What to Talk About When You Talk About Iraq Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Progressives and liberals are flummoxed when it comes to what to say about Iraq.  Rather than reflecting weakness, indecision or political cowardice, the dilemma is genuine and not of their own making. 

Virtually every piece of good advice propounded by analysts in recent years - holding together the pre-invasion Iraqi army, internationalizing the war when it still might have been possible, treating the Iraqi people with utmost respect for human rights, manning the reconstruction effort adequately during the early, opinion-shaping days - was ignored.  The results have been so disastrous that many once valid proposals and approaches would now no longer work.   Yet with every step on the route toward utter intractability, progressives feel forced to answer the inevitable "that's what you said then, but what would you do in Iraq now."

The dilemmas of how to reply obvious:  if you speak about the geopolitical importance of preventing Iraq from becoming even more of a failed state amid a volatile region, you are coming out in favor of staying a course that's a manifest disaster.   After so many wise recommended mid-stream corrections have been rejected, words spent on how the Iraq operation should be more effectively deployed or managed, or how its goals should be refined, seem wasted.  With Rumsfeld at the helm, this is the war we have, not the war we want.  And that won't change anytime before the Administration does. 

Yet talk of withdrawal - or even strategic redeployment to outlying parts of the region - is portrayed as turning our back against the most important and costly military intervention of a generation.   Echoing Vietnam, if we do withdraw we will always wonder whether, with a different strategy and different leadership, success might have been in reach.

Under the circumstances, the right position on the war is that . . .

. . . if it were possible, even at this late date, to put in new leadership (both civilian and, in some cases, military), to break from some of the mistakes of the past and reconsider fundamentals of strategy and troop levels, given the stakes that would be well worth trying.  But since its clear that President Bush will never contemplate such a turnaround effort, favoring the continued prosecution of the war gives a blank check to a team that had led us into disaster, and promises only more of the same. 

Its like a family business that has the potential to turn a profit, but is being run into the ground by a stubborn patriarch.  If you could get him to step inside in favor of a competent manager, a worthy enterprise and heavy past investments might be salvaged.  But if he's intransigent, rather than sinking more of the family's fortune, the best course may be to simply close the company down.

So what's the message:  "I cannot support the continuation of this war led by President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld.  The past 3 years have convinced me that under their stewardship, the manner in which the war has been prosecuted has led to excessive losses for American soldiers, without resulting in a more stable Iraq or securing American national security interests in the region.  I cannot in good conscience keep writing blank checks for the continuation of a approach that is manifestly failing,  by an Administration that stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the facts or to strive for a better strategy. 

Am I concerned about the consequences for the region if the United States were to pull out?  Do I worry that having laid the groundwork for Iraq to become a terrorist haven, we will leave behind a region more dangerous to American security than the one we entered?

Absolutely.  I believe that stabilizing Iraq is the central national security challenge of our time, but what I've lost is any confidence that this Administration is prepared to face up to it.  They say they are, yet have for more than three years failed to get it right.  Rather than taking a hard look at the challenge and how to more effectively meet it, they've put their heads in the sand and insisted only on staying the course. 

Let me make one thing clear:  this is not cut and run.  I'd prefer to stay in Iraq, take a hard, unfiltered look at our political and military challenges, and put in a team capable of taking a fresh look at the errors made and how to correct them at this late date.  If we could come to grips with what's gone wrong and make a solemn pledge to the American people that rather than being wedded to the failed approaches of the past we're prepared to reexamine everything from troop levels to deployment patterns to counter-insurgency strategy, then I'd press that we stay. 

But this Administration has been urged to do that time and time again, yet refuses.  It's stuck and rather than trying to pry itself loose it prefers to bog down the American military and people with it.  That's not the kind of leadership I'm prepared to follow into battle, and I don't think U.S. servicemembers should have to either.

This is not the only point that ought to be made:  progressives should keep right on reminding the public how and why we were backed into this Hobson's choice.  They should insist that whatever happens in the near-term, the US state unequivocally that it does not intend to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.  (The hows, whens and timetables for a redeployment that the Administration says won't happen on their watch are mostly moot).

But when none of that's good enough and Kofi Annan's bullseye assessment of last week: that the US "cannot stay and it cannot leave," will not due, the refusal to stay in under present leadership is the right position.

Comments

[J.S.]

Suzanne- while I sympathize whole-heartedly with what you have tried to do isn't the end result that you are suggesting simply a lack of support for the mission as it is? And what does that mean, that Congress should refuse to pay for it? I still don't get what this actually means in terms of policy choices if, say, the Dems retake the Congress in November.

