« The New Majority | Main | 1992 All Over Again »
December 01, 2006
Screw The Sunnis
Realization: We can't beat the insurgency.
Conclusion: We should make it angrier, bigger, and more desperate.
This war in Iraq is, like, the best war ever.
Update: Elsewhere in WaPo, Krauthammer drops this cunning point:
We are trying to bring democracy to Iraq in particular because a pro-Western government enjoying legitimacy and popular support would have been the most enduring means of securing our interests there.
We are trying to fill Iraq with koalas holding American flags because koalas are the most enduring means of making the population cuddlier. Why does the left hate cuddliness?
Sometimes, I genuinely believe the planning for the Iraq War was done by the undepants gnomes:
Step 1: Invade. Step 2: ? Step 3: "A pro-Western government enjoying legitimacy and popular support."
December 1, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Hey! Say you like the war in Iraq? Well, if you that, wait until we give you the War in Iran! Yes, the War in Iran will have everything the War in Iraq has, but more!
More insane punditry!
More Death!
More raping mothers in front of their kids to get information!
More war profiteering!
More U.S. soldiers blowing their brains all over the Sand!
More Propaganda!
Did I mention more death? Well, let me mention it again! More Death!
Yes, the War in Iran will bring you all this, and much much more! Coming soon to a Middle Eastern theater near you!
--WKW
Posted by: William K. Wolfrum | Dec 1, 2006 10:51:22 AM
Ezra, I believe the correct formulary is/was:
Step 1: Invade
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Profit! (see: Halliburton, no-bid contracts for Administration supporters, friends)
Posted by: terraformer | Dec 1, 2006 10:51:30 AM
I really like the Underpants Gnomes meme for Iraq; I'm surprised it isn't pushed as often since it works so well.
Posted by: August J. Pollak | Dec 1, 2006 11:20:10 AM
Krauthammer and the other neoncons are easy targets. What about the purportedly antiwar Dems like Obama and Jack Reed who want to start withdrawing in several months? Partly because of the timidity of Dems, the push for withdrawal is losing steam (Please don't feed me the crap about waiting till Janauary: people are dying.) Liberal bloggers aren't helping: they're doing nothing but bash Bush and friends when they should be demanding that Dems call for the only moral, sensible option: withdrawal now. Of the presidential contenders, only Edwards has called for withdrawal to begin ASAP. Clark hasn't, Clinton hasn't, Gore hasn't. Edwards is now the antiwar candidate.
Posted by: david mizner | Dec 1, 2006 11:23:20 AM
David, if liberals uniformly agreed with you that immediate withdrawal would save lives rather than cause vastly more deaths, I'm sure they wouldn't be timid about calling for immediate withdrawal. I think you're probably wrong, and I suspect many other liberals have their doubts that immediate withdrawal would be the moral course.
Posted by: Sanpete | Dec 1, 2006 11:50:54 AM
Yes, Sanpete, I'm sure the Dems timidity has nothing to do with politics; after all, they're *never* afraid of being called soft on national security.
What difference could six months possibly make?
When, Sanpete, do you think we should start withdrawing? Let's hear your plan.
Or do you think we should a while, then revist the issue?
Ezra, how about you?
This is the debate we need to be having.
The Dems who don't want to withdraw now are on the same side as Bush. Of course, liberals don't uniformly beleive that withdrawal now is the best option, but I'm sure that a large majority does. I'm with Edwards: the best way to leave is to leave.
Here's James Fallows:
"So the choice is between a terrible decision and one that is even worse. The terrible decision is just to begin leaving, knowing that even more innocent civilians will be killed and that we’ll be dealing with agitation out of Iraq for years to come. The worse decision would be to wait another year, or two, or three and then take that terrible course. If we thought a longer commitment and presence would lead to a better outcome, then the extra commitment might be sensible. But nothing occurring in Iraq in the last year has given rise to any hope that things are getting better rather than worse."
Posted by: david mizner | Dec 1, 2006 12:04:57 PM
Thank you, David, for bringing this up. Why in the hell should anyone vote for a Democratic Party who is unwilling to shake the postwar militaristic consensus? Face it folks, bombing Serbia was WRONG. Invading Panama was WRONG. Interfering in Haiti (again) is WRONG. Overthrowing leftist governments throughout Latin America (even Krazy, Krazy Hugo in ven) is WRONG. Even if these actions are done by "adult" "liberals" who claim "competence."
