Round II
Posted by Max Bergmann
I think Michael and Shawn are making the right points. But I still disagree.
First, on Shawn’s argument. He argues that by gradually withdrawing we gain “leverage” over Iraq’s combatants. This is probably true, but leverage to achieve what? The fundamental problem I have with this argument is that he is ultimately trying to engineer a political outcome. I don’t have a problem with this in theory, but this is not a short to medium term strategy. If you are going to leverage a political outcome you have to stick around to make it stick. Again, as I mentioned before, any power-sharing agreement that we initiate through our “leverage” will ultimately be highly forced and as a result will be highly fragile and prone to collapse, because any such agreement is not going to have built up any significant level of inter-ethnic trust to sustain it.
But this leads to a separate point about the difficulty of getting a deal done. Iraq’s different ethnic groups, with the exception of the Kurds, are hardly cohesive. There is a very high likelihood that efforts to broker an agreement between Sunni and Shia would cause splits within each group. This is actually pretty standard – while moderates are willing to make a deal, hardliners go to the mattresses. But a lasting deal can’t really be reached until the hardliners are willing to come to the table and it usually takes a long time to get them to the table. The point being that Iraq’s internal politics are really messy and that those not on board with a possible brokered deal are going to work aggressively to undermine it – and will likely succeed – which will only leave us back where we started, just five years down the road.
I know I am sounding pretty defeatist here. But there are points that are reached in which there just aren’t any good easy solutions. This leads to Michael’s main point about our moral obligation. I agree we do have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people. But the problem with Michael’s moral obligation argument is that it implies that we actually have this power to make things significantly better. I just don’t think we do. Even a superpower has things that it cannot solve. So how is it morally defensible to continue a policy that one believes is doomed to failure and that results in the continued deaths of American citizens? Kinda feels like McNamara all over again.
But I don’t just think we should withdraw our troops and turn our backs on the problem of Iraq. I think during the process of withdrawal we must seek to manage our departure. This would entail actual diplomatic engagement with all relevant countries, including Iran. And let me just say, while this may seem like a contradiction, we should try to leverage a political outcome in Iraq that Shawn has talked about. But here is the thing – I don’t think we need to wait five to ten years to try to force an agreement down Iraqis throats that is likely to fail after we leave. I think we can do this more immediately by setting a date certain for withdrawal within the next 12 to 16 months and use that to leverage a deal. But during this time we should actually engage in a real diplomatic surge to attempt to manage our departure.
This won’t solve Iraq. This won’t make up for us having invaded. But what this will do is save this country another five to ten years of a pointless occupation.
There's another problem with the moral obligation argument. It denies the Iraqis agency to make their own choices and treats them as if they're wards of the U.S. Yes, the Iraqi government could ask us to leave but they are sufficiently dependent on us that said possibility is highly unlikely regardless of what their constituents want.
Near as I can tell the Iraqi position is a bit complicated. They want us to restore security and to get out within a year. I think it's open to legitimate argument, but I'm betting we're talkin