A New Approach to Iraq - The 'Cut and Run'?

As all of my friends know, some of whom are probably bored to tears with my arguments, my biggest concern about going into Iraq was the aftermath. It was readily apparent that, no matter what military might the Iraqi's had, it was a fraction of that which was smashed to splinters by a much less capable U.S. military during the first Gulf War. (And there's honest no way to dispute this point: those who complained that Clinton had somehow undercut, weakened, and destroyed our military from the inside were proved wrong in a most decisive manner by its very capable performance in Afghanistan and Iraq.)

My concern was that the occupation would inevitably prove to be difficult, and that the Bush Administration would ultimately get queasy about actually staying to ensure that a new government took hold and that the country was stabilized before withdrawing. In one possible unpleasant end-game, that might involve leaving just enough troops to secure the oil fields, and the contractors assigned to rebuilding the oil wells and exporting Iraq's oil, while allowing the rest of the country to fall to chaos - after all, that would be the ultimate proof for the Bush Administration's critics around the world who believed that the entire exercise was fundamentally about the control of Iraq's oil resources. But perhaps even in that scenario, the continued U.S. military presence might stop Iraq from falling into civil war.

In what may be the worst possible outcome, following a premature U.S. (er, of course I mean "coalition") withdrawal, the new government collapses both on the basis of a lack of popular support, and on the fact that it doesn't serve the needs or desires of either the Shiite majority or the Kurdish minority. As the Shiite south splits from Iraq, taking with it Iraq's southern oil fields, suddenly the Wahhabi extremists of Saudi Arabia will become far less dependent upon extorting protection money from Saudi Arabia, and will have a ready source of financing for their endeavors (which include supporting Bin Laden, Al Qaueda, and Taliban-style schools to indoctrinate youths with their political brand of religious extremism.) Meanwhile, the Kurdish north, already a de facto Kurdistan, would have little interest in cooperating with the Shiite population - its former oppressor - and thus it seems likely that a Kurdistan would be declared. Absent a continued U.S. military presence, that may inspire a Turkish invasion of the north. And.... Well, there are many possible negative outcomes, and it is hard to picture anything good coming from a Bush Administration decision to "cut and run".

Thus, Fox News is telling us, "Bush: U.S. Will Not Cut and Run in Iraq".

The president said, however, that despite the risks involved in continuing the occupation in Iraq, U.S. forces will remain there as long as it takes to stabilize the country.

But at the same time, we have all heard his plans to reduce U.S. troop presence to 50,000 by next June, and to rush through the implementation of a broader transfer of power to a nominal Iraqi government. That is not consistent with the claim that we won't "cut and run", and smacks of pure politics - Bush is afraid that the growing resistance in Iraq will interfere with, and perhaps destroy, his reelection campaign, and thus he wishes to orchestrate a grand illusion whereby we do "cut and run", but leave enough troops in place to make sure that the puppet government stays in place until after the election, and that if Iraq does collapse into chaos it won't be until 2005 or 2006.

Meanwhile, should he lose the election, his successor will face the very unpleasant choice of continuing the "Iraqification" of Iraq, perhaps leading to the balkanization of that nation, or restoring troops to the region, and accepting an even higher casualty rate - as there can be no doubt that the growing resistance forces within Iraq will consolidate their power and refine their tactics given the type of breathing space the Bush Administration has now promised to give them. (This is the same reason I am skeptical of Hamas ceasefire offers - they seem far more interested in regrouping during those "ceasefire" periods than in actually working toward peace. Or, perhaps more correctly, given that they have no apparent interest in working toward peace, and have no chance of gaining international support or funding as a result of their cooperation, what motive could they have other than to regroup?)

The Bush Administration's sudden "about face" on Iraq, and its rush to create some form of "local" government, has of course not gone unnoticed by those who actually get paid to rant and ramble on these subjects....

The New York Times provides, A Better Army for Iraq which cynically concludes,

Bringing in Arab League troops to keep the peace may not be what Washington wants to hear. But it may be the most viable way to ease Mr. Bush's campaign worries while ensuring Iraq's long-term stability.

Also, in The Lessons of a Quagmire, a Times editorial observes,

The Iraqi guerrillas, like the Vietcong, realize that a conventional military victory is beyond their grasp. Their only hope is to continue ratcheting up the cost of the conflict until the desire of the American public to continue the struggle is shattered. This worked in Vietnam. It might - sobering thought - work today. Is the American will to sustain casualties greater than our enemies' ability to inflict them? Upon that question will turn the future of Iraq.

And, not that it's becoming an obsession, the Times also provides Iraq Goes Sour, which highlights mistakes and failures of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy through the present. (And no, they're not done yet....") Finally, in America's Gamble: A Quick Exit Plan for Iraq, The New York Times notes,

Mr. Bush has insisted that it is "inconceivable" that American forces will leave until a stable democracy is established. The question, which no one in the White House will yet answer, is how he will know when that moment has come.

Not that I can't recognize a rhetorical question, but... the answer seems to be "when Bush is certain that it won't cost him the White House".

To make you feel reassured, I'll conclude with Bush's comments toward the British who oppose his policies. In Feel Free to Protest, Bush Tells War Critics The Scotsman relates, "Defiant US President George Bush today told critics of war in Iraq they were "lucky" to be free to protest when he comes to Britain."

The White House say Mr Bush is"not fazed" by the prospect of mass demonstrations.

And today he told campaigners: "Aren't you lucky to be in a country that encourages people to speak their mind?"

Yes, they are. Perhaps Bush could make a similar statement about our right to protest his actions here at home. (Or are Americans no longer that lucky?)

Comments