Comments on: Iraq: just about time to go

By: c

Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:57:35 +0000

If we wouldn’t have screwed up the reconstruction we would have been kicked out by now. If we had elections earlierer we would have been kicked out by now. And that is not even the worst part. It would have been ruled by islamic parties and i doubt somehow that Bush would have been re-elected.

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:01:41 +0000

At this point, we’re stuck. The continued presence of US troops has granted the insurgency a legitimacy it never would have had. If we had not screwed up the reconstruction, or if we had made a transition to a legitimate Iraqi government earlier, the Baathists and foreign fighters would find it a lot harder to recruit sympathetic foot soldiers.

By: c

Fri, 21 Jan 2005 04:02:27 +0000

That is the optimistic scenario. But is it right? Also nobody but the arm merchants win in a civil war and Sadr and the Sunni’s will win more if they can stop it from happening because the Iranian Shiites would win it.

By: mw

mw — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:06:30 +0000

There’s actually a reasonably-informed Wikipedia article on the composition of the insurgency that collects most of the informed conjecture that I’ve seen. Yes, exactly—Baathists providing the leadership and money, ordinary Sunni foot soldiers who are sympathetic to the Baathists and willing to plant IEDs for money and Sunni fundamentalist foreigners fighters (you know, the guys driving the car and truck bombs into the crowds of Iraqis) constitute the active insurgency. If this bunch wins, the Baathists end up running the place again. Al Sadr’s group is a separate Shiite organization that is not actively fighting at present, is participating in the elections, and is NOT allied with the Baathists. (Let’s recall—the Baathists murdered Al Sadr’s father, the Wahabbis think the Shiites are infidels). The Sunni insurgency and Al Sadr’s group are not friends and allies—what they ARE are the two potential opposing sides in a full-blown civil war.

By: c

Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:03:00 +0000

The tyrant may fear the US but their bureaucracy wonn’t fear it and that is where the real power lies. Also there are not many tyrants left outside of central Asia and North Korea (and i have my doubts about North Korea). Most undemocratic countries are dictatorships by a group and those groups often can hold on to power even after an occupation.

By: Doctor Slack

Doctor Slack — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:47:01 +0000

That is, what makes you think that the insurgency is NOT composed mostly of Baathist Sunnis and Sunni Wahabbis from other Arab countries? There’s actually a reasonably-informed Wikipedia article on the composition of the insurgency that collects most of the informed conjecture that I’ve seen. Unless you’re in possession of some particularly compelling secret informatioin that you’re about to share with the rest of us, the “it’s all just Baathist dead-enders” line is pretty thin at this point.

By: Mill

Mill — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:36:47 +0000

“Where weaknesses have cropped up, of course, are in occupation and “nation building”, but it’s not much comfort to a tyrant to know that after he was gone, the US would likely run into difficulty trying to establish a democratic government in his place.” Actually, I think the opposite. If I was a tyrant, and I had seen how Bush had cheerfully overthrown Saddam, fucked up the occupation, and STILL refused to admit that he had done anything wrong or made any mistakes (except in word choice), I would be terrified. “Sure, it’s obvious that if Bush overthrows me, Millistan will be thrown into chaos even more violent than usual—but he’s so crazy that he wouldn’t even CARE! I’d better get me some nuclear weapons like North Korea,” I would say. And my yes-men would reply “Excellent idea, Eternally Beloved President Mill. Shall we get the uranium guy on the phone?”

By: c

Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:26:06 +0000

The fact that the British are under constant fire and the Sadr rebellion does indicate that it is more than just old Baathist. I fear that Juan Cole is overly optimistic about a “Third Baath Coup” and that we really end up with Iraq controlled by coalition of Shiite and Sunni Islamists. Something that anybody with a brain could predict would be the result

By: mw

mw — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:46:58 +0000

MW: We have a disagreement on the facts. Most of us believe that the presence of US troops is a catalyst that accelerates the chemical reaction. But what is your belief based on? That is, what makes you think that the insurgency is NOT composed mostly of Baathist Sunnis and Sunni Wahabbis from other Arab countries? Other than your chemistry analogy, what makes you think the insurgents will go home and stop fighting if US forces leave? Juan Cole (certainly no supporter of the war) argues that a ‘Third Baath Coup’ is a real possibility, and, for that reason (and others), that a fixed withdrawal schedule is problematic. Do you think he doesn’t know what he’s talking about regarding the nature of the insurgency?

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:25:05 +0000

MW: We have a disagreement on the facts. Most of us believe that the presence of US troops is a catalyst that accelerates the chemical reaction.

By: Dan Kervick

Dan Kervick — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:49:50 +0000

Ah, the return of the “peace with honor” quandary. The authors’ referendum proposal is quite cynically advanced as gimmick for dressing up stinking reasons of state in the clean duds of democracy. The fifth justifucation contains the crux: And fifth, a referendum gives us an exit strategy, one that affirms the very reasons we went into Iraq in the first place. There’s more honor in being voted out than in climbing into helicopters from the roof of the embassy. One alternative exit stategy, of course, is just to say “we’re leaving” and then leave. But the authors fear that such a withdrawal is “dishonorable”, and what’s more that the US will then get the blame for whatever chaos ensues. They cleverly recommend passing the buck to the abused Iraqi public first, so we can later blame the victim if things go terribly sour. They also see a possible bonus to the referendum in that the victim may ask us to stay after all, thus wiping away all our sins: Two criticisms are sure to follow. First, the plan could be perceived as a smokescreen that allows the United States to cut and run. Second, our departure could create a power vacuum, emboldening the insurgents and leading to an anti-American regime or a civil war. Rather than signaling wavering support, however, a referendum would show our commