Victory in Iraq: Not Ours to Claim?
It seems that Petraeus doesn’t accept the idea of a timeline. You can read his reasons here. Right-wingers, who have nothing else but the war to pin their hopes on, will tell you that this ‘proves’ that McCain knows more about war than Obama. I don’t think it proves anything at all.
My question remains: what specific conditions, according to the candidates, must be met in order for us to start to withdraw? In sober reality, both McCain and Obama are disputing about semantics (timelines, horizons, etc.) and will be subject to the same ‘conditions’ of which Petraeus speaks.At least, unlike McCain (and recently, the media), he’s not framing his statements in terms of ‘winning.’ It isn’t the sort of engagement that will have a clear end and a settled outcome. And in playing it, we’ve gambled away more than we’ve yet had the chance to assess.
‘Victory’ is an irrational notion in the context of Iraq—as McCain ought to know and probably does know. As my coblogger said, a law of diminishing returns applies to ‘victory.’ We’ve already stayed there so long that the concept will mean nothing except to those who think like small boys whose only criteria are ‘win’ or ‘lose.’
It’s as if the small boy in question had taken a stick, stirred up two separate anthills, then helped the ants in one hill beat the others by killing the queen of the biters and stamping out as many of her subjects as he could—then declared ‘I win!’ Like the small boy, we have decided which are the ‘good ants’ (those that don’t bite) from the ‘bad ants’ (those that do) based on criteria not necessarily evident to the ants.
Like the small boy, we still have little concept of what those preferences mean to the competing societies and what will happen when mom calls us in for dinner. Will the two societies shake hands and live together in peace (or comparative nonviolence)? If so that may be a good thing, but it’s not the small boy’s ‘victory.’ At best, it’s a victory for the ants.
Before anyone gets upset, I used ‘ants’ in my analogy analogy not because I look down on the Iraqi people but because it’s clear to me that that’s the way the Iraqis were and are seen by the people who started this war, their neocon enablers, and their supporters in Congress: as something smaller and less important than Americans, justifying us in proclaiming ‘The end justifies the means.’
Perhaps the Iraqis will succeed in building a democratic society—I hope so, because then the money and blood that were poured into Iraq will not have been in vain. I wonder whether they will. Before you can have ‘democracy’ you have to have people who agree to agree. I’m not certain that the Iraqis are there yet. The factions are still in place.
I hope—because it is the only thing that will make Iraq justifiable in any terms—that the Iraqi people will decide that arguing in words is better than saying the same things with guns and bombs. As someone of Quaker leanings, I certainly believe this.
After overthrowing Saddam Hussein, we had a moral duty—I said so at the time—to try to sort things out (infrastructure, sectarian violence, etc.).
And don’t tell me about ‘the Surge.’ We should have gone in from the get-go with sufficient resources to quell the sectarian violence that Bush said he didn’t anticipate. After the sectarian violence had erupted, it became a question of how much money and blood the American people were willing to devote to sorting out Iraq.
It was not a proof of Bush’s foresight, but of his incompetence, that the Surge became necessary. McCain was ‘right’ about the Surge only if you believe that it would have served American interests better for us to cease devoting resources to the war at that time. Obama’s opposition can be justified as an attempt to husband resources that belonged to American taxpayers and to put the brakes on the spiralling deficit.
If we can achieve some sort of enduring stability in Iraq, then I am personally prepared to say that the surge fulfilled obligations to the Iraqi people which we created when we destabilized the government. But I won’t know the answer to that really till long after the election is over.
Will the Iraqis be able to sustain democracy? That is something only they can determine. Democracy requires certain shared values, one of which is an innate respect for human life and a willingness to allow other people to go to hell their own way. A brief cessation in violence—and we won’t know till the future if that’s what we’re talking about here—isn’t a great boon. If they can sustain it, it will be because the warring factions have found some principle greater than the defeat and oppression of the others. All I can do—as a peace loving person—is pray that they will accept help in learning to mediate between people of powerfully opposed views.
With respect to the war, I want to believe that Obama is committed to trying to get us out of there and that he will respect Iraq’s sovereignty. I trust so—and this is all that I ask.
As a practical matter, I suspect that whoever is president is going to be subject to exactly the same constraints. Sixteen months may be long enough and maybe it won’t. But I think Obama will try to get us out, and McCain has said that he requires ‘victory.’
