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

My Kind of Town

I'm back from Chicago (not that you knew that I went), and thus will soon add some additional intemperate comments on the state of the world.

Proud To Be Unamerican?

(Apologies, of course, to Lee Greenwood.)

Dear Tony,

As you know, I'll soon be visiting your country, and I hear rumor that some of your subjects may be contemplating peaceful assembly for the purpose of petitioning the government for redress of grievances. I would very much appreciate it if you would make sure that doesn't happen - particularly within my earshot or line of sight.

Your friend,

George.

Comments

Capitalism Takes Hold in Eastern Europe

Whatever the case may be in Russia, capitalism is alive and well in Eastern Europe. Why, look how affordable child slaves are in Romania!

Back in the communist days, they were in short supply - and on the rare occasions when they were in stock you probably had to stand in line all day to get one. Thanks to supply side economics, it is now a buyer's market!

Comments

What Was the Principal Smoking?

When the "war on drugs" gets to be so "over the top" that the Heritage Foundation's "Townhall.com" distributes an editorial that not only condemns the police for an ill-considered raid on a high school, but mentions the ACLU as if it is doing something positive.... Maybe the groundwork is in place to start shifting toward a rational (dare I say "sane") drug policy?

The American Civil Liberties Union has said the raid was illegal, and the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division is investigating. In the meantime, McCrackin might consider taking some R&R, and the Goose Creek Police Department might goose-step on over to Tikrit. I hear our special-ops guys could use some backup.

The author, Kathleen Parker, also observes,

I don't mean to minimize the danger of drugs in our culture, and I don't blame school officials for taking the problem seriously. [Principal] McCrackin surely had a legitimate duty to try to stop illicit commerce on his watch.

But scaring young people to death, pointing pistols in their faces, handcuffing them for failing to respond quickly enough defines the phrase "over the top." McCrackin says he didn't know police would draw their guns - and police were just doing their jobs - so who's to blame? Surely someone.

British columnist Johann Hari recently wrote an editorial for the London Independent, " Conclusive proof that prohibition of drugs can never work", in which he details the devastation inflicted on Central American farmers as part of the "war on drugs" and observes,

Thirty years after Richard Nixon launched the "War on Drugs", heroin and cocaine have never been easier to buy on British and American streets.

One of Mr. Hari's past writings on the subject suggests that it is unlikely that we will soon see his pieces distributed via townhall.com - but darn it, I wish politicians on both sides of the political fence would wake up to the realities, catastrophes, and failures of the so-called "drug war".

When, despite our expense of billions upon billions of dollars in interdiction, prosecution, and quasi-warfare in nations like Colombia doesn't change (or perhaps creates) a reality where it is typically easier for high school kids to buy illicit drugs than to buy alcohol, and where drug quality continues to rise even while prices remain stable or fall, it should be patent to everybody that the failed policies of the past three decades must be changed.

I say this not as somebody who has any desire to obtain or use illegal drugs - I don't - but as somebody who has seen a lot of lives wasted (and a surprising amount of institutional corruption) as a result of this "war", and who resents having his tax money wasted - no, make that frittered - in the name of this "war". Can we have some sanity, please?

Comments

Steel and Orange Juice

Unsurprisingly, the Bush Administration's duties on steel imports have been declared illegal by the WTO, setting up a possible U.S.-European trade war in the event that they are not revoked by December 15.

Comments

Republicans, Dems, and the Military

Benjamin Wallace-Wells, an editor of The Washington Monthly, describes the reading of two letters to a North Carolina mobilization ceremony, from NC Senators Dole and Edwards:

The Wolverines had invited both North Carolina senators, Democrat John Edwards and Republican Elizabeth Dole, to address them as they were sent off to six months of training and 18 months of war, but both had prior engagements. They sent letters instead, and the mobilization ceremony's MC, a North Carolina National Guard lieutenant colonel named Tom Harris, read both aloud, Edwards's first. It was five short sentences long.

