Awake at Night Over Iraq Posted by Suzanne Nossel

I went to a lunch yesterday where the subject was the elephant in the room:  Iraq.  As Derek wrote earlier this week, we all need to talk and think more about it.  One reason we don't is that most discussions start with this series of disheartening premises: 

1) public support for the war's dwindling; 2) without strong public backing war becomes untenable; 3) we can't cut and run for fear terrorists will be emboldened and that Iraq itself will descend into chaos dragging down the region; 4) our very presence in-country seems to be fueling the insurgency; 5) we cannot up the number of boots on the ground without instituting a draft or similar;

6) no other countries are willing to ante up troops to help us and, under the circumstances, its hard to blame them; 7) training of Iraqi troops and police is much slower/harder than expected; 8) even if one gives up on the hope of a liberal democracy in Iraq in the short or medium term, the goal of a base level of stability to allow U.S. exit within the next 2 years or so looks out of reach; 9) the political process has bogged down to a point where its unclear whether a unified state will emerge

As progressives, we've argued at every turn against the decisions and actions that led us to this quagmire.  The longer our advice is ignored, the tougher it becomes for us to say what to do next (one of Kerry's problems during election season).

My feeling for the last few months has been that we are past the point of no-return in terms of attracting international contributions to the stabilization effort.   

But given the alternatives, maybe its time to reconsider:  Could we draw in more Europeans for roles outside the line of fire that would still take burdens off our troops?  Could Europe (or even Arab countries) do more to hasten the training of Iraqi military and police?  Joe Biden seems to think this is not a dead letter.   

While I don't hold out much hope, given the choices of conscription, premature withdrawal, or "staying the course" on a road that seems to lead inexorably to those two options and no others, why not try?

Would limited international participation help?  It might take some of the edge off what is still seen as a US occupation.  It also might pave the way for an eventual UN role, and chance for the U.S. to exit Iraq without abandoning it.

Is there anything we could do to lure some Europeans or others in?  What might help . . . A firm pledge not to build permanent bases in Iraq . . . Allowing foreign contractors to compete with the American firms for commercial and oil opportunities in-country . . . a pledge and a plan to overhaul the handling of detention and interrogations . . . broader involvement in decision-making regarding reconstruction and the political process . . . a mea culpa of sorts in terms of the mistakes and misrepresentations made en route to Iraq.  I don't know if any of it would work, but all this and more would be well worth giving in exchange for real help and an exit strategy.

At the very least, we should be holding urgent talks to find out what it would take.

Comments

[Cal]

Iraq has been the elephant in the room at this blog, too. Thank you for addressing it Suzanne, even if there are no good answers at this point.

[Jeff Owen]

What ever happened with the equipment shortages? Am I correct in thinking the subject was dropped rather than fixed?

For both patriotic and partisan reasons the Dems should be making more of this. This is especially important now that support for the war has fallen and the Downing Street Memos are getting more attention.

Dems need to support the troops, and be seen as supporting the troops, no matter how unpopular Bush or the war become. Ensuring our troops have what they need, and yelling about it when they don't, will help do that. Forcing Republicans to defend Rumsfeld's failure to fully equip the troops is good for us.

[Jeff Owen]

A new defense secretary would have new ideas. Rumsfeld is out of ideas and our soldiers deserve better than that.

[doc]

probably nothing short of young george on his knees begging the world for assistance will bring other nations into the iraqi quagmire.

and maybe not even then: the world is painfully aware that the WH often reneges or acts opposite of what it says/promises...