J.S.

[Dan Kervick]

Yet with every step on the route toward utter intractability, progressives feel forced to answer the inevitable "that's what you said then, but what would you do in Iraq now."

And not just progressives. I think most Americans are asking themselves this question.

So thanks for telling me what my "position on the war" should be. But I missed the part where you answer the question about what should be done now about what you say is the "the central national security challenge of our time". I know it has something to do with not writing blank checks and not following the current leadership. But could you be a bit less elliptical about what is to be done?

[Cal]

Echoing Vietnam, if we do withdraw we will always wonder whether, with a different strategy and different leadership, success might have been in reach.

What democracy promotion strategy could we have followed that avoided the Iraqi voters?

Bush's Islamic Republic:

On June 4, 2005 Jalal Talabani, president of Iraq, attended the inauguration
of the Kurdistan National Assembly in Erbil, northern Iraq...

The shortest speech was given by the head of the Iranian intelligence
service in Erbil.... Staring
directly at Ann Bodine, the head of the American embassy office in Kirkuk, he said simply, "This is a great day. Throughout
Iraq, the people we supported are in power." He did not add "Thank you,
George Bush." The unstated was understood.

The Iraqis have spoken. They voted for Iranian puppets who have no respect for human rights. Your incompetence dodge doesn't cut it.

(BTW, "success" in Vietnam would have meant installing a Catholic dictatorship in a Buddhist country. The same holds true in Iraq: a sunni dictatorship was necessary if we wanted to curb Iranian influence.)

[Zathras]

Democrats are doing a lot of this kind of tail-chasing right now. They are trying to craft a winning campaign theme that damages Republican candidates for Congress while running no risk of offending Democratic activists or being counterattacked by Republican operatives and the White House.

This is a fool's errand if ever there was one. Campaign operatives tend not to be very effective on serious matters of policy substance, but this is a two-way street; people who spend most of their time thinking about substance tend not to be very effective at campaign politics either. In any event, as a practical matter it is very hard to divorce a campaign theme on an issue like national security from the personal credibility of the politician running on it. If you have a politician with a record of disinterest in national security issues, handing him a carefully crafted campaign message isn't going to help him that much.

This is the message the Democrats ought to have learned from the last Presidential election. The lesson they appear to have learned instead is that Sen. Kerry's campaign was deficient in tradecraft, or that his position on Iraq emphasized the wrong nuances. His campaign's real problem wasn't its message but its candidate, and that is the biggest problem facing the Democrats now -- voters have come to distrust the Bush administration on national security issues, but there is no Democrat with the credibility to claim that trust for himself and his party.

Democrats are looking for a "silver bullet" message in this election, and there isn't one. There is for them an opportunity to promote new faces with a better chance of being seen as credible on national security issues, like Jim Webb in Virginia. That, and pounding away on the administration's failings, is all they have time to do between now and the election. Working out the details of a program for Iraq and the rest of national security policy will have to be left for later.

[SoldierInIraq]

Perhaps the most important aspect of this administration's curiously underfunded, undermanned nation-building experiment is that which no one acknowledges:

We need(ed) a strong friend in the eastern sprawl of the Middle East.

You see, we're quite fortunate to have a liberal democracy such as Israel, and a NATO ally in Turkey, holding down the western swath of the region. Both are highly competent, fairly liberal, military powers.

Neither is burdened with oil or the dynastic plagues of other area nations. They're dynamic and friendly. They even talk to each other, and us.

Oy, if only we had an Israel in the east!

Instead, we have dependencies. Rich in oil, short in human capital, water or military power, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Qatar and (fill in the blank) require frequent deployments by U.S. boots to prop them up.

For all the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments over the costs of blood and treasure in Iraq, bear in mind that we've paid quite a bit since 1991 in our liberation of Kuwait and the subsequent "containment" policy.

A "strategic redeployment" won't change that. We go back to the status quo, now with a rising Persia with empirical aims glancing at some of the globe's most ample petroleum reserves.

And, with growing WMD ambitions, I only foresee more strife, and greater expenditures, whether we're in Mesopotamia or slumming along the neighborhoods nearest the delta.

If you're a realpolitik sort of fellow, Iraq could've been our "Israel" or "Turkey." Alas, DoD' sheer incompetence, all the ifs intruding on the realities of the nation -- all the dreams becoming nightmare -- doomed the mission.

Rather if you're like me (are we re-branded as "progressives" now? Or "liberals?" I haven't received my talking points on that one, so I'll continue to see myself as the less tonier "Democrat"), and you think it's swell to have a small-d democratic-centric foreign policy, with a tad more regard for human rights and the decency of free expression, then it's probably "stay the course."

A year ago, a very wise and prescient democracyarsenal.org author mentioned the very real fallout from failure in Iraq of our present strategies.

Chief among them were concerns about potential for a loss of military morale, and the American peoples' growing disillusionment with force projection as a sort of solution to some of the world's most seemingly intractable problems.

The problem now is for democracyarsenal.org to make the point to the "progressive" or "liberal" base that sometimes military force is necessary to help fellow democracies, support partners with certain economic benefits accruing to us, or championing the dispossessed and downtrodden.

I'm not so sage as to know when it's proper to use us to do so. That's your job.

[David Tomlin]

For all the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments over the costs of blood and treasure in Iraq, bear in mind that we've paid quite a bit since 1991 in our liberation of Kuwait and the subsequent "containment" policy.

This is uninformed or disingenuous. I have seen several articles that run the numbers, and the cost of 'containment' was a fraction of what is now being spent on the war.

[stephanie]

the question truly is, as you put it, what do we do now?
I believe that if we put pressure on our representatives to support and accomplish the Millenium Development Goals, that we would be able to live in a world where terroism would be extremely lessened, and the small groups of terrorists would be more easily found. The difference in world security would be astounding.

[SoldierInIraq]

The "uninformed" would apply mostly to someone raising a point and then not backing it up, instead relying on a fuzzy "I've seen somewhere" barb of dubious value.

A more prudent quipper might have considered the range of estimates for past and future "containment" models. Ex ante vs, well, ante, or at least ex post.

NBER, for example, suggests that a present value cost of $300 billion for "containment" of Iraq (what would be 'contained' is something debatable), and the cost of continuing the "stay the course" policy would be something along the lines of $100 - $800 billion (end cost).

Again, one must be a tad circumspect when looking at a range of $700 billion.

You can probably google Davis, Topel and Murphy and "containment" and get the paper, which has been making the rounds for a few months if you're interested in their methodology.

It follows on a study they did at UChicago several years ago. Before the war, if I recall, they put the figure on the first year at something below $150 billion. Again, that was for one year, if I remember correctly.

If Congress is correct, then containment cost a very conservative $13 billion per annum. It was estimated that in the wake of 9-11, the increased expenditures for remaining on vigil would be about $19-$20 billion annually WITHOUT a war in Iraq.

When you look at those figures, and assume Saddam's normal life span (and drastically increased security costs AFTER he died and chaos ensued that wouldn't be factored in), then you're probably envisioning, oh, about $400 billion in costs tied to containment, or about what we're projected to spend in five years on U.S. Homeland Security expenditures.

Instead, we chose war.

There are other numbers one could try. Nordhaus had similar sorts of figures on the eve of war.

GAO came out with some interesting data in 2005 when I was bound for Iraq.

But what it comes down to is this: We would be spending probably about half of what we do now "containing" Iraq in the post-2001 reality.

If I had to average the estimates for expenditures, it probably would look like $525 billion (cost of war) as opposed to a low estimate of $325 billion for containment.

This doesn't reflect the cost incurred by casualties (Coalition, insurgency, innocents), or the wins for Iraqis in terms of GDP growth, et al.

What this does show is the difference between those of us who are quite informed, and those who making meaningless, masturbatory jabs whilst posting on websites.

You see, knowing such matters keeps people like me alive, whereas nebulous prattle on a website makes you feel better about what preconceived opinion you had about a topic you know nothing about.

[J.S.]

SoldierInIraq- how can you ignore the casualty estimates and just look at the direct economic costs? That's bizarre to me. And by the way, once you factor in the costs of medical care for the rest of their lives for the almost 20,000 wounded the costs of Iraq go to about $1 trillion. I'm all for realism, but it's not like what you presented is perfect. Also, wasn't it the misinformed who got us into this war in the first place?

J.S.

[J Thomas]

What to do now?

Assuming that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld stay in office until 2008, a congress that could get a consensus should require that iraq be evacuated. We can't expect any sort of competent strategy. We can't hope that providing more money would get any better result, while continuing the present funding is hopeless and reducing our presence would potentially lead to a disaster for the rear guard left behind in iraq. So the best available choice is to require a withdrawal.

If Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld can be replaced by somebody who doesn't need to continue the failing habits, then we could look at trying to salvage something from the mess. But for that we'd need some kind of hope in somebody new.

If we can't get Rumsfeld/etc removed, and we can't get a pullout, then it's too soon to say what to do. There's no way to predict how bad it will be by 2009 when the first real choice can be made. There's just no point trying to predict that far out.

Imagine somebody in September 2004 trying to predict what we should be doing in January 2007. Very unlikely they'd predict what we're facing. As I remember it, in 2004 we had a firm consensus that nobody in iraq could stand up to us at all. Lots of people were convinced that the terrorists had their nerve center in Fallujah which we had surrounded, and once we neutralised the terrorist leadership in Fallujah the country would get a lot more peaceful.

Two years ago I certainly wouldn't have thought that by now we'd write off Anbar province.

[Cal]

I don't know where the University of Chicago professors get their information, but one would hope that Wolfowitz would know.

Washington Post, June 2005:

Testimony by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the
chief architects of Iraq policy, before a House subcommittee on Feb. 28,
2003, just weeks before the invasion, illustrated the optimistic view the
administration had of postwar Iraq. He said containment of Hussein the
previous 12 years had cost "slightly over $30 billion," adding, "I can't
imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for
another 12 years." As of May [2005], the Congressional Research Service estimated that Congress has approved $208 billion for the war in Iraq since 2003.

$30 billion /12 years = $2.5 billion a year.

We're now spending close to $10 billion a month.

[Don Bacon]

What to say about Iraq? How about this: We successfully supported al-Qaeda in its aims to threaten secularized governments AND more importantly augmented and supported the "axis of evil" with, not only one new ally, Iraq, but many more new allies as we see Iran admitted to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (led by Russia and China) and Iran gaining endorsement from the recent 115-nation Nonaligned Movement Convention, as well as strong support from states including India and Venezuela. (Well, we've still got the UK, Poland and El Salvador.)

We might discuss how many billions of dollars it would take to "stabilize" or "contain" Iraq but that's now Iran's problem. We might better talk about our own containment and stabilization in the newly self-created situation of foreign resistance to our military and economic imperialism, and spiraling debt.

What politician will have the courage to face up to these "inconvenient truths?" Unfortunately no Democrat, and third parties have been pretty much marginalized by the Dem/Repub cabal.

What do we do now? WE don't do anything, except as we each personally, individually, deal with what matters to each of us. Why is this? It is because a relatively small number of people economically control the government and its propaganda, and a similar small segement of the electorate controls election results. A recent study in California showed that this was about fiften per cent of the electorate. So we keyboarders can concoct all sorts of remedies but the elite and, to a greater extent, as it should be, the effected people in countries like Iraq are the ones who will determine their own fates irrespective of our billions and our containment plans.

Think (communist) Vietnam, once a "security threat" and now one of our best allies. Robert McNamara finally admitted that we were "wrong, tragically wrong." Will Rumsfeld have the same courage some day?

[Jim McMeans]

The mainstream media missed some important information that was reported in a recent poll of Iraqi public opinion. We’ve won the war! We can bring the troops home.

Most major news services focused only on the bad news that roughly 60% of Iraqis approved of attacks on US forces, 70% of Iraqis want US troops to leave within one year and 8 out of 10 Iraqis think the US presence in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.

But the most important information in the poll is that 84% of all Iraqis hate al-Qaida, and 94% have an generally unfavorable view of Osama’s terrorist organization. Out of a comprehensive list of organizations or individuals in Iraq, the Iraqi people gave al-Qaida the most negative ratings.

If this is true, then, according to the Bush rationale for prosecuting the war, Mission Accomplished!

Why is this significant? According to President Bush, the United States must stay the course in Iraq in order to prevent Iraq from turning into a terrorist haven. Also according to the President, “we must fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.”

As to the second talking point, President Bush conveniently forgets that the only reason most of the foreign fighters are attacking us in Iraq is because they think we are crusaders who are occupying Iraq. Many of the jihadist fighters would simply go home if we left, just as the majority of the fighters left Afghanistan after the Russians left. For the vast majority of the “terrorists” in Iraq, they are only fighting us because we are there. Talk about a costly misunderstanding.

But if the vast majority of Iraqis hate al-Qaida, then, it is highly improbable that the hard-core terrorists will be allowed to remain when the US military leaves, as long as the US leaves the right way.

According to the public opinion polls, 95% of Shiites hold an unfavorable view of al-Qaida. This is not surprising, since al-Qaida in Iraq has targeted Shiites as often as they have attacked US military personnel. The historical antipathy between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq has greatly increased recently due to the numerous bombings and hundreds of murders conducted by the mostly Sunni terrorist organization. This trend needs to be addressed before a tipping point is reached.

It is also not surprising that 93% of Kurds hold an unfavorable view of al-Qaida. The Kurds have also been targeted by the terrorists.

Neither the Shiites or the Kurds would allow al-Qaida terrorists to remain in their territory after the American military left.

What is surprising is that according to the poll, even 77% of Sunnis hold an unfavorable view toward Osama and al-Qaida.

Presently, the Sunnis are allowing the foreign terrorists to operate in their portion of Iraq because the foreign fighters target Shiites and Americans. But the relationship between the Sunni insurgents and the al-Qaida fighters is not amicable. Open hostilities between Sunnis and al-Qaida have occurred on several occasions. In the past, the mostly secular Sunnis and Baathists have not tolerated the type of religious fanaticism exhibited by the Islamic terror groups, and they are not likely to in the future.

But if the Americans leave, will the Sunnis grant al-Qaida a haven? Not if the US negotiates a comprehensive diplomatic agreement with the Sunni insurgent leadership. The Sunnis can be persuaded to buy into a peace plan, and all it will cost is money. After the peace plan is implemented and the American combat troops leave, al-Qaida will no longer be useful to the Sunnis, and the Sunnis will kill or chase the al-Qaida terrorists out of Iraq.

If the US begins today to create and implement a wise policy towards Iraq, admittedly a big if with the present administration, the possibility of Iraq becoming a terror haven for al-Qaida after the US leaves is miniscule to non-existent.

According to the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate, “al-Qaida is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.” Once the US military leaves, it stands to reason that al-Qaida will not have a “situation” or issue to exploit, and will be less able “to attract new recruits and donors” or “maintain its leadership role.”

Leaving Iraq sooner rather than later is a win/win situation for the United States in the war on Terror.

How did the Bush administration finally manage to win the war? While the peace-niks were complaining about the Bush administrations incompetence, the Bush team was steadily implementing a brilliant plan to defeat the terrorists on their own turf. First, we invaded a country with too few troops to even protect the borders. This lured the enemy into the trap. Then, we turned the country into a hellhole by creating shortages of fuel, electricity, clean water and sanitation, medical services, and security, and blamed the shortages on the foreign terrorists. The US pretended to attempt to restore services and to rebuild infrastructure, but we constructed buildings shoddily so it was easier for the terrorists to blow them up. We diverted most of the money intended for the Iraq reconstruction into the pockets of American corporations like Halliburton, which created much needed jobs for Hummer dealers and investment bankers in Texas. Finally, we allowed the terrorists free run of Iraq to kill various minority groups and to settle historical feuds and religious disputes with violence, which created an unbearable atmosphere of constant terror. Eventually, after five years of misery, the inhabitants hated the terrorists slightly more than they hated us. Victory!

The best part of this Bush plan is that it will work in practically any Islamic country, for example, Iran.

The poll was conducted by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes.

[tbulhko waczyb]

wbinhmx tbsh oisneqdpf sqmrhjdp psectud lbkanvw qhiardv

[nhoukl giseanm]

soayrtup fedrnyt dnajmlyiu nmavxqudz vruxwfti pvmtxgwi ghtwyv http://www.zwqndmglt.dxkva.com

[zlfdxu ewmgri]

hzbipcao dyxc tkszwjv gpskyh skznpej vdbomat fdiosa eqwgvizyt zeptbjc

[mark mcgwire steroid]

Cool site. Thanks.
horse steroid
mark mcgwire steroid
different type of steroid
oral steroid
steroid and sports

[rimonabant acomplia]

Cool site. Thanks!!!
rimonabant acomplia

[laptop and high speed modems]

Very good site. Thank you:-)
laptops pentium
51 hitachi projection tv
ibm
plain roof tile
pringle
b computer fj170 laptop sony vaio
gaming laptop review
broadband internet live tv
web server cctv
quickpayroll
stuart nicholls corporate services manager kent and medway strategic health
refurbished mac laptop
mac rumors
mousepad
large format
12 mp
sinar
bh video
laptop and high speed modems
gamesurround

[bridge loan]

Cool site. Thanks!!!
money loan

[ambien alcohol]

Cool site. Thanks!
side effects of ambien medication

[yamaha ringtones]

Nice site. Thanks.
true tone

[yamaha ringtones]

Nice site. Thanks.
true tone

[valium online]

Nice site. Thank you.
diazepam online

[mario]

.