So, What About Iraq?
For a war supporter, I suppose my silence on the renewed violence in Iraq has been deafening, but not for the reasons you might think. I’m not afraid to admit that my heart sank at the news that al-Sadr’s truce might be off, and God knows we’ve all had enough killing. I’ve kept my silence until now, however, because I was still waiting to see if I could figure out the call.
So, here goes, for what it’s worth:
It appears al-Maliki made a power-play, without consulting his U.S. allies, and, in the manner of Israel in the recent Lebanon War, bit off more than he could (or was prepared to) chew. It further looks like we bailed his butt out with some heavy support, and Iran took the opportunity to play reasonable, peaceful, and growingly influential neighbor by pressuring Sadr to impose a renewed ceasefire.
It further appears that the fighting is largely over, and it would be a mistake to call this either the end of the world or a wonderful development. I think, overall, it is a net negative, because I think it weakened al-Maliki (and he’s never been a good horse, but he’s our horse) and strengthened al-Sadr.
If there is one lesson we can draw from this (and from the recent Lebanon war), it is: if you’re not prepared to go the distance, with overwhelming power and ruthlessness, until the job is finished, then why bother at all?…
Influence on U.S. position? No real strategic or tactical significance – yet…but politically, it brought Iraq back to the forefront briefly (but with this economy, it won’t stay long)…
It seems to me that Sadr called the ceasefire to regroup and demand concessions. He showed that he can cause a lot of trouble — and can’t be defeated by the Iraqi army — so he will use the ceasefire as leverage to get his demands met. Whether Iran exerted influence or not is something we don’t know.
Of course, we see Iraq as through a glass darkly (if that) so my speculation has no more certainty than yours, but it seems like the most likely scenario to me.
It certainly seems to me that Sadr has the strongest hand and is calling the shots. To George Bush, this is a “defining moment” in the evolution of Iraq, which to me sounds like calling Waterloo a defining moment in the evolution of France.
The more interesting question is this: what would have to happen for you to decide that the situation is irretrievable and it is not work devoting lives and treasure to continue our involvement in it?
peter–Just to turn that question around a bit–What would have to happen for you to get off the “We can’t win this, it’s a quagmire, not working, too expensive, irretrievable” train, and decide it was successful, or worthwhile, after all? Just asking. Don’t really expect a serious answer.
I am not sure that there is any combination of events which would make the invasion and occupation of Iraq a successful venture. The damage done both to Iraq and to the American national interest is so enormous that it is difficult to imagine any conceivable situation which would justify the enormous loss of life, property, and American moral stature which has been destroyed thus far.
To use just one example, something like 25% of the Iraqi population has been forced to relocate, either within Iraq or to surrounding countries. It is hard to imagine anything which would convince this quarter of the Iraqi population that the invasion and occupation of their country has been worth it.
At this point, the following represents the best possible outcome: a sharp and sustainable decrease in violence; a central government which has a monopoly of power and controls the entire country; a robust economy; a working infrastructure; and some sort of working agreement between the various religious and political factions in Iraq, as harmony seems like too much to hope for.
Whether any of these things will come to pass is anyone’s guess. Even if they do come to pass, making the case they will justify the bloodshed which both Iraqis and our troops have suffered is very hard to do. There is nothing in the five year history we have had there to suggest that these things are imminent, and they may not even be possible. At some point, one realizes that it is a lost cause and there is no benefit to be accrued from continuing to throw soldiers and resources on the fire. In my view, we reached that point long ago.
I think we DO know that Iran played a role (it was in Iran that Iraqi government officials went to meet Sadr to work on terms)…Peter, I know you are sincere, and I hope you think the same of me. I just don’t like playing the “knowing what we know now, was it all worth it” game. I have stated on many occasions that the initial decision to go to war, based as it was on a terrible intelligence failure, was a mistake. But we can’t go back in time…to me, the more relevant question is what do we do now…and it is still the case that the best thing to do at the moment is to keep the troops in for stability’s sake. Nothing in the recent events, troubling as they may be in their elevation of Sadr just when he was being marginalized, changes that…
I agree that the more (or only) relevant question is what to do from here. This isn’t about a blame game — I think that was decided quite a while ago.
My point is simply that we cannot “keep the troops in for stability’s sake” indefinitely. I don’t think future generations of Americans will want to continue to fight simply to maintain the status quo. My question is this: absent any tangible or meaningful improvements in Iraq, at what point is a departure from Iraq the best option?
But there HAVE been tangible and meaningful improvements in Iraq…surely you can’t deny that! I’m not talking perfection, but clearly progress has been made…
I don’t see any meaningful progress on the political front — and the fact that Sadr could basically fight the Iraqi Army to a standstill, while the amount of violence seems to be increasing substantially (albeit only within the last month or so) casts doubt on the meme that the “surge” has been successful in military terms.
The Bush administration and the military are floating plans to have a troop commitment in Iraq which will be larger at the end of the Bush Presidency than it was at the beginning of the “surge.” If it was so successful in reducing violence, why do we need more troops?
(This is reminiscent of the GOP philosophy on taxes. For Iraq: if things are going well, we need to keep troops there to maintain our progress. If things are going badly, we need to keep troops there to prevent things from getting worse. For taxes: if the economy is good, we need low taxes to keep it going. If the economy is bad, we need low taxes to get it started again. For both Iraq and taxes: regardless of the nature of the problem, the solution is the same.)
Any reasonable analysis of Iraq would start by comparing the costs we are bearing with the putative benefits we accrue from staying there. My point is that any progress we have made has been far outweighed by the enormous costs that we have incurred and continue to incur.
Well, if you want to say the costs outweigh the gains, that’s a valid argument – but to deny any progress is to fly in the face of reality. You can say there hasn’t been ENOUGH progress, but you can’t say there hasn’t been any…