[travis]

The best prospect for getting the Europeans/others involved at this stage remains the same as it was before the war: working through the UN. (Setting aside of course, for purposes of this discussion, the self-imposed political restraints that make this administration extremely unlikely to work in this vein.) Specifically, other-than-US troops on the ground, whether through NATO, in non-combat roles, or whatever, is not happening without a Security Council mandate. Secondly, greater international participation in contracting for redevelopment is essential to de-Americanize the crisis, but this also is unlikely to happen without some international oversight and coordination of the reconstruction effort, at the very least as a perceived objective venue for discussion and planning, and the UN is the only institution with the experience and capactity to run such a program. In addition to the carrot of contract prospects, the international community is likely to respond favorably to moves toward greater accountability by the US. It is very unlikely and probably even undesirable that this accountability will come in the form of some US commitment to international supervision of "security" practices: detention, interrogation, and military actions generally. However, the administration of reconstruction monies is an area that is in desperate need of transparency and tough effective oversight, and subjecting reconstruction financing and contract awards to a system of inspections and accountability in which other nations can participate has great value as a signal to the rest of the world that the US is willing to play by the rules and to cooperate with other nations. Again, the institution best suited to take on the task of providing some international accountability in contracting is the UN.

America is not going to give up anything that smacks of command over military operations, and is not going to do anything that looks like capitulating to international pressure to change the actions of the military. However, I think there is great potential for the US to get some help with some practical problems as well as some much-needed international cover by allowing the UN and the Europeans into the game in a way that relinquishes some authority without making the current administration looking like it's selling out to the French and Germans.

[bcinaz]

Serious question.

What would be the difference between a full blown Civil War in Iraq and what we have now?

[travis]

bcinaz:

Militia-on-militia fighting; see Lebanon 1975. I don't think we're there yet.

[Nils Gilman]

Like Nossel, I think we've passed the point of no return. According to Sy Hersh, the Israelis concluded already two years ago (once it became clear that the U.S. was facing an insurgency) that the U.S. had effectively already lost --and have responded by working to secure a friendly Kurdistan out of the Iraqi rubble.

If this is true, then the strategy now should be to leave as soon as possible. No need to set an official timetable for withdrawal; simply delcare victory and start pulling the boys out steadily, much as we did in Vietnam from 1971 forward. Politically, to encourage this choice, the Democrats should argue that, "The war may or may not have been a good idea in the first place. The war may or may not have been winnable when we launched it in April 2003. But now, given the way the war has been waged (with not enough troops on the ground in the first place, with the botched security and infrastructure situation in the immediate aftermath of the war, and with the scandals of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo), now the war is lost. From here on forward, every further American who dies in Iraq is dying not to make victory possible for his country, but only in the vain attempt to salvage George Bush's historical reputation." Of course this position will be attacked as defeatist, and progressives would just have to have the courage to deal with that.

However, there is another possibility, one that Juan Cole put forward last month, namely that we're "just screwed": we may not have passed the "point of no return" and definitively lost, but we certainly face a 10+ year insurgency, one that we should expect will cost 10,000 Americans lives... after which we still may not "win" (in the sense of establishing one or more stable, prosperous, pro-American states in Mesopotamia).

If you believe this is the case, then clearly BushCo should have the courage to say this to the American people, and hope the American people will keep re-electing them. However, it seems pretty clear the Bushies believe that to come clean in this way -- implicitly admitting that they radically miscalculated to begin with -- would result in a royal political shaft at home. And failing to come clean about the long-term costs of the war makes it much harder to sustain the pressure on the insurgents that would make victory even a hope.

Which path you take -- (1) cut and run; or (2) stay the nasty, brutish, and long course -- really depends on two variables: how central you think the Iraq war is to American security, and what you think the chances of "victory" are if we choose (2).

Personally, I think the chances of "victory" in Iraq are so slight, the costs of "victory" so high, and the geopolitical importance of "victory" so questionable, that choosing to cut and run seems like the only reasonable option. It will be a moral stain on our nation, to be sure. But it doesn't seem to me that allowing ten thousand more Americans to die will make the eventual disaster any less of a moral stain.

But what about emboldening the terrorists?! people will cry. What I like to remind the cassandras who worry about the disastrous geopolitical consequences of leaving (not all on the right: see Nossel's point 3, above) is that things may not, and in all probability will not, work out nearly as badly as you think. Remember how the hawks warned that if we lost in Vietnam then all of Southeat Asia would fall, and that eventually we'd be battling the reds on the shores of Malibu? Didn't happen.

