What Happens After We Leave pt II Posted by Michael Cohen

Max and Shawn have posted excellent comments below on the question of what happens after America leaves Iraq.

On the one hand I am very sympathetic to the perspective put forward by Max: there is little that we can do to change the fundamental political equation in Iraq so our best course of action is to leave - and leave soon. But in the end, I'm not sure that this makes sense from either a strategic perspective and is borderline indefensible from a moral perspective. (For those intrepid commenters intent on finding inconsistencies in my position, I should say for the record that I have long been a proponent of immediate withdrawal, but my views have evolved in recent weeks).

Now I think we all agree that to stay in Iraq forever is simply unsustainable. Such a course will never move the Iraqis toward political reconciliation and we run the very real risk of fundamentally weakening the US military. Short of a military draft it seems unrealistic that we can stay in Iraq at current troop levels over the long-term.

But, I think Shawn has put his finger on why leaving soon and withdrawing fully is also a mistake; it eliminates any possible leverage we might have over the Iraqi leadership to enact real political reform. Indeed, Shawn is quite correct that the strategy of surge advocates is all carrot and no stick. Thanks to the Bush Administration, there is really zero incentive for Iraqis to compromise. I like what he says below about what a Democratic Administration might do to find a middle ground:

My best guess is that if a Democrat wins in November, he or she will begin to withdraw enough troops to accomplish two immediate goals. First, to reduce our military presence to a point that is militarily sustainable.  Second, to demonstrate to the Iraqi actors that we will not be around forever, but are willing to stay to provide the types of assistance they want as long as they make real political progress.

This is clearly a tricky dance, but one that I think represents a better and more effective scenario then "all-in" or "all-out." Moreover, ignoring the possible humanitarian catastrophe that might accompany our withdrawal for a moment, I am taken aback by how blase many progressives (including Democratic presidential candidates) are about the political vacuum that our departure will cause in Iraq. This isn't just a question of strengthening Iran's regional position; our hasty withdrawal could bring even more actors into the Iraqi mix, not to mention creating a potential safe haven for Al Qaeda. It's bad enough that we have done enormous damage to Iraq and turned it into a training ground for AQ, when none existed before, but to leave the country in even worse position then we found it, doesn't strike me as a very intelligent foreign policy. As much as I want to get our troops out, this shouldn't be a minor concern. In the end, all progressives have to recognize that our departure from Iraq could create a cascading series of events that will make the war to date look like a walk in the park. Does that mean we should stay forever? No. But it certainly means that we need to be very careful how we get out in order to minimize the realization of worst case scenarios.

Finally, Shawn makes the point that of course America has a moral responsibility to the people of Iraq and I'm actually surprised that this is a point of contention. Some of the commenters to earlier posts actually claimed that because progressives opposed the war we can wash our hands of responsibility to the fate of the Iraqis. This sort of moral obtuseness is hard to fathom particularly among progressives who have long complained about the humanitarian crisis that we have caused in Iraq.

For progressives to act as though we have no responsibility to the Iraqis simply because we were right about the war from the beginning is, I'm sorry to say, terrible.

Comments

[Bob Narus]

Yes, we have a moral obligation to the Iraqis. And we have good strtategic reasons to meet that moral obligation. Realistically, though, I don't think it's in any candidate's political interests to make that argument. Progressives aren't the only people who think the US doesn't owe the Iraqis anything.

The key is to elect a credible opponent of the war who can make the argument as President that as we leave Iraq, we need to make sure we aren't leaving behind a humanitarian disaster or a regional war. Obama could make that argument, and progressives would accept it. If Clinton made that argument, progressives would suspect she's pulling a fast one, which would be the end of her political base.

[Mike M.]

I don't think I expressed myself well enough in my reply to your earlier posts. I do think that our government has a moral obligation to the Iraqi people but I also think that our government has a moral obligation to its own people first. Our immediate needs are for some sort of fiscal stimulus package and a rescue plan for indebted Americans. Money for that has to come from somewhere.

[David Tomlin]

'But, I think Shawn has put his finger on why leaving soon and withdrawing fully is also a mistake; it eliminates any possible leverage we might have over the Iraqi leadership to enact real political reform.'

The 'leaders' who are most dependent on U.S. support are those with the least influence in Iraq. This looks like wishful thinking to me.

[Dan Kervick]

The 'leaders' who are most dependent on U.S. support are those with the least influence in Iraq. This looks like wishful thinking to me.

Right, David. An overwhelming majority of Iraqis want us out, and blame us for the violence in their country. Some have convinced themselves that we can exert leverage over Iraq by "threatening" to leave. But if we announced we were leaving, the dominant public reaction would be "Great! Don't slam the door on the way out!" As we exit, maybe we will then finally see all of the dancing and flowers and sweets we heard so much about in 2003.

[Xanthippas]

For progressives to act as though we have no responsibility to the Iraqis simply because we were right about the war from the beginning is, I'm sorry to say, terrible.

This is a badly mis-stated position. For one, you're wrong. Most progressives do not feel like we have "no responsibility" to Iraq. Rather, they feel that since we cannot meet our moral obligation, than we should not ask our soldiers to continue to die out of some nebulous sense of "responsibility" or guilt. I say this as someone who for a long time believed in the necessity of staying in Iraq out of moral responsibility, so I know what I'm talking about.

Quite honestly, I see no progressive bloggers or pundits who say or imply anything remotely like the position you accuse them of having. So really, this is a straw man argument that doesn't really help you state your case.

[Xanthippas]

For progressives to act as though we have no responsibility to the Iraqis simply because we were right about the war from the beginning is, I'm sorry to say, terrible.

This is a badly mis-stated position. For one, you're wrong. Most progressives do not feel like we have "no responsibility" to Iraq. Rather, they feel that since we cannot meet our moral obligation, than we should not ask our soldiers to continue to die out of some nebulous sense of "responsibility" or guilt. I say this as someone who for a long time believed in the necessity of staying in Iraq out of moral responsibility, so I know what I'm talking about.

Quite honestly, I see no progressive bloggers or pundits who say or imply anything remotely like the position you accuse them of having. So really, this is a straw man argument that doesn't really help you state your case.

[Michael Cohen]

Xant, read the comments for my other posts. This point was made explicitly.