedinajad react to the vacuum on his border? What if hard-line clerics turn out -- and I don't see who else is applying for the job -- to be the biggest power brokers? It's true that our presence in Iraq fuels terrorist recruitment, but so would our *absence* in Iraq. It may not be viable to stay, but it isn't viable to leave either.
Even if leaving fuels terrorist recruitment as much as staying (and I supect that our troops killing Iraqis, innocent or not, intentionally or not, does more to recruit terrorists who want to kill Americans that the absence of those troops would), clearly it would be better for that to occur without us spending enormous sums of money to have our troops die in the process. So, even granting your position, leaving is the right choice.
At this point, I am perfectly ambivalent as to whether we should stay or go; I'm just saying that going is not self-evidently better than staying, and that it's not a solution in itself: when you say we should go, you must realize that leaving Iraq would not be the end of the story.
It wouldn't be the end of the story of the US having to have a foreign policy that addresses situations throughout the world. It would be the end of the story of the US occupation of Iraq. Yes, Iraq isn't magically going to disappear, nor do those of us who support getting US troops out of it think it will. What we think is that those troops being in Iraq is, at a minimum, (1) getting them killed, (2) costing lots of money, and (3) not advancing any interest of the United States, and therefore they should be withdrawn.
Posted by: cmdicely on November 8, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK
Leave and let the peoples of the nation-state known as Iraq determine how things will work out. Leave, but leave behind billions of dollars in reparations. Then pay more reparations. Then pay more again. The Iraqis will work out their sectarian differences with killing and warring and then with compromising and finally with stability. That is how nation's are created.
England had a lot of sectarian strife throughout its early history. The Scots, Welsh and Irish were all pounded into submission by the Anglo-Saxons, whose identity was also created from two warring parties. The Sunnis cannot pound the Shiites into submission because of the invaders presence. The Shiites cannot pound the Sunnis into submission because of the invaders presence.
Almost all nations have gone through what Iraq is going through in order to create a national identity. Some have said America was not a nation until after its Civil War, and I agree. Whether the US leaves Iraq tomorrow or in one-hundred years, they will have to fight it out among themselves in order to create a nation.
Iran has not demonstrated any desires to increase its territory or to impose its national identity upon any other state since the Revolution. There is no guarantee Iran will not have to intercede to save lives or protect religious shrines, but there is no evidence that they will.
Posted by: Hostile on November 8, 2006 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK
Look at it this way. With Iraq fragmented and chaotic, Max Boot can turn his full and direct attention to what he always cared about most which is Israel.
And please note that a thoroughly screwed up Iraq is entirely in Israel's interest. That is also why the gleam in Ken Adelman's eye is still there, undimmed by clouds of inconvenient facts.
The jackpot, or course, would be an Iraq dominated by Iran, forcing the US to go back at it lest the Israelis blow the hell out of it--infaming the whole region and, against all evidence, making Bernard Lewis look like a seer.
Posted by: skip on November 8, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK
Republicans have been burning down straw men for a long time. They're very good at it. But, does the public really enjoy pyromania that much?
Posted by: MarkH on November 8, 2006 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK
hostile: I see Hamas pressured Israel in to killing 18 people yesterday.
It is a fact that Hamas and other Palestinian organizations hide their fighters, or shield their fighters, among civilians. They make their bombs in people's homes and set up their firing positions in people's homes and other civilian buildings. It is a violation of the Geneva conventions, and makes it impossible for Israel to defend itself without inflicting civilian casualties. Hizbollah does the same. Both organizations have been repeatedly photographed doing this.
Redeploying American troops probably will increase the pressure that Hamas and Hizbollah dirct against Israel. It's a risk that the Democrats, or anyone, will have to debate and discuss when they propose, if they do, to redeploy American troops out of Iraq.
Posted by: MatthewRMarler on November 9, 2006 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK
"First, let's get one thing straight. Contrary to the suggestions sometimes heard on conservative talk radio, the terrible headlines out of Iraq aren't an invention of liberal news media. They all too accurately reflect the grim reality."
This statement misrepresents the criticism of most people I know on the right. They don' think that the terrible headlines are a lie, it's that the GOOD news is so underreported or not reported at all, and the bad news is overemphasized. I agree with them.
What I would like is an honest appraisal, which is hard to get whent he vast majority of people covering the war and responsible for the dissemination of the "news" are against the mission. The blogs can't do the job alone.
Posted by: slick on November 9, 2006 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINK
Wow, the U.S. vs. the Middle-East war has been won! In just a few years we, as a nation, have been able cause twice as many deaths as Saddam did in his twenty-plus year rule (not including dead U.S. soldiers or Afgans). I am curious what you think. Should we ask George to file for a pardon of Saddam? Saddam seems ten times more capable of keeping the peace. At least it would lower the murder rate.
Posted by: wickedevine on November 10, 2006 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK