If You Don’t Know What To Do – Admit It
Thomas Friedman writes:
When it comes to Iraq, September will be coming early this year — like now.
Democrats, and a growing number of Republicans, are determined not to wait until September for the president to report on whether the surge is working. The American people have had enough. They want out. As we move into the endgame, though, the public needs to understand that neither Republicans nor Democrats are presenting them with a realistic strategy.
Obviously, President Bush’s stay-the-course approach is bankrupt. It shows no signs of producing any self-sustaining — and that is the metric — unified, stable Iraq. But the various gradual, partial withdrawal proposals by many Democrats and dissident Republicans are not realistic either. The passions that have been unleashed in Iraq are not going to accommodate some partial withdrawal plan, where we just draw down troops, do less patrolling, more training and fight Al Qaeda types. It’s a fantasy.
The minute we start to withdraw, all hell will break loose in the areas we leave, and there will be a no-holds-barred contest for power among Iraqi factions. Our staying there with, say, half as many troops, will not be sustainable.
As evidence for his thesis, Friedman cites the strategy the British pursued in Basra. They “slowly receded into a single base at Basra airport.” The result? “The void has been filled by a vicious contest for power among Shiite warlords, gangs and clans, and British troops are still being killed whenever they venture out.”
What, then, can be done? Well, according to Friedman there are only two possible approaches / plans: a total withdrawal or “all in.” The downsides of the “all in” approach: Iraqis will continue to kill each other, American troops suffer more than the Iraqi forces, the Iraqis will never learn to work with each other, because they know that – in the end – the Americans will be there.
The downsides of the “total withdrawal”: massive slaughter. If you think what we see now is bad, wait until what happens if the US withdraws all its forces from Iraq. Quite a downside of course, although the Democrats will argue – domestically – that they cannot be held responsible because it was “Bush’s war” and because the Iraqi government did not do its part. Of course, the only people who will agree with the Democrats are… Democrats, or at least only Americans. Trust me – I’m speaking as a foreigner here: if the US withdraws from Iraq and if that will result in genocide / mass ethnic cleansing, the world will blame the US.
Every country in the Middle East will blame the US. Every European country – except for the British – will blame the US. Every South American country will blame the US and so on and on.
According to Friedman, the withdrawal plan has four advantages…
Read more at my own blog.
26 Responses to “If You Don’t Know What To Do – Admit It”
“All in” with what?
Sorry buddy, but there is already massive slaughter. I don’t know about you, but 2 million displaced and somewhere near a million killed is a pretty high number.
As for the UN, the Bush administration has refused to even entertain the idea of a UN controlled Iraq. The Bushies want control of Iraq’s oil for their Big Oil Buddies.
These tired claims about the problems of getting out ignore the reality that it’s getting worse everyday even though we are there with as many troops as we can muster.
The people of Iraq are proud and they don’t want to be our puppets. Our only choice is to leave. We can do it now and spare our soldiers lives, or we can do it later after more bombing and killing on both sides.
At this point, I think that the best plan for Iraq is to put a freeze on new proposals for Iraq..
We all know it will end badly for Iraq and for the US, no matter what the exit strategy is. What good is it to keep reshuffling the specualtions in new patterns?
Now that it’s started, I think it would be a mistake to cut the surge short. That would lead to decades of arguments based on ‘what if’, for one thing.
On the other hand, talk of extending the surge comes too close to extending the war indefinitely.
So, let’s wait until the fall. See how things look. When withdrawal becomes a real possibility, Democrats and Republicans will be forced to settle on more specific plans.
In the meatime, there are enough suggestions, thank you.
1 Million??? You sure do like to use questionable numbers.
Iraq Coalition Casualties
Iraq Body Count
Austin, I am quite sure that Chris realizes that 1 million is ludicrous / not based on facts… at all.
Chris: I was summarizing Friedman’s opinion. Not giving my own. Having said that, I do agree with it and… yes, we see a lot of terrorist attacks now, but just imagine what these people can do once the Americans are not there. Just imagine it. I know you don’t want to, because it means your fantasy is not grounded in reality, but just do it.
Remember: you and people like you (all Americans actually) will be held responsible for the possible genocide. Whether you consider that to be fair or not is irrelevant. That is how the world will perceive it. Bring the troops home might appeal to a lot of Americans, but the rest of the world thinks “you created the mess, you’d better take care of it.”
Friedman, although he originally favored the war, was also one of the first to invoke the Pottery Barn rule–you break it, you own it. But is there a limit to what we can do to clean up this mess? Gen. Petraeus keeps saying that there has to be an Iraqi political solution to make his military lid on the violence work. Should the emphasis now be on bare-knuckles pressure on the Iraqi government to get their act together, tied to our gradual withdrawal if they fail? In any case, we were misled into all this and we can’t keep paying with the lives of our young people indefinitely.
Even the Pottery Barn doesn’t keep asking for payment over and over:
http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/07/out-of-iraq-shell-games.html
you haven’t fixed it yet have you? And… America caused this war, America should have the patience to stay as long as it takes. This “we’re impatient” reasoning sounds – to the rest of the world – extremely egoistical.
The Biden plan of splitting the country is getting more support, but I still doubt it will ever be implemented. I agree that the argument for quick and complete withdrawal usually, and very conveniently, ignores the consequences. Even a partial withdrawal does not answer the problem of what will happen if the violence erupts and it looks like the only way to stop it is to bring back the troops. Do we have the political will to go back in if things collapse? Most likely not. Add to the complications Iran and a Syria might have designs on Lebanon and we are in for some incredibility tough times.
Michael,
There aren’t hard facts on the number of Iraqi dead. But based on 6 studies we can say pretty safely that were are talking about hundreds of thousands dead, not tens of thousands.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_643.shtml
First a minor nitpick: I have to say a million casualites is probably the very, very high side of estimates – I think… Although, in fairiness please don’t anyone cite Iraq the body count. It is a widely discredited source if you are informed in this area. It is known to vastly undercount causualties. Its based on western sources only, with with native Iraqi one’s ignored. Think about it.
I still say a relatively gradual withdraw is the best option. We have genocide now, while we are there. Its not going to get better unless someone can dig up a few 100,000 more troops, and even then odds are against it, and do nothing or reconcilliation.
I would argue that taking our medicine now and seeing where the chips may fall is the far better better than later. Will it be ugly? Oh most probably yes… As ugly as staying forever? No.
Just look at attitudes for cooperation among Iraqi factions even a few years ago compared to now. Postions have hardened and ill will is rampant. Our staying is clearly not helping this. In fact, by keeping a partial lid on things we are increasing pressure, not releaving it.
Also we about 2 more years of Bush. Does anyone really think this administration has a prayer of being effective in Iraq? No? Thought not. Historcally the odds are clear. If we stay, W and crew will find a way to make it worse.
Well, how about a little help then? Could you send back the Koninklijke Landmacht? Heck, I’d settle for some Korps Nationale Reserve.
And perhaps a few more than 1300 or so?
Some say:
“America should have the patience to stay as long as it takes”
Others say: America is inflaming more terrorism and causing more damage to the region with every day it stays there.
Should we take an intternational poll and act
accordingly?
Alternatively, which countries, exactly, should we try to please?
We will be blamed, no matter what we do.
Perhaps we should consider our own interests a little, too?
How many lives and how much of national wealth are required to satisfy this world and its many wise men?
PS
And where do we get the troops to stay indefinitely?
Any volunteers from this world opnion?
I have another nitpick for you dave, you misquote/misrepresent your own source when you talk about Iraq Body Count.
The truth is the people who will lose the most by the US staying in Iraq are the US solders not the Iraqi’s. People want the US out and how bad it is that solders are dieing and yes is is horrible, but it’s not even the tiniest fraction of civilian deaths that will occur because we left. Why the horrible civilian body counts are being used to show we need to leave I don’t get, they will pale in comparison to what will happen when we are gone.
Turkey will be involved is a border war with Kurdistan, they are half way there and we are still in country. What will happen when we are gone? Iran has hundreds (if not thousands) of people in Iraq right now, some how they will just stop when we leave? Saudi is scared to death that Iran will gain to much power and are scared of the Shi’a becoming to strong of a presence in the area. At the very least you will have a proxy war in Iraq. This is not an issue to be decided by your feelings for GW.
Another option is saving Iraqs by evacuating the ones most likely to be targets for retribution.
How many Iraqi refugees should the Netherlands take in?
So many people say that if we leave, Iraq will have a civil war and maybe millions will die. I happen to agree that if we leave, blood will flow in the streets. Whether it’s a million or not -no one knows. However, the US cannot indefinitely occupy Iraq. We have neither the manpower or money. So we will leave sometime, maybe next year, maybe in 5 to 10 years.
But from what I can understand of the internal sectarian forces as well as the external sectarian forces (Iran, Saudi, Turkey, and Syria) whenever we leave in the future, Iraq will have it’s total civil war. We cannot stop the Shites from doing whatever it takes to be the power brokers in Iraq and Saudia Arabia and the rest of the Sunni arab countries will NEVER allow Shite domination of Iraq. In that civil war, look to Turkey to solve it’s Kurdistan problem once and for all and maybe pick up oil fields (badly needed) in the bargain.
If we stay longer we are not preventing the eventual civil war – only postponing it. All we do in the interim is lose American lives and another $100 billion or so annually. Whatever we rebuild in the interim gets broken again (look at the electricity, oil and water statistics). Just like the US needed it’s civil war to resolve it’s existential questions, so does Iraq.
“Bring the troops home might appeal to a lot of Americans, but the rest of the world thinks “you created the mess, you’d better take care of it.â€
Michael – Have you given any thought that maybe the Iraq problem is too big and too far gone that the US CANNOT make the mess better? Not ever problem in the world has a solution! Should the US stay for 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years? How much money should we pour into Iraq. $1 trillion, $5 trillion, $100 trillion? In your mind when is enough – enough? How many more “Friedman units” should we allow before even you are willing to throw in the towel?
The question of Iraqi deaths is obviously a difficult one to pin down. However, in a war like Iraq is having now, violent civilian deaths at the hands of the US, Iraqi and insurgent soldiers is only a portion of the deaths due to war. A far larger portion of civilian deaths can be directly laid at the feet of the war due to the decimation of hospital and health facilities in Iraq.
Reports I’ve seen indicate that half the doctors in Iraq have fled the country. People are dying who would otherwise be living if medical care was even up to the standards of Saddamistan. How many people die of heat prostation due to the lack of electricity? How many die as a result of increased criminal activity due to the war chaos? How many die trying to escape Iraq?
There are violent deaths but my guess is that is the much smaller portion of deaths due to this war. Whether it’s 200,000, 500,000 or a million no one will ever know because most muslim burials occur almost immediately and cannot be counted by authorities.
There certainly are ways to minimize the damage and help the refugee situation we have created without keeping 160,000 troops in the middle of a civil war. Do you think the troops are all just killing al queda? They are killing Sunnis, Shiites and yes plenty of innocent civilians as well. The biggest problem is that the army and police that we trained would prefer to act as death squads against enemy sects.
We should do what we can on the humanitarian front– which we have not been doing up til now, but its obvious that the surge will not bring stability to Iraq with their own government refusing to meet any of 18 benchmarks set up for it. Why do our soldiers need to die for their inaction?
Chris, you should know better. What slaughter there is now is nothing compared to what is expected when the real slaughter begins once we have left Iraq.