There are other related issues on which I have more faith in Obama than McCain. I believe—which is to say, hope and trust—that Obama, assisted by Congressional Dems such as Henry Waxman, will call on Halliburton, the various defense contractors, and their Bush administration connections for an accounting. Enabled by the Bush administrtation, private contractors have ruthlessly squandered billions in taxpayer dollars in exchange for minimal value. Taxpayers who are wondering where all the money went deserve to know about thie profiteering.
Before McCain decided he was a far right politician after all, I’d have trusted him over Obama to call out the profiteers. Now I wouldn’t trust him to tell me what the weather is like outside.
As for this ‘victory’ which we are currently ‘winning’: by now, it’s the difference between a shade of dark grey (‘win’) or complete darkness (‘lose’). If we can do something for the Iraqi people, the war may ultimately benefit them. The troops will deserve to be praised (and to come home), and Bush and his enablers will deserve to go on being repudiated by thinking people for starting a war for reasons that weren’t true and in circumstances they didn’t bother to try to understand.
24 Responses to “Victory in Iraq: Not Ours to Claim?”
Good thoughtful post.
The difference between the candidates is this:
Obama wants to leave. He's looking for a reason to leave. The Iraqi PM agrees with his timetable, so there is a convenient out. This also shows that Obama actually gives a damn about what the Iraqi government & presumably people think.
McCain wants to stay. He's looking for a reason to keep our troops there. Instead of looking to the Iraqis for that reason, he's looking to sympathetic generals. He doesn't give a damn what the Iraqis want.
The problem with the left/Democrats/Obama's position is that they just want to hurry out of Iraq so they can rush over to Afghanistan and kill stuff over there.
The antiwar is quickly becoming the war mongers.
How they are finding reasons to justify this in their minds is mindboggling but they are. Im sure they are working up cute lil talking points coming to a blog near you very soon.
For now its Hallelujah, we get gay rights, abortion rights, we get to put far left liberals on the Scotus and above all……….we get to kill stuff too.
Life is grand we can be legalize drugs, make prostitution legal, gay marriage………why we can be just like Europe…………..hallelujah………and above all…..we can kill stuff too. In the meantime a Democratic congress with an approval rating of 8……………….EIGHT…….continues to blame the GOP for everything.
Barak “I wanna kill stuff too” Obama is the perfect candidate to bring this to fruition. The king is dead. Long live the king.
It's certainly nice to see a reality oriented post on a subject that has suffered from so much disinformation and disingenuous posturing. If we aren't able to look at this objectively and dispassionately, then we don't have a prayer of learning from it.
JSpencer,
The juxtaposition between your comment and Neocon's rant is startling
“private contractors have ruthlessly squandered billions in taxpayer dollars in exchange for minimal value”
I doubt with Obama in charge you'll see a repetition of post-1994 concessions by Clinton including “Third Way” stunts like contracting out much of what the federal government is doing that others, in the private sector, can do better at lower cost.
All that has to be said to preserve the bureaucrats' jobs is “No more Blackwaters!”
“The problem with the left/Democrats/Obama's position is that they just want to hurry out of Iraq so they can rush over to Afghanistan and kill stuff over there.”
Actually, Neocon, many (mainly still the far left who were almost the only ones opposed to the war in Iraq before it started — Baghdad Jim McDermott and company) would simply want our troops brought back home, not necessarily all relocated to Afghanistan (and many likely want all our troops home instead).
The Afghan problem is merely a pretext and rationalization for removing our troops from Iraq more quickly than they otherwise would and even should be removed.
Once our troops are out of Iraq or even before they're all out, we'll hear many of the same “Questions and Concerns” being expressed by the Usual Suspects about Afghanistan as they have been expressing about Iraq.
Neocon, you got soooooooo far off the rails that time, I wouldn't even know where to start in trying to help get you back.
“McCain wants to stay. He's looking for a reason to keep our troops there. Instead of looking to the Iraqis for that reason, he's looking to sympathetic generals. He doesn't give a damn what the Iraqis want.”
That's nice, ahem, creativity and even imagination, Chris, but I suspect he's not quite as you describe. The real issue with McCain these days is, just what is his set of positions on Iraq or anything else and how will he better articulate them?
that’s the way the Iraqis were and are seen by the people who started this war, their neocon enablers, and their supporters in Congress: as something smaller and less important than Americans, justifying us in proclaiming ‘The end justifies the means.’
It was this I was objecting too and saying that the same stupid and lame reasoning is being applied in Afghanistan and everyone seems to be getting on the Afghanistan Hallelujah trail with no clear idea of WHY!!
And
That is the point of my rant about Afghanistan. The true antiwar is not going to let us fight a war in Afghanistan for longer then a few months. So the point is that its actually the anti Iraq Democrats who latched on to the coattails of the vocal antiwar for the pursuit of power that pisses me off.
The same dorks who voted to go to war in Iraq, including Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton now are screaming the war is lost and we should pull out but
but
Lets all go to Afghanistan and kill stuff there. They know its true. They know thats exactly what Barak Obama is saying with the Democrats……not antiwars……….blessings. It is this subtle shift from antiIraq to pro Afghanistan that has me besides myself. I was actually hoping for a democratic party that wanted to end it all. Instead they are licking their lips and waiting their turn at the pocket lining mill that is WAR.
The only thing that will change is which corporations get to profit from Afghanistan under democratic leadership and which Senators and Representatives get to pad their swiss bank accounts.
“The true antiwar is not going to let us fight a war in Afghanistan for longer then a few months.”
They'll say we're repeating the same old errors of the (their formerly beloved) Soviet Union, or that we're being worse than the Soviets were, etc. (Sorry, no booby-trapped toys are being distributed by US and NATO forces that I know of.)
“everyone seems to be getting on the Afghanistan Hallelujah trail with no clear idea of WHY!!”
It's to get the troops out of Iraq, of course.
So Neocon, what does your supposed point about Afghanistan have to do with all your ranting about legalizing drugs, making prostitution legal, gay marriage, or abortion rights?
We have a choice:
Obama and his war in Afghanistan
or
McCain and his war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.
I think you're right Chris. Clearly Obama is the greater warmonger.
So Neocon, what does your point about Afghanistan have to do with all your ranting about legalizing drugs, making prostitution legal, gay marriage, or abortion rights?
Afghanistan is a diversion by Barak Obama and the liberal left. They are using Afghanistan and Iraq to continue to cloak their social agenda from view and consolidate power. Obama knows that the true antiwar will not allow them to fight Afghanistan long but if they can convice enough GOP defectors and true moderate independents that they want to fight the war on terror for just long enough to be elected then they can get their rewards that are strewn along the Democrats Hallelujah trail.
Its the Hallelujah trail to victory that is more then just Who is fit to rule. It is in their Hallelujah fantasy a cloture proof majority in government that will allow them to do what they want with impugnity.
Looks to me like this “Hallelujah trail” describes your own personal politics of paranoia and intolerance. Maybe you'd benefit from taking a break from the I-hate-all-things-liberal talk radio for a spell.
I have always and will continue to resist the temptation to discuss religion, gay rights or abortion.
The reason. If you even mention it in a comment then you run the risk of being labeled…………….describes your own personal politics of paranoia and intolerance.
McCain and his war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. And this is not fear mongering?
Running up the line and throwing those subjects into the mix, then backpedaling hardly qualifies as “resisting the temptation”.
Sorry not going to discuss that anymore. I only mentioned it as part of their broader platform on the hallelujah trail that they wanted to pass with a cloture proof congress. mentioning them neither endorses nor denies their viability as important topics to which I have a vested interest one way or another.
So you might look for another scapegoat on your paved road of intolerance.
“Paved road of intolerance”? If by that you mean I have a low threshold for nonsense and hypocrisy, then you would be correct.
“McCain and his war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.”
This is silly. The real Iran-war-mongers left in shame after the 2006 elections. And if Obama is worth anything, he recognizes the Iranian threat along with McCain and others. I suspect he does, though his play-pen neo-Chamberlain-with-a-Euro-PC perceived approach to the terrorists is still cause for concern. (Talking tough on Afghanistan may be a way to address or defuse such concerns, as well as offer a rationalization for removing troops from Iraq.)
Back to the original topic…
My question remains: what specific conditions, according to the candidates, must be met in order for us to start to withdraw?
