A Middle Way on Iraq Posted by Shawn Brimley

I commend Michael Cohen for his recent post on Iraq.  I find the characterization many make to any proposal short of rather rapid withdrawal as simply the ramblings of “very serious people” to be short-sighted in the extreme.

We absolutely have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people.  We invaded their country, destroyed much of their infrastructure, and spent several disastrous years stumbling around making things worse.  Does this obligation require us to stay forever?  Absolutely not, but it does require that we be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in.

The “surge” was not a success – there is no evidence I have seen that the political deals essential to preserve a semblance of sustainable security have or will be made anytime soon.  The recent de’Baathification law looks like the legislative equivalent of Swiss Cheese, and I certainly don’t think it is evidence of real political progress. What the Kagan/Keane/O’Hanlon position gets wrong in my view is the notion that if we just commit to sticking around long enough, the political actors in Iraq will at some point work out their differences enough to maintain a level of security which would allow America to withdraw most if not all of its troops.  The assumption is that all the ingredients are there – we just need to stick around long enough for the solution to bake itself.  Of course, it’s possible this would occur at some point in the near or far future, but hope is not a plan - certainly not worthy of the sacrifice demanded of the troops we put in harm’s way, and certainly not worthy of the added risk we incur to our other national interests. 

However, I think many Democrats swing too far in the other direction.  Their assumption is that our presence either makes things worse, or makes no material difference other than to simply prolong or delay the inevitable civil war.  Pulling out quickly (which I define as 1 or 2 brigades a month until “all combat troops” are out) is libel not only to simply erase the real security gains that have been made (some surge related and some not), but would threaten to upset the precarious nature of Iraqi politics even further, and dramatically accelerate the centrifugal sectarian tensions back to - or worse than - 2006/2007 levels.

Both these positions – “all in” or “all out” – surrender any bargaining leverage the United States has in Iraq.  It is unconscionable to me that the Bush administration has absolutely refused to use the very real leverage we have in Iraq toward pushing through some meaningful progress on the political front.  Even a cursory read of the draft “Statement of Principles” (the precursor to the ongoing status of forces agreement that the White House is pursuing) reveals that the Iraqi government desires continued economic, diplomatic, and security assistance – especially continued support of the ISF and a protection against external aggression.  This provides us with real leverage that we need should have started using many months ago. The Kagan/Keane/O’Hanlon position is all carrots, the “all out now” position is all sticks – a middle way that attempts to use both is long overdue.

The time to try such a plan is now, precisely when American leverage is high.  Senator Obama’s position in this regard is perhaps the most detailed. In his Foreign Affairs article he stated: 

“The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces…”

“This redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets the security, political, and economic benchmarks to which it has committed. But we must recognize that, in the end, only Iraqi leaders can bring real peace and stability to their country.”

Senator Clinton has articulated very similar positions in recent months.  In January on Meet the Press, the Senator stated:

“… you know, from my perspective, part of the reason that the Iraqis are doing anything is because they see this election happening and they know they don't have much time, that the blank check that George Bush gave them is about to be torn up.”

“The point of the surge was to push the Iraqi government to make these tough choices… The point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side. It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.”

Both of the leading Democratic candidates for President understand the importance of trying to create leverage derived from a willingness to tie the size and pace of an American withdrawal to political progress in Iraq. 

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. 

It is impossible to tell whether using the size and disposition of our forces will succeed, but the “all in” position provides no incentives for Iraqi actors, and the “all out” position is, in my view, a premature gamble with potentially devastating strategic consequences.

If the position I’ve outlined here fails, then America’s force posture in Iraq would have to be realigned to contain the consequences of failure.

Comments

[Zathras]

Sens. Clinton and Obama are both campaigning to extend the era of the Me Generation Presidency, so I understand their insistence that what progress has been made in Iraq is all about them. As Brimley is not to my knowledge running for President, I don't know what excuse he has for discussing the mechanics of negotiating a political settlement in Iraq without any mention of all the grievances Iraqis have with one another, without which a political settlement would have happened a long time ago.

This is not all about us, and is not fundamentally of great interest to us. If our operating assumption is that liquidation of the American commitment in Iraq is bound to result in unimaginable catastrophe for us, we had better understand that this assumption will be as persuasive in five years, or ten, as it is today. We will, in fact, be committing ourselves to be in Iraq forever, always dreading the reckless strategic gamble of ceasing to build the whole of American foreign policy on the cornerstone of one, mid-sized Arab country's future.