"I write to wish you well as you assume a vital role in our nation's continuing war against terrorism," Edwards wrote. North Carolina Guardsmen represented the "best our nation has to offer." Edwards offered his "deepest thanks to you and your loved ones for the courage you so readily display and the sacrifices you so willingly make."

Dole's, by contrast, was wonderful, touching, and personal. She talked about the "trials" the soldiers would go through, and how proud and worried the families would be. She discussed the experiences of her husband, fighting through the mountains of Italy in World War II She wrote empathetically about the difficulties that families would face, and employers, and how crucial their small sacrifice was to the larger, so important sacrifice the men in the guard would be making. She mentioned the places the men in this company came from by name, and reminded them how proud they had made those towns. When Colonel Harris finished reading Dole's letter, the two women on my left were crying, for the first time in the ceremony, and the older gentleman in front of me began to applaud, quietly, to himself.

Any Democrat in the crowd or among the Wolverines would have cringed at the contrast. These letters are an unglamorous staple of life in political offices in Washington; 27-year old junior staffers, not Edwards or Dole themselves, wrote them. But they reflected quite clearly what many, many retired officers told me last month: The Republican majority in the military community is due less to any specific policies than to a sense that they "get" what the military is all about, while the Democrats don't. Elizabeth Dole's letter, compassionate and personal, "got" the military. John Edwards's perfunctory, bland sending off, which could have been a fare-ye-well to recently assigned airport security guards, did not.

Shouldn't that be rather obvious to a presidential candidate?

Comments

Operation Christmas Child

Rev. Dr. Giles Fraser takes on U.S. evangelical Christianity.

Comments

Some People Just Don't Get It

MSNBC's Fareed Zakaria complains about skepticism toward Bush's speech on democratizing the Middle East,

Sometimes I think that president bush’s critics need to put up a sign somewhere in their rooms that reads: "Some things are true even if George W. Bush believes them."

What he is obviously missing is that the objections and skepticism are not directed toward Bush's words, but reflect the fact that Bush isn't being taken at his word. It is wonderful to speak of "compassionate conservativism", being a "uniter, not a divider", of a "clean skies" act to prevent pollution, of "leave no child behind" policies to fix our nation's schools, and of bringing democracy to the world.... But why is it that the reality always seems to fall so far from Bush's platitudes?

Also, isn't this the type of philosophy that caused "conservatives" to attack Carter as a wide-eyed dreamer? Yet when Bush adopts a similar philosophy, right-wing rags like the New York Post reinvent it as:

An eloquent, often moving restatement of American foreign policy at its most generous and idealistic, the speech put the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a historical context that went way beyond narrow conceptions of national interest or, for that matter, partisan politics.

What's the difference between "then" and "now"? Are the right-wingers who have spent two decades savaging Carter's foreign policy now tacitly admitting that he had it right? Or are they so ignorant of history, and so eager to save Bush from himself, that they'll glorify every word he utters no matter how inconsistent with his party's past practices and philosophies, and no matter how much at odds his words are with his actions?

When it comes to democracy and the Middle East, Bush can win over his skeptics by living up to his words. I won't hold my breath.

Comments

Comments Tip

If you have made comments, or have been following comments on a particular blog entry, if you permit cookies you can keep track of additional comments by clicking the My Topics link at the top of any QuickTopic comments page.

Try It?

A House Divided

President Lincoln famously observed that, "A house divided against itself cannot stand". Perhaps that's true, but perhaps it is sometimes better for a house to divide.

One of the cornerstones of U.S. policy toward Iraq has been to maintain that nation as an integrated whole. This, of course, proves problematic when you recognize that the nation is divided into three distinct ethnic groups who don't trust each other, and who live in relatively discrete geographic regions - the Kurdish north (20% of the population), the "Sunni Triangle" (20% of the population), and the Shiite south (60% of the population). It is also problematic when the Shiite majority would probably vote for some form of Islamic theocracy over secular democracy, and the U.S. would prefer not to have another Shiite Islamic state situated next to Iran.

Another cornerstone of U.S. policy for the region has been to "keep Turkey out of the conflict" by preventing the formation of an independent Kurdish state in the north. Even while protecting the Kurds from Hussein during the period between gulf wars, through a northern "no fly zone", the U.S. actively discouraged the Kurds from taking action which would be seen as a move toward independence or statehood.

This approach reminds me of a couple of other nations - the former colonial India, and the former Yugoslavia. India held together under colonial rule, but as soon as the colonial power departed the nation divided along ethnic lines into India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh - and India and Pakistan are still in conflict over Kashmir. Yugoslavia held together as a nation under the unifying control of Marshall Tito, but after his death it collapsed into an ugly civil war and split into Serbia, Bosnia, and Croatia - with foreign troops remaining in place years after-the-fact to prevent renewed hostilities. Heck - even Czhechoslovakia split into Chechia and Slovakia after the fall of communism.

Perhaps, rather than trying to create an unnatural coalition among the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis, the Bush Administration should do something that would be more likely to bring lasting stability to the region. That is, recognize that Iraq is not likely to stabilize as a unified nation and that, if it is no longer desirable to impose a Hussein-style tyranny to hold the nation together, the better approach may be to divide Iraq into states which are more amenable to stable, democratic governance.

With a "sorry, Turkey - it has to be done", the Bush Administration could structure a Kurdish state made financially stable by a fair allocation of Iraq's northern oil fields. (Reasonable measures could be taken to reassure Turkey that this would not destabilize its southern regions or inflame its Kurdish population.) The aversion to a Shiite state may make the division of the rest of Iraq a political impossibility, but if the goal truly is to set up a model democracy for the Middle East, isn't "Kurdistan" a good place to start? And wouldn't it benefit Bush to be able to point to a stable, secure Kurdish democracy as he enters the 2004 election season?

Comments

Cloning Diplomatic Failure

1. The Bush Administration severely limits embryonic stem cell research in the United States, permitting research only under sixty 'existing' stem cell lines.

2. While acknowledging ethical issues, scientists and pharmaceutical giants complain that the limits will impede their research and may impede the future competitiveness of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, and lobbying efforts were stepped up.

3. The Bush Administration commences a quiet battle, not to respond to those complaints, but to impose U.S.-style restrictions (or restrictions that are perhaps even broader) on the rest of the world.

4. After initial efforst to force the desired language into a treaty failed, U.S. Deputy Ambassador James Cunningham announced that a partial ban "has never been a principle that we've been prepared to accept."

What a remarkable diplomatic team the Bush Administration has assembled. One diplomatic victory after another.

Comments

The Victor Writes The History Texts

In 1999, by a six to four vote, six of the eight Republicans on the Kansas State Board of Education chose to "reject evolution as a scientific principle", excluding evolution from the state's science curriculum.

If you regard that vote charitably, as an effort to avoid classroom controversy by removing facts from school books, perhaps it stands as a precedent for the reinvention of Iraq's school curriculum:

The first indicator of what a Saddam-free education will look like is arriving this month, as millions of newly revised textbooks roll off the printing presses to be distributed to Iraq's 5.5 million schoolchildren in 16,000 schools. All 563 texts were heavily edited and revised over the summer by a team of US-appointed Iraqi educators. Every image of Saddam and the Baath Party has been removed.

But so has much more - including most of modern history. Pressured for time, and hoping to avoid political controversy, the Ministry of Education under the US-led coalition government removed any content considered "controversial," including the 1991 Gulf War; the Iran-Iraq war; and all references to Israelis, Americans, or Kurds.

I recognize that the Bush Administration is not sold on the notion that those who don't know history are destined to repeat it, but... really.

Comments

Reaching Out to the Common Man

The modern Republican Party may be about cutting aid for the poor, stagnant wages and reduced government benefits for the middle class, and tax cuts and enormous profits for the rich, but for some reason they are seen as a party of the people. They do put on a good show - $1,500 hot dogs, and rallies where the rich are invited to dress down to look like "REAL WORKER types, etc." (with hard hats to be distributed on site).

Meanwhile, with what I would deem a poor choice of words for a political campaign, Dean suggests that the Dems reach out to the southern working class in a manner that is genuine, as opposed to the increasingly successful Republican charade. His critics on the right purport that this is a snobbish appeal to the "white trash vote". Perhaps Deans most vociferous critics on the left, and the wealthy and well-connected on the right who take time out from their $1,500 hot dogs to snivel that the Dems are elitist, should take note of the following from a letter to the New York Times:

No Southerner I've talked to — of whatever class or color — sees Dr. Dean's comments as anything other than an indication that he is willing to go after everyone's vote, including that of the working-class white male.

Perhaps both sides should take note of the fact that southerners are smart enough to know when a northerner is being condescending. And many are concerned that, despite a great Republican sales pitch, voting for Bush in 2003 is against their interests.

Perhaps Dean's biggest "sin" was his assumption that he could make reference to the Confederate Flag as something other than a symbol of slavery and institutionalized racism, and that people would understand (or at least not pretend to misunderstand) his actual intentions. Was the problem that he stereotyped the southern working class, or that he neglected to stereotype the northern liberal?

Comments

Governments and Bathtubs

In A flood of red ink, The Economist says that the Bush Administration.... Well, it's sort of self-explanatory from the title, isn't it.

This time the turnaround will be much tougher. There will be no “peace dividend” from the end of the cold war (indeed, the pressure on military spending may continue to increase). America is unlikely to see another stockmarket bubble, with its surge in tax revenues. As baby-boomers retire, the pressure from entitlement spending will be more acute. Set against this background, the path back to a sustainable fiscal policy will be extremely painful, even without any dramatic fiscal crisis. Long after Dubya is back on his ranch, Americans will be trying to recover from the mess he created.

Comments

Two States, Or One?

In a "world opinion roundup" entitled Two-State Solution: A Casualty of War?, which seems to be more of a blog entry than either a report or an analysis, Washington Post staff writer Jefferson Morely presents a variety of viewpoints from a variety of sources on the viability of the "two state solution" for the Israel-Palestine conflict. Granted, I understand why Mr. Morley and his paper choose to tiptoe around these issues, given the typical reaction to any criticism of Sharon's military tactics and decision to support and expand illegal settlements (and here I speak of settlements illegal even under Israeli law) in the occupied territories, or the natural suspicions raised by Palestinian references to the region's demographics and their implications for a Jewish state of Israel.

Meanwhile, Bush is speaking about the importance of democracy in the Middle East. Does this mean that his Administration has changed its mind about the desirability of a Palestinian election?

Comments

A Bit Circular?

President Bush, quoted on CNN.com:

It is the practice of democracy, that makes a nation ready for democracy. And all nations should be on that path.

Comments

"We've Got Plenty of Nothing"

Is "nothing" plenty for you?

The Guardian asked "experts" from several countries for their ideas on how to improve the situation in Iraq and... "all they got was this lousy T-shirt".

(They also present what, in a strange way, pretends to be a more scientific set of suggestions. How were those "chances" estimated? And how much garbage does Dr. Bernhard May of the German Council for Foreign Relations believe is presently on the streets of Baghdad, such that its paid collection would constitute a nationally stabilizing job creation strategy? And did Danielle Pletka formulate her suggestion by using a tool similar to Dilbert's "mission statement generator"?

'Establish an understanding that there are liberal, democratic Iraqis who should be empowered with more control over the political and security wellbeing of the country'

· Chance of stability in 12 months: 50-75% as long as changes are made in tactics

I had no idea that the mere regurgitation of a string of buzzwords had such a high probability of creating instant peace "as long as changes are made in tactics".)

Comments

Outsourcing Illegality

Having been previously found to be employing illegal aliens for its cleaning crews, Walmart apparently hopes that outsourcing will create "plausible deniability".

Comments

"Extraordinary Rendition"

What's a little torture between friends? Or whatever Syria is these days.

Comments