In fact, in the larger scheme of things, the GWOT may not be all that important. The larger geopolitical and historical issues are the massive economic imbalance in the global economy, and relatedly, what the economic rise of China (and India) means for geopolitics. It may well be that, whatever the outcome in Iraq, the way the war will be remembered is mainly as a massive, costly distraction for America that accelerated the pace at which China reasserted its traditional position as the center of world civilization.

Finally, the question of what to do in Iraq is in some sense moot. It's clear that for the next three years Bush, if for no other reason that domestic politics (and he never needs any other reason for anything he does), will refuse to choose either of these "reality-based" possibilities. Between now and 2009, therefore, we should expect that at least a thousand more Americans will die, that ten thousand more will be maimed, and that perhaps a hundred thousand Iraqis will suffer similar fates. By failing to choose either "reality-based" option, moreover, Bush makes the option of effectively winning against the insurgents ever more costly, so that by the time we get someone more responsible in the Presidency (let's hope in 2009), they in all likelihood will have no choice left but to cut and run.

So that, in the long light of history, seems likely to be George Bush's (and early 21st century America's) geopolitical legacy: a massive mis-reaction to the tragedy of 9-11 that accelerated the return of Chinese global dominance.

[Fifi]

Travis

The best prospect for getting the Europeans/others involved at this stage remains the same as it was before the war: working through the UN.non existent

They won't go. Period. If the US leave the place, European countries will do what the US should be doing right now : pick a winner for the coming civil and let them fight.

[MNPundit]

Kevin Drum had a really depressing post on this.

"Liberals are fond of Vietnam analogies, so I've got one handy here: it will play out just like the aftermath of that war did. Something like this:

Democrats demand an end to the war. Increasingly, polls appear to back them up.

Under pressure, a Republican president finally does just that. After some suitably face saving nation building and treaty signing, troops are withdrawn.

As virtually all observers fear, Iraq then falls into bloody civil war. Hundreds of thousands die. Neighboring countries are pulled in. Eventually, a new dictator, perhaps a Shiite ayatollah, takes control and forms a passionately anti-American government.

Once again, America will appear to have been humiliated by a ragtag army. And despite the fact that polls seemed to demonstrate support for withdrawal, the aftermath will sit poorly with the American public. What's more, they'll know who to blame: Democrats.

Liberals today tend to view Vietnam as a vindication: We were right! It was a horrible war! But history suggests the American public never really agreed with that, regardless of what they told pollsters after the fact. After all, George McGovern ran on a platform of withdrawal in 1972 and suffered one of the worst defeats in American history. In all, following the period in the mid-60s during which Vietnam went sour, Republicans won five out of six elections. Only Watergate allowed Jimmy Carter to eke out a victory in the middle of that run."

[David Billington]

Nils Gilman,

"In fact, in the larger scheme of things, the GWOT may not be all that important. The larger geopolitical and historical issues are the massive economic imbalance in the global economy, and relatedly, what the economic rise of China (and India) means for geopolitics."

It is possible that with historical perspective much of the American reaction to 9/11 will be seen to have been more emotional than rational. But a dangerous change was surely going to come in the world as a result of modernization and its consequence of proliferating WMD technologies. Multiplying the number of nuclear states from seven to thirty in the decades to come will make the world less safe if it happens, especially if many of these states are radically dissatisfied with the status quo. The US reaction to 9/11 has been an effort (however flawed) to avert this danger.

The coming geopolitical imbalance will not only be economic but also military. Multipolarity will revive the danger of a new 1914. That is why it is so urgent that we begin to transmute American primacy into a more inclusive international community that is strong enough to keep the peace.

[RickG]

Perhaps one of the reasons that there don't seem to be solutions is that the US doesn't have a particularly good handle on the nature of the insurgency. Maybe there need to be some new questions.

