Iraq: Time To Give Up
C.Stanley sent me the an e-mail with a link to this article joined by the words “Between this and Maliki forcing the release of the the Sadr’ist instigator yesterday, and the army’s admission that the Baghdad offensive isn’t working….
I really do think it’s all over. I’ve thought it probably was for some time, but I think we’ve now passed the very last point of no return. I tried to give Maliki the benefit of the doubt that it would take him a while to make any progress in shutting down the militias, but now it looks as though he is completely caving. Under that scenario, it is wrong for us to stay.
So tragic…”
Some excerpts from the article:
The Shiite militia run by the anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr seized control of a southern Iraqi city on Friday in one of the boldest acts of defiance yet by the country’s powerful, unofficial armies, witnesses and police said.
Mahdi Army fighters stormed three main police stations Friday morning, residents said, planting explosives that flattened the buildings in Amarah, a city just 30 miles from the Iranian border that was under British command until August, when it was returned to Iraqi government control.
[...]
The events in Amarah — involving a dispute between the Mahdi Army and local security forces believed controlled by the rival Badr Brigade militia — highlight the threat of wider violence between rival Shiite factions, who have entrenched themselves among the majority Shiite population and are blamed for killings of rival Sunnis.
[...]
Fighting broke out Thursday after Qassim al-Tamimi, the provincial head of police intelligence and a leading member of the rival Shiite Badr Brigade militia, was killed by a roadside bomb. In retaliation, his family kidnapped the teenage brother of the Mahdi Army commander in Amarah, Sheik Fadel al-Bahadli, to demand the hand-over of al-Tamimi’s killers.
[...]
The showdown between the Mahdi and Badr militias has the potential to develop into an all-out conflict between the heavily armed groups and their political sponsors, both with large blocs in parliament and backers of al-Maliki’s ruling coalition. It also could shatter the unity of Iraq’s majority Shiites at a time when an enduring Sunni insurgency shows no signs of abating.
I agree with C.S.’s assessment of the situation. I really do not see how this situation can be saved. The US led alliance has done a marvelous job screwing this thing up completely. Sunnis against Shiites, Shiites against Sunnis, Shiites and Sunnis against the US, Shiites against Shiites, Shiites against the Iraqi government, Sunnis against the Iraqi government… The Iraqis themselves can still solve it, but I do not expect them to do it: the ones with contacts, money and power are all fighting each other now.
The only thing that the US and other countries part of the alliance can do now is to protect Kurdistan and try to prevent Iran from setting up a puppet government in (parts of) Iraq.
61 Responses to “Iraq: Time To Give Up”
We can point fingers as to who supported the war and who did not. We can debate about whether this is a withdrawal or surrender or whatever other terms we should use. But will rehashing the past and playing the blame game do us any good now? One thing to bear in mind is that the Iraqis have a hand in this, it was they that decided to use violence to right old wrongs or gain political power. We might have set the stage but the Iraqis decided how conduct themselves in this drama. The bottom line is that things have taken a nasty turn for the worse and we need to think about a solution. The choices we have are grim. There are no more troops available to get to the levels General Shinseki wanted. We have just the number of troops the keep the peace in only a few areas, and as soon as we leave the militants return starting the cycle all over. The Iraqi army has been unable to take over for a variety of reasons, but even if they could enough units have been infiltrated by militants that they would be unreliable and not trusted anyway. Since the areas with the highest levels of violence are those with mixed populations, the only solution that I can see with the troops we have available is to act as guards for convoys of refugees seeking areas where they feel safer. The separation along religious and ethnic lines does not address the Shiite on Shiite violence but it does make isolated groups less vulnerable to attack and at least cuts down on some of the violence. Violence within a group might even work in our favor, Shiites involved with internal divisions are not as likely to create problem outside their group. Once this partition is complete we can then begin to leave , knowing full well that the chances are good these communities will turn on each other, but that is completely their choice and by now they are well aware of the consequences. Other regional players might support one faction or another, and again if they want to get involved they should also be fully aware of the consequences by now. Will our withdrawal send a message to the Muslim world that we can be “defeated�? Certainly, but the victory celebration most likely be short lived as the battle for Iraq begins anew.
I don’t see this happening soon, the administration can keep this going for a few more years, they are not going to admit they have made any of the mistakes that brought us to this point; any partition solution will be for the next President to decide.
good comment Grognard.
And C.S. of course about surrender: I agree with your explanation.
I don’t see this happening soon, the administration can keep this going for a few more years, they are not going to admit they have made any of the mistakes that brought us to this point; any partition solution will be for the next President to decide.
Grognard-If the Democrats take over the House, Pelosi will insist on some accountability from the White House. That is what the Republicans are so afraid of, and it is why Baker has softballed his evaluation of the situation and won’t release his report until after the election. Leading Republicans are starting to defect from the cause, so I think if they lose you will see a flood of recriminations. This whole endeavor has been so badly botched, and Washington is so poisonously partisan, that blame is inevitable. The second NIE, also highly critical of the war effort, is also being released after the election.
My view is that Bush does not want to be seen as giving in to the Dems urges to withdrawel or listening to his father’s advice. Baker is the intermediary- offering a third plan, so that Bush doesn’t have to admit defeat.
Grognard: We can point fingers as to who supported the war and who did not. We can debate about whether this is a withdrawal or surrender or whatever other terms we should use. But will rehashing the past and playing the blame game do us any good now?
This is very similar to what the GOP was saying in opposition to forming a 9/11 Commission.
Do you think that no reckoning of how we got ourselves into this mess is appropriate?
Many moderates think the root problem in our politics these days is excessive partisanship. I think that’s mistaken.
The heated argument between the passenger and the driver is a by-product of the problem. The problem is that the driver insists on going 80mph through a residential neighborhood.
So yes, we have to deal with the resulting destruction. But you and I have very little to do with the specific related problems. We have a better chance of having some input into how drivers like that get behind the wheel in the first place.
I guess it just boggles the mind that no one questioned whether there should be accountability for Clinton’s affair with an intern, but now many want deny accountability for lack of preparation for 9/11 and for falsely leading the country to war. Mismanagement of the war is another issue that needs to be examined. If we don’t delve into the flawed decision-making process which led our government to stick for 3 1/2 years with a failed policy, we will be doomed to repeat it.
I’m sure after Clinton’s impeachment for perjury, presidents will think twice about lying under oath about sex. It would be nice if they would also think twice about lying to the nation about pre-war intelligence.
I see partisanship getting us into this mess. When Lieberman made his speech about coming together on some common ground for the war effort both sides ran with it. For the liberals he was a despicable traitor, the conservatives said he was “on their side“ . If you listened to the actual speech it was neither. What he said was that there were legitimate concerns about the war effort that would have to be addressed to find common ground. He said that both sides were talking to their propagandists rather than to each other. He wanted an honest effort to answer what he felt were valid criticisms and come to some conclusion on how the war effort should be conducted. What he got was “cut and run� and both sides using the war to score political points. There will be a time for accounting but right now I would rather see both sides cut the rhetoric and try to find a solution, that might be the Baker report but I don‘t know. I do agree with jjc, it is time to change the driver but that will not happen for two years, if we can make progress now it would save the lives of Americans and Iraqis. We will not have that much direct influence over events but if the Baker report seems a reasoned way out of this situation we can at least show some outrage if either side decides to spin it in their favor.
Kim, as you know I have real problems with the administration on the war effort, but accountability can wait if we get a real effort at trying to find a way our of this mess. The difference between Clinton and the situation we face is that we are in the middle of a war and don’t need to play politics while our troops are fighting and dying. I see the point of many commentators on the administration politicizing the war but because they do it does not mean others need to follow. Michael, thanks for the compliment, I have disagreed with you at times but immensely enjoy your shaking things up and getting us to think about things, Joe really hit a home run when he asked you to co blog.
Grognard- Although I do want to see some accountability, I also want the two sides to come together and forge a solution. So far every suggestion made by the Democrats to help end the war has been rejected or ignored by this White House. The country came together in the spirit of bipartisanship after 9/11, but Bush decided to play to the hard right base soon after. He has invited only the most loyal Republicans to the WH. Have you ever heard anyone from the WH discuss Biden’s plan? Its not a plan for cut and run-many of the Democrat’s plans aren’t, but thats all you hear from the other side.
I hope that Baker does come up with a way out of this mess, and I would support whatever it takes to leave with honor, but too much has occurred without congressional oversight to hold anyone who participated in the policy blameless. Congressional Republicans have substituted party loyalty and loyalty to Bush for critical thinking and loyalty to their country, so the move for hearings will have to come from the Democrats. As far as I’m concern those who rubber-stamped the policy have abdicated their oaths of office.
I am not one of those in favor of impeachment, but I think we should at the very least, get at the truth, instead of handing people like Jerry Bremer and George Tenet medals of honor, and leaving the war’s architect, Donald Rumsfeld untouched by what he has wrought.
It is my opinion that much of what was done in the last six years has been done with the goal of holding onto power, instead of protecting Americans. If that were not true, than why would the Republican party be airing its latest commercial equating electing Democrats with allowing nuclear terrorism?
Kim, I see your point. It is infuriating that the administration has played politics with the war, something that even some conservatives have noted. With the majority of people now fed up with partisanship, I think the response should be to point out that the only objective standard we have on the progress of the war is the number of civilian deaths and that the administration should be able to show a decline in violence. If not then an explanation of why. If they were to hammer that theme daily, not trying to be vindictive but getting the administration to face reality, maybe we could see progress. Of course that is a big “maybe�, but to appear reasonable while the other side makes politically charged accusations I think would eventually prevail.
Grognard, even people who like Lieberman acknowledge he’s something of a scold. The speech you mention, if I recall correctly, had much more of scolding in it–all for other Dems–than of acknowledging that perhaps he himself had failed to think this Iraq thing through. Thus the problem for Dems in appreciating the alleged statesmanship he is forever trumpeting in his pleadings.
Anyway–
My objectivity about Iraq is often overwhelmed by my extreme frustration with what I see as a zeitgeist within which opposition to this war was, until very recently, seen as extremism, and still is so seen by many even if only for rhetorical purposes.
Any elective war is a high-stakes gamble. We haven’t yet come to terms with our failure as a nation to consider the stakes before proceeding with the Iraq War. The debate about risks and rewards, costs and benefits, was distorted and largely suppressed.
Some of the principal actors in the Iraq debacle have been somewhat discredited, but in our present political environment we should expect others to take their place, and there are other countries that can be made out as unacceptably threating for whatever reason.
All of this is not to say that your counsel, but to appear reasonable while the other side makes politically charged accusations I think would eventually prevail, is not well taken. I am still a believer in taking the reasonable way, and will acknowledge that sometimes others will see it better than I.