That's a very good question. However, I am reasonably sure that if and when it is asked it will be met with plattitudes, fuzzy phrases, and general dissembling. And actually, I don't mean that as criticism. I mean it more as a recognition of reality. Regardless of what he's stated publicly, I don't believe Obama's “timeline” is anything close to a “deadline”. It's more of an intention. I'm more inclined to believe the part: “we have to be as careful getting out as we were careful getting in”. I also don't believe McCain is all that far off in terms of his intentions, either. Either way though, I believe it will require adequate regional diplomacy in addition to tactical considerations.
Because of his relative inexperience in foreign affairs Obama is the riskier option. We know more about McCain. We know McCain can be a bit of a hot-head. We know he's prone to inappropriate remarks (e.g., bomb bomb Iran, and wanting to kill Iranians through cigarettes). We know he's strong on the concept of democracy. He wants to establish a Wilsonian-type League of Democracies, and ostracize nations that are unable, and certainly unwilling to participate. We know he wants Russia out of the G8 and wants to get hard on China. We know he's had problems with advisors lobbying for foreign entities that don't seem to dovetail well with his views.
We know less about Obama. We know he has a little background in international relations, but not a lot. We know he's a very good organizer. We know he can run a hell of a campaign and can kill giants (e.g., the Clintons). We know he's ambitious, very confident, and we sure as hell know he can inspire. Apart from that, not so much — except perhaps an uncanny knack for anticipating future developments.
Obviously the foregoing is biased. I don't know how it couldn't be. I can't see anything except through my own eyes. But I try very hard not to be myopic. So to me, at least on matters of foreign policy, it comes down to this: go with the guy who you largely don't agree with, or take a crap shoot on the other guy.
I felt the same way about the surge. Heck, even McCain acknowledged it: it was a crap shoot. It's just that all the other options looked even worse — at least to me. And McCain.
Ricorun said about Mccain:
“We know McCain can be a bit of a hot-head. We know he's prone to inappropriate remarks (e.g., bomb bomb Iran, and wanting to kill Iranians through cigarettes). We know he's strong on the concept of democracy. He wants to establish a Wilsonian-type League of Democracies, and ostracize nations that are unable, and certainly unwilling to participate. We know he wants Russia out of the G8 and wants to get hard on China. We know he's had problems with advisors lobbying for foreign entities that don't seem to dovetail well with his views.”
Thanks. You've just listed reasons I wouldn't vote for McCain, although I have others to contribute, as well.
After seeing the kind of campign he's chosen to run, even Mickey Mouse has a better chance of getting my vote.
In spite of Obama's inexperience, he is the one guy keenly aware that we have many balls to juggle at once. Someone else can beat him if you separate out one particular issue without regard to how it fits into the whole. But he is the one, as far as I can see, who can always keep track of how one piece fits into the whole of our foreign policy and how raising one piece can make other pieces either fall down or rise right along.
I think Afghanistan/Pakistan will be his greatest challenge, and i wish I knew more about what his thinking is on that score, not his immediate plans, but his general thinking.
About timetables and Petraeus, my question is: ” who gets to decide?”
Do generals determine policy or do they execute policy?
That was decided, I thought, by having a civilian CIC, but both Bush and McCain have made Petraeus the acting CIC, while they assume the roles of errand boys.
That smells of either cowardice or a cunning subrtefuge to avoid revealing their intentions.
I'm all for being informed by and consulting with military commanders and experts.
I draw the line, though, at role reversal. The president, no matter who he is, has to weigh Iraq in with other strategic missions and responsibilities. He can't make everything dependent on Iraq, or he risks greater overall losses.
There's a reason why athletes have coaches and generals serve under a civilian commander, and that is to keep a proper perspective. That this is being ignored by the public and the ever gullible and ill informed media is making me incereasingly edgy.
I don't know how firm Obama is about his 16 month framework, but I do know that he has always expressed the view that talking about it gives the Iraqis the necessary sense of urgency about getting their political house in order. Horizon timelines leave the impression that they can putz around forever, which makes me wonder if that's what they really want.
What is really disturbing is the impression Petraeus leaves of 'I'll let you know know when it's time.” That is also true of McCains's never defined victory and Bush's horizons.
All told, I think Obama is the least risky choice.