None of those issuing dire warnings aboutt the aftermath of withdrawal are proposing anything concrete about allterntives. It doesn’t count when talk about long term commitments leaves out all details of what that might entail.
I don’t see any assessment here of how Iraq might change while we’re sitting there.
What will the Saudis, Syria and Iran be doing during those years?
Will we be policing conflicts that might break out between the Kurds and Turkey?
Will those anxious for a war with Iran finally get their wish?
Will we be fighting anybody and everybody that makes a disturbance?
What exactly would our mission be, other than not withdrawing?
In the meantime, what is the assessment about how long it would be before a fed-up public starts re-enacting the ugliness of the Viet Nam war? We’re already at war with one another. Is tearing the country completely apart such a small price to pay?
And, of course, the same world that will criticize us whenever we do leave, will be ctiticizing us (although offering no help) every day that we stay, MVDG.
Before agreeing with anyone, I would need to see a better plan than ‘not withdrawing’.
We “need” to stay in Iraq for 5 more years? 10 more years?
We have troops going in for their 5th tour of duty. We have badly wounded troops being sewn together and sent back to fight. We’ve lowered recruiting standards to allow criminals, illiterates, and psychos to enlist.
The military is near a breaking point.
You want us to stay in Iraq another few years?
With what army?
Answer that question before you go on about how awful it’ll be when we leave.
Dom I would say the opposite. You want to leave show me how to do so without having everything get worse.
Casey….quit making crap up. Over 90% of military enlistees are high school graduates and must take the asvab. Those that are not (ged, attendance degree, home schooled) must get a higher score on the asvab. Geniuses? Maybe not but everyone can read. Any felony requires a waver and you better have a good story and forget about it if it’s drug, sex, or violence related. Hell even to many tickets can keep you out. Did you know they do a credit check? Thats right if your credit is to bad and they don’t think you can afford your bills on military pay they don’t let you enlist.
Baseless propaganda at it’s best!
Sorry Bones, that simply don’t cut it. Do the research those ‘approved sources’ are western only. The folks who run Iraqi the Body have had that issue raised repeatedly, and choose to repeatedly ignore this point.
And as they say its no accurate count, and *thosands are not reported. *And by thousands they likely mean proably hundreds of thousands by now… Given how many deaths are reported locally and not internationally, and the cultural skew to not report deaths in the first place.
Thus it is a absolutely a discredited source as so far as meaningful measure of deaths in Iraqi. If one wants to use causalty figures both the UN and Lancet studies are actually a much more useful basis.
Interetignly enough, the first Lancet study and its’ contemporary UN report were actually not that far apart once you factored out that they were counting different things as casualties. The later Lancet howver was much higher afaik.
This assumes our natural state of being is in Iraq. I have to categorically disagree with that point of view.
I think one viewpoint is often ignored: if we leave, things do get worse. And this is acceptable. Things get horribly worse. And this is acceptable. There might be a humanitarian crisis. And this is acceptable because, of all possible solutions, this is inevitable.
It may be right, and it may be wrong, but it’s quite often misstated.
Sorry I blurred your post and Chris who posted above you it was his source that had the statements I quoted. That was why I mentioned it at all- the contradictions between the source and your statement. As you saw I just wrote one sentence, clipped from the source, and moved on to another point.
Since you made the point that they were only “western” sources lets look at the list:
So what do you consider western anyway?
Bones said:
“Dom I would say the opposite. You want to leave show me how to do so without having everything get worse. ”
=============
You’re spinning in circles – not a good way to debate.\
Nobody, certainly not I, is denying that leaving will have bad consequences.
I am weighing one set of bad consequences against another set of bad consequences
Based on all tha points I mention, I conclude that the US can not stay indefinitely and could not stay, even if it wanted to.
This post, and the comments supporting it, have not convinced me to change my mind, because they present no rational weighing of pros and cons.
Those happy to make decisions that way, are welcome to do so.
I am not one of those people.