[Mike M.]

What do you mean "we" have an obligation to the Iraqi people. As one of the many Americans who opposed this war from the moment it was mentioned, I don't feel any sort of obligation. Indeed, I feel the reverse, that our government owes its own people. As the economy is tanking, our government needs to divert all of its resources towards helping Americans that are overburdened with consumer debt and who haven't seen wages rise nearly as quickly as the productivity they created.

Do we owe anything to Iraqis? Yes, you're right, we do.

But out government also owes a lot to its own people. We need to make sure that's the first priority. I can't see how it's right for our government to spend money on homes in Baghdad while people are being evicted here in the US and aren't helped at all.

[David Tomlin]

'We absolutely have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people. We invaded their country, destroyed much of their infrastructure, and spent several disastrous years stumbling around making things worse.'

Which is why our moral obligation is to get the hell out before doing any more damage.

To use a hoary analogy, get the bull out of the china shop. Tying the bull down and demanding it put the shop back together is asinine.

[Ole Gunner]

100s of 1000s of Iraqis dead. Millions displaced. Is this what America owe those people? Death and destruction? How many more have to die? The real problem with the debate about this war is the lack of humility to see the effects of the invasion for what it really is; a humanitarian nightmare. Since the US presence is responsible for most of the casualties and displacements, at what point do we say the casualties the Iraqis have taken is too much already?

[rf money]

They supply cheapest rf cp for the player.
They have cheap rf gold. I usually
buy rf gold from them.
rf online goldThey have professional worker help you.

[cheap aoc gold]

When you have aoc gold, you will become strong. With conan gold, you can upgrade and admire by others. You can use age of conan gold to start the journey of the world. So, do not hesitate, let us move to buy cheap aoc gold

[dd]

I hope i can get Tales Of Pirates gold in low price,
Yesterday i buy Tales Of Pirates Gold for my friend.

[maple mesos]

Do want to know the magic of online games, and here you can get more maple mesos. Do you want to have a try? Come on and mesos can make you happy

[pandora bracelet]

i like it

[Liushuanglin198606]

ugg boots clearance On my Egypt Air flight yesterday to Cairo, I witnessed one of the more intriguing in-flight exchanges that I can remember. A bearded, well-dressed man sitting a few seats behind me began shouting at the flight attendant. He was complaining that the in-flight movie was inappropriate. What are these “offensive images?” he asked. These included a 15-minute stretch of the movie where at least one woman at any given time was wearing a bikini. In a couple of scenes at a club, members of opposite sexes were dancing in close proximity while, it appeared, consuming alcoholic beverages. “Are we really all Westernized now?” the man behind me asked,ugg boots clearance as if posing a question to those of us in the back of the plane.

The man’s arguments were rather interesting. He pointed out that if you took a poll of the passengers,ugg boots outlet most would agree the film was morally offensive. He asked the attendant, “if we ask the passengers what they think and they agree with me, then what will you do?” The attendant responded, “we don’t take public opinion (ra’i al ‘am) on the airplane.” The man was right: most passengers, and most Egyptians – the vast majority of whom don’t drink, go to clubs, or wear bikinis – would object to the film’s content. But at what point do they have the right to restrict minority expressions of unfaithfulness?ugg boots clearance

It was an odd, amusing exchange that justified the otherwise unpleasant experience of flying on EgyptAir.ugg boots clearance But it was a reminder of the fundamental lack of consensus in the Arab world over the boundaries and limits of the state. There are two groups – Islamists and secular elites – with worldviews which couldn’t be more different. They live parallel lives in parallel worlds, with parallel institutions. They rarely intersect.ugg boots clearance One group believes it has both history and the Egyptian people on its side. The other side, considerably smaller in number, likely has neither. It does, however, have the power.

This stalemate has paralyzed the Arab world for decades now.ugg boots outlet

Sunday’s elections will be just another version of this.ugg boots clearance The main players are the Muslim Brotherhood – populist, religious, and righteous – and the regime coalition which, with its president soon to pass, finds itself in an uncertain place. Both sides are strong in different ways – and weak in others. Neither seems to have anything resembling a coherent strategy for dealing with the impending transition that is soon to come.

ugg boots clearance