So now we all turn to Mr. Bush and say, "Well, this looks like another fine mess you've gotten us into." What next? There are many options, but I'll boil them down to three basic approaches: 1. remain for a long time (10 years or more); 2. remain for about 5 years; and 3. pull out as soon as reasonably possible (1 or 2 years).
The proponents of option #1 argue that the US will need a base in the Middle East for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, they agree with my previous thesis that the nurturing of democracy in Iraq is a long-term process. However, I think that most Americans will reject this option on the grounds that it will be too expensive. Even if the current surge is quite successful, it seems likely that the net costs of remaining in Iraq for another ten years would easily top another trillion dollars and maybe another thousand American lives. I think that we can reject this proposal out of hand as too expensive.
This narrows our choice down to a simple choice between leaving sooner (1 to 2 years) and leaving later (perhaps 5 years). The primary argument in favor of the latter is that an early US departure would lead to a civil war and a humanitarian catastrophe. What this argument does not address is whether the US can ever depart without having its departure trigger said civil war. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds have shown no ability to compromise for the last few years -- why would the simple passage of time correct the problem? The Israelis and Palestinians have had 40 years to resolve their differences, and time has not healed their wounds. Why should the three sects of Iraqis be any better? There is no reason to believe that a US departure five years from now would be any less likely to trigger a civil war than a US departure 18 months from now.
So we are cursed with the unavoidable consequences of our invasion. Having toppled the dictator who maintained security and stability in Iraq by brutal methods, we are now caught in the position that, as soon as we depart, the Iraqis will begin tearing each other apart until a new ruthless dictator emerges. That dictator will probably be Shiite, and will probably owe much of his success to Iranian aid. There is little or nothing we can do to avoid this outcome. The only thing we control is its timing and the ongoing cost we pay while deferring the final outcome.
This impels me to conclude that our best strategy is to pull out of Iraq as quickly as possible.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
PartIV: What do we do now?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I haven't had much time to post as of late, schoolwork has been breaking my back unfortunately, but I want to get in a word about the options for Iraq:
The American public and many critics seem to be clamoring for "pulling out", and with it there seems to be a tone of urgency centered on "we need get out of here right this minute!" My problem with this is that just as the entire country was eager to go into Iraq without any kind of a plan, the entire country is now revved up to get out without a plan.
I simply cannot accept any of the democrat's withdrawal proposals or arguments, because it seems to me that not one of them has laid out their own idea of what kind of course the U.S. would take in pulling out, except for the whole debate of "gradual drawdowns" versus "immediate pullout." There needs to be some sense of post-pullout planning, so we can do it in the right way, if at all.
Excellent point, Alex. Yes, the process of terminating a war requires just as much planning as initiating one. Fortunately, we can draw a bright line between the political and the military planning process. That is, the process of planning a withdrawal is a military process that should be done solely by the military. The political task is to establish the political objectives, and then give the military freedom to achieve those objectives in any way it sees fit. Thus, I think it would inappropriate for politicians to dictate the specific who, when, and where of any withdrawal plan. Instead, the specification should be something like this:
a) when the withdrawal is complete, we will have X troops left in the country with a budget of $Y for continued operations.
b) those operations shall consist of nothing more than Z (something like "training Iraqi Army, etc").
c) The withdrawal will be complete by date T.
"...I think that most Americans will reject this option [No. 1, a long-term presence] on the grounds that it will be too expensive."
Maybe so, but I've seen no real evidence along those lines. Americans aren't good at thinking long-term costs; they're not good at thinking short-term costs either.
Alex: The Democratic left has been all over Hillary Clinton for appearing to agree with the "long-term presence" argument. Biden may have the most specific plan of any candidate, Democratic or Republican, for post-pullout Iraq. So I wouldn't agree with your assessment of the Democratic candidates' pullout proposals.
You're right -- a little polling data might be handy here. So I did a quick Google search and found this recent compendium of a number of polls. Here are all the poll questions that deal directly with a preferred pullout date, and their responses:
"When it comes to the war in Iraq, which of the following statements comes closer to your point of view? The most responsible thing we can do is find a way to withdraw most of our troops from Iraq by the beginning of 2009. The most responsible thing we can do is to remain in Iraq until the situation in the country is stable."
Withdraw by 2009: 55%
Remain until stable: 40%
"From what you know about the U.S. involvement in Iraq, how much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Iraq: less than a year, one to two years, two to five years or longer than five years?"