Drop the American exceptionalism, folks. We are NOT the light of the world, and we have no right to impose our values on the so-called benighted nations of the globe. Especially since such colonialist enterprises generally screw up things. Remember how helping to create the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan was considered good policy?
Go back to the beginning. George Washington was right.
Posted by: Brian Miller | Dec 1, 2006 12:13:02 PM
Terraformer,
they didn't need a step 2 for that.
Posted by: twig | Dec 1, 2006 12:15:57 PM
David, it's undoubtedly true that a majority of liberals agree with you. However, those who may actually have to take some responsibility for what happens in Iraq are likely to consider things a little differently than most of us. The quote from Fallows has as an implicit premise that nothing we do in Iraq can possibly improve the situation. That's not a self-evident truth. You have to weigh the possibility that with time some stability can be established against the probability that there will be far worse slaughter if we leave. Given the great risks of the latter in comparison to the risks of staying, in terms of human life, it's worth being more than casually certain that there is nothing that can be done to prevent it before we give up. Even a very small chance is worth pursuing at this point. There is a great deal at stake.
As for plans, I don't have any special insights into what should be done. Whatever we're doing that is preventing complete unrestrained mayhem is better than the alternative. We should continue to work for a political settlement, train Iraqi security forces, work with Iraq's neighbors, and so on.
Posted by: Sanpete | Dec 1, 2006 12:25:29 PM
Fair enough, Sanpete, yours strikes me as a principled, terribly misguided position. I'm not certain about anything regarding Iraq, casually or otherwise. I've concluded after watching the disaster unfold for three years that leaving is the least bad option. I'm close to certain that a year or two couldn't make a difference. I'm close to certain that the American presence isn't stopping the slide into mayhem. I wonder if the presence isn't making things worse--a possibility that you should at least consider. I think you, and everyone, need to take the risks of staying more seriously. To me they outweigh the risks of leaving. We ridicule the Bushies for not anticipaing the unintended consequences of the invasion, but it seems that people who think we should stay are making a similar mistake. Imagine a panicked, hasty withdrawal. Imagine a catastrophic attack. Imagine a mass Shia uprising. Imagine the bodies of American soldiers dragged through the streets. Imagine Mogadishu times ten. Imagine us getting dragged into a war against Iran. Imagine us allying with Iran against Sunni insurgents.
But okay, you're for staying, I'm for leaving. Obama is for staying, Edwards is for leaving. Yglesias is for leaving, Ezra is for ?. Let's have this debate in the blogosphere and everywhere. Let's not wait till January. Let's not pretend that Democrats don't have disagreements for fear of exposing our divisions.
Posted by: david mizner | Dec 1, 2006 1:20:47 PM
Sanpete, I see where you're coming from, and until about a year ago I basically held the same position as you. But I don't see it. If you could give an account of how, and why, the continued occupation of Iraq is likely to lead to a more stable situation (no pony plans allowed, GWB is running the show for 2 more years), I'd really like to hear it. Because I follow events on the ground in Iraq pretty closely, and I just can't reconstruct that scenario in a plausible way.
Posted by: djw | Dec 1, 2006 1:34:50 PM
I'm close to certain that a year or two couldn't make a difference.
I'm not sure that a year or two would be enough.
I'm close to certain that the American presence isn't stopping the slide into mayhem. I wonder if the presence isn't making things worse--a possibility that you should at least consider. I think you, and everyone, need to take the risks of staying more seriously. To me they outweigh the risks of leaving.
What do you think is preventing all-out mayhem? What do you see as the risks of staying? What do you think would happen if we left? What do you think is the worst reasonably possible outcome of staying? Of leaving? How do you reach the conclusion that the risks of staying are worse? That seems obviously false to me, so I'm probably overlooking something important that you're focussed on.
I'm sure our presence is making things worse in some ways. The question is whether those effects are outweighed by the beneficial effects of being there (beneficial in the sense of keeping a lid on things).
DJW, I believe the presence of our troops is already keeping Iraq more stable. As long as we can keep it more stable that's already a good thing. As for making it possible to remain more stable when we leave, I think it's often the case that things that don't work in the short term end up working in the long term. That is, the political efforts at unity have largely failed so far, at least in some very important respects. However, it still seems possible to me that the parties can be brought to see that their own interests lie in a stable Iraq built on compromise, as opposed to the likely alternative. I don't anticipate any special, unforeseen rabbit out of the hat here. Having Bush in charge is a definite impediment, but there's some evidence that smarter. more practical people (like his father) are starting to gain his ear.
Posted by: Sanpete | Dec 1, 2006 1:51:03 PM
I am not convinced that straight withdrawl is the best idea. I honestly can't say what is, but simply abandoning Iraq could destablize the region much more. Here is what Nawal Obaid, an adviser to the Saudi Arabian government, had to say in an op-ed piece at WaPo. And he doesn't even discuss the Kurds and what will happen to them if we leave, especialy if the rest of Iraq becomes embroiled in a civil war, directly in the middle of a larger war between the Saudis and Iran.
I am not in favor of staying the course, but simply up and leaving will definately lead to total regional meltdown.
Posted by: DuWayne | Dec 1, 2006 2:03:08 PM
Ezra is for phased withdrawal, done in whatever way the experts believe most prudent. We have to leave, but I don't profess to have near the understanding to advocate for how precisely that should be accomplished.
Posted by: Ezra | Dec 1, 2006 2:19:16 PM
"What do you think is the worst reasonably possible outcome of staying?"
A massive uprising of Shia that leads to the death of many hundreds of Americans and many thousands of Iraqis, which in turn leads to an American War with Iran, which in turn leads to President Bush's dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran, which in turn leads to World World 3 and the destruction of humanity. I wish I were kidding. Of course, a similar scenario is possible if we leave, flowing from instability, but in my mind, it is less likely. With us gone, Iran will rush in to fill the vaccuum, and possibly, with Syria's help,work out an end to the Shia-Sunni Civil war. In any case, the presence of American troops in the middle of the war greatly increases the chance that our country will get pulled into a larger war, and this might be exactly what some in Bush's circle want. Keep in mind that one of the reasons Bush wants us in Iraq is he's worried about the vaccum that Iran will fill when we leave. We need to accept that the war has turned Iran into a powerhouse. This is why Saudi Arabia is so keen to have us stay: it fears Iranian hegemony. So don't fool yourself, people. Your desire for us to stay may be well-intentioned, but it serves the interests of people who are playing geopolitics.
Posted by: david mizner | Dec 1, 2006 2:30:47 PM
Why do we assume that "experts" who have bought into the conventional wisdom can provide us with any guidance whatsoever?
Posted by: Brian Miller | Dec 1, 2006 2:41:57 PM
"Ezra is for phased withdrawal, done in whatever way the experts believe most prudent."
Which experts, Doug Feith?
Here's the thing, when people like me say leave now, we really mean: draw up a plan to leave, debate plan, then prudently leave. We're really saying, start leaving in, oh, a few months and be gone in a year. Such is the way the world works. Just fucking start, today, now.
When Kerry and Carl Levin praise the Baker Comission, with its vague call to withwraw troops at the end of 07, they're getting behind a plan to be gone in a couple of years, at best. Imagine the horrors that can happen in a couple of years.
Posted by: david mizner | Dec 1, 2006 2:44:45 PM
David Mizner -
I am not averse to the idea of phased withdrawl. The problem is that to do so without throwing the entire region into further chaos, will require serious diplomatic efforts - I fear bush is incapable of fostering reasonable efforts in that direction.
Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of getting the hell out, I am just concerned about how we go about it.
Posted by: DuWayne | Dec 1, 2006 3:03:03 PM
A massive uprising of Shia that leads to the death of many hundreds of Americans and many thousands of Iraqis, which in turn leads to an American War with Iran, which in turn leads to President Bush's dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran, which in turn leads to World World 3 and the destruction of humanity. I wish I were kidding.
You're the same person who was complaining a minute ago about those who have all these imaginings about what happens if we withdraw? This is ridiculous, not at all reasonable, in my view. If this is what your preference for withdrawal is based on, I'm not at all moved by your reasoning.
And you complement it with this:
With us gone, Iran will rush in to fill the vaccuum, and possibly, with Syria's help,work out an end to the Shia-Sunni Civil war.
Talk about ponies. Why do you have such an apocalyptic view of staying and such a dreamily rosy view of leaving? If you're serious about this issue, you have to be equally realistic about both alternatives, and not just put your fist on the scale to get the balance that you're already inclined to.
Your desire for us to stay may be well-intentioned, but it serves the interests of people who are playing geopolitics.
I don't care what serves the interests of those playing geopolitics. That kind of consideration is just a distraction from what really matters. I fear that many liberals want an immediate withdrawal not because they have carefully considered all the relevant facts, but because Bush and Cheney make their skin crawl and because they're reflexively "anti-war." That's not good enough.
Posted by: Sanpete | Dec 1, 2006 3:11:14 PM
Obviously, experts I trust. Lots of folks running around who can tel lyou, with great specificity, how we should leave. I don't feel comfortable saying any more than we should leave.
Posted by: Ezra | Dec 1, 2006 3:15:37 PM
The biggest danger facing that region because of the Iraq debacle is nations taking sides in a Shia/Sunni conflict, as Saudi Arabia appears ready to do (they have made it clear that they won't tolerate the Sunnis in Iraq being slaughtered or marginalized). Recall that 80% of Moslems are Sunni. Saudi Arabia has some Shia, but they are marginalized there. Iran has lots of Shia, but the Iraqi Shia are split into pro-Iran and anti-Iran camps (al Sadr, the militant leader) is strongly anti-Iran).
So, to the question: "What do you think is the worst reasonably possible outcome of staying?", David answer is the worst, but short of WWIII, a more probable outcome is state-sponsors of the Iraqi groups (two Shia, one Sunni, one Kurd) is frightening because if our supply lines from Kuwait to Bagdad are cut by the Shia (and they are very fragile and very important), we could have another helicopter-escape-from-the-roof situation in the Green Zone, with no supplies and 100,000s banging on the gates.
How does 10,000 or 20,000 Americans slaughtered sound?
Like Ezra, I don't have a formula, but unlike him, I believe the Congress should pass a joint resolution (resolutions are veto proof) declaring that we intend to begin withdraw early in 2007, subject only to the timing and pace of withdrawal being dependent on conditions as they occur.
We need a stake in ground, with a sign that says: "We are leaving".
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Dec 1, 2006 3:46:21 PM
I also disagree with Bush's war wholeheartedly but have always been faced with the response, "if we leave now, we'll screw everything up." I find a lot of parallels between the War in Iraq as I do the War in Vietnam (as do many other people), and we do need to stop the innocent deaths. We do need to stop the violence. No matter what. Of course, I do not know the exact timing and such of how this shall happen but I do agree with Jim Portland, David Mizner, and countless others on the fact that we should bring our troops home.
Posted by: NFARR | Dec 1, 2006 4:15:03 PM
Sanpete: Who is really living in a dream world? Face it: Iraq is f%$#@ed, we are f%^$#ed. How is staying going to solve anything? Are you in favor of the draft, of an army of 500,000 people (who would still be unable to stitch together Iraq anyway). Staying or going will do nothing to avoid that reality. I have no rosy view of the aftermath of our departure. Heck, I hope we can actually get out of Dodge without being slaughtered.
The invasion was morally wronged and needs to be terminated forthwith.
Posted by: Brian Miller | Dec 1, 2006 4:16:50 PM
Sanpete, there's no point in discussing this with you. You don't read or can't understand my posts, so you misrepresent my arguments.
I shouldn't be, but I'm surprised at the way this is evolving. In the summer Kerry was pushing for a date-certain withdrawal; now he's praising the Baker Commission. I thought the Democratic victory, powered by anger over the war, would have at least a little impact. On the contrary, the push for withdrawal has slowed, and the debate is shaping up in an all-too familiar fashion. Bush says no to withdrawal, the "sensible" center--consisting of the Baker commission and all the Dems hiding behind it--advocate withdrawal at some date not too far into the future, and those calling for immediate withdrawal are considered irresponsible.
Here we go again. I'm scared.
Posted by: david mizner | Dec 1, 2006 5:09:10 PM
Jim, I find your scenario more realistic than david's, but still not very. Why would the Shia cut our supply lines, knowing that it would only lead to their own downfall in a situation where they presently have a strong position? What would their motive be? Do you know of any military expert who thinks there's a realistic chance of any group in Iraq killing 10,000 Americans in a short period of time?
We do need to stop the violence. No matter what.
Everyone wants that. The question is whether withdrawal will stop the violence or increase it. It seems to me more likely to increase it many fold. Otherwise I would agree with you that we should leave.
The invasion was morally wronged and needs to be terminated forthwith.
Again, this is the kind non sequitur that needs to be avoided. Of course the invasion was wrong. That isn't the issue. The issue is what course is likely to do the least harm. I don't think most liberals (or most conservatives either) are thinking clearly or objectively about this. I don't favor the draft under these conditions. I've expressed my view of the rest of your points earlier.
David, if I've misunderstood you, please explain how. I read what you wrote carefully.
Posted by: Sanpete | Dec 1, 2006 5:25:32 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