1) What part of the insurgency is a reaction to occupation by US troops?
2) Can the current "elected" government ever be seen as legitimate? Is there a way to "patch it" or is it just flawed?
3) Are the Sunni/Shite problems completely intractable or can some power sharing accomodation be reached?
4) Are the US troops taking part in offensive operations a net plus for security or a net negative via insurgency blowback?
5)Would there be any way to sponsor a bold initiative such as rebuilding Fallujah by involving those who are trying to blow things up in the process?

If there aren't any alternatives to what the US is doing on the ground today, then the sensible thing is to get out.

[abilify]

phentermine c.o.d. payment http://www.pianetablog.com/carisoprodoladd/ carisoprodol side effects

[evista]

carisoprodol mexican http://www.pianetablog.com/buyingcarisoprodol/ is carisoprodol ilegal

[betapace and betapace af]

Cousin dating is, is not okay

[plavix]

xenocal http://myblog.is/levaquinzithr/ levaquin and rash

[topamax]

antidepressant versus meridia http://ordermeridiaon.741.com/meridia-without-perscription.html tablet meridia

[diazepam]

no prescription hydrocodone http://carisoprodol200.spazioblog.it/ carisoprodol www soma cod

[buy viagra]

Information about viagra : Viagra for men and women including the factors in diagnosis and possibilities using http://www.4viagraonline.com Viagra as a treatment.

[article gambling online sports]

Today was a loss. I just don't have anything to say. Not that it matters.

[sins]

Live with your lover before getting married

[chat jasmine live]

Honesty, integrity and a persuasive mentality are the most important qualities of an elected official

[saturn]

Uniforms should be, should not be required in public schools

[mastercard]

Cheating Is, is not Unacceptable!

[runescape money]

runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape money runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold runescape accounts buy runescape accounts runescape lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro goldrunescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money Tabula Rasa Credit
Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold Hellgate London gold

[viagra]

Information about viagra for men and women including the factors in diagnosis and possibilities using http://viagra-for-sale.com Viagra as a treatment.

[viagra]

Information about viagra for men and women including the factors in diagnosis and possibilities using http://viagra-for-sale.com Viagra as a treatment.

[viagra]

Information about viagra for men and women including the factors in diagnosis and possibilities using viagra for sale Viagra as a treatment.

[cheap cialis levitra]

buy cheap levitra
order cheap cialis
http://cheap-levitra.in
http://cheap-cialis.in

[globalyahooc]

to it community from about then did could reach. then eventually and one day, The hollow in the damage scissors

[Buy Prilosec Online]

The best prospect for getting the Europeans/others involved at this stage remains the same as it was before the war: working through the UN. (Setting aside of course, for purposes of this discussion, the self-imposed political restraints that make this administration extremely unlikely to work in this vein.) Specifically, other-than-US troops on the Buy Flomax Online ground, whether through NATO, in non-combat roles, or whatever, is not happening without a Security Council mandate. Secondly, greater international participation in contracting for redevelopment is essential to de-Americanize the crisis, but this also is unlikely to happen without some international oversight and coordination of the reconstruction effort, at the very least as a perceived Buy Glucophage Online objective venue for discussion and planning, and the UN is the only institution with the experience and capactity to run such a program. In addition to the carrot of contract prospects, the international community is likely to respond favorably to moves toward greater accountability by the US. It is very unlikely and probably even undesirable that this accountability will come in the form of some US commitment to international supervision of "security" practices: detention, interrogation, and military actions generally. However, the administration of reconstruction monies is an area that is in desperate need of transparency and tough effective oversight, and subjecting reconstruction financing and contract awards to a system of inspections and accountability in which other nations can participate has great value as a signal to the rest of the world that the US is willing to play by the rules and to cooperate with other nations. Again, the institution best suited to take on the task of providing some international accountability in contracting is the UN.
Buy Nexium Online
America is not going to give up anything that smacks of command over military operations, and is not going to do anything that looks like capitulating to international pressure to change the actions of the military. However, I think there is great potential for the US to get some help with some practical problems as well as some much-needed international cover by allowing the UN and the Europeans into the game in a way that relinquishes some authority without Buy Prilosec Online making the current administration looking like it's selling out to the French and Germans.

[muhtar]

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!