Less than a year: 45%
One to two years: 27%
Two to five years: 12%
Longer than five years: 5%
Other/Unsure: 11%
"There's been a proposal to remove these additional U.S. forces from Iraq by next summer, returning to the earlier level of about 130 thousand U.S. troops. Do you think the number of U.S. forces in Iraq should be reduced more quickly than this, more slowly, or is this about the right pace of troop reductions?"
More quickly: 43%
More slowly: 12%
Right pace: 38%
Should not be reduced: 2%
Unsure 5%
I think it's pretty clear from these different polls that the American people want the troops out within a couple of years at the latest.
Many thanks for digging up the numbers, which clearly support your viewpoint. I hope you're right. At the same time I have little faith in polls or the ability of American voters to think clearly when it comes to foreign policy (domestic policy too, come to think of it). Is this elitist? Probably so.
You're in good company on the "elitist" comment. Right at the outset, the guys who wrote the Constitution were very concerned that the people could not be trusted to make wise decisions. That was one reason for the Senate. By giving Senators the longest terms of any elected Federal officials, and staggering their terms, the Founders sought to create a basically conservative (in the old sense) institution that would act as a brake against the passions of the mob (as represented by the House). That's also why they gave the Senate more power than the House.
Opposing this was Thomas Jefferson, whose killer counterpoint was "Sure, the Senators will be wiser than the people -- but will they be more virtuous?"
It's an old problem.
I find this analysis intresting.
In a general since.
I love arguments from Clauswitz but find myself more often thinking along the lines of Machevelli.
Animal Farm tells me that once the Pigs are in power...
Please don't take the above reference as an attack against either side of this discusson individually, but rather at the diatic concept of "If your not Libral you must be Concervative".
Is there not a syntheses of the two?
I know this is overly simplistic, but I feel that the fewer "roads" to power, the easier it is to controll.
Thusly corprate intrests can strongly back BOTH partys/groups.
Are we even governed under a Democracy?
This depends on how one defines the term.
Again, not to offend, but I am unsure about some of the assumptions.
Peak oil makes me wonder about U.S. intentions to EVER leave the region.
Recall that a major factor in the tensions that led to "The Great War" was Britians finacing of a costal Sultan in nominaly held Ottoman teratory, to block a German rail project to a warm water, port facility en-route to India.
The Sultan of Kuwait.
This was before, oil.
This region has been Stratigic for a LONG, LONG time.
Why would a Prince leave?
Sorry for the misspelled babble all, but this stuff is right down the alley of some materal I've been developing and I couldn't keep my mouth shut.
I think most people have to understand War to have an opinion on War as a Nation.
If I rent, why do I get a vote in property tax elections?
I'm with Heinlein on the franchise.
I'm thinking you have to teach War BEFORE you can teach how not to have War.
FWIW
Jay Carlisle
Sorry Chris,
(hope the familiarity is okay)
I just read your article on Libritarinism, and this seems an appropiate spot to comment.
I hope y'all don't mind my shareing the "sparks" struck by your ideas?
I'd just like to say, that I think a City is much like a Hive.
For business, features like these are almost requirements.
If you think of money as a repersentation of the time required to pull together x people/actors to acomplish LARGE projects, then fetures like a "Rotery Club" prove atractive in attracting all those displaced "yeoman farmers" into more focused work that produces ever more specific goods.
Corpus Christi TX, would probably have "out-grown" and thus neutralized, Houston, TX.
A Huricane changed all that.
I guess what it boils down to for me is that I was like 6 - 8 during Watergate.
I guess I didn't understand.
But I REMEMBER!
Seeing as we were getting;
"I can not tell a lie, I choped down the cherry tree."
at the same time we were getting a U.S. President resigning.
My generation is awfully screwed up on this stuf.
I know I personally don't wanna fight a revolution.
It's my PARENTS generation for goodness sake.
But Roberts Rules of Order, and the like aint gonna cut it IMO.
Please, I'm not trying to incite here.
I'd just like to here what y'all have to say about an honest expression of my "aingst".
Jay Carlisle
Your anger with conservative bloggers seems quite high, and knowing this, couldn't resist posting this relevant quote that I found:
"We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true."
Besides that, I was wondering when you were going to post about more issues. Your views on liberty eem somewhat mixed; what are your views on the second amendment, Afghanistan, and the presidential race to name a few? I'd look forward to more discussions on this blog.
Alex, you're right that I have really lost patience with conservative bloggers. For years I have held the naive belief that if you're fair-minded, courteous, and careful, you can work out your differences with other people. And for years I have been trying to do so on conservative blogs and failing.
I have not added material here because I have been disappointed with the low volume of response, but I suppose that I just have to keep trying. So, in direct response to your suggestion, I'm going to post something that I wrote up for my main website. This will give people a chance to respond to it.
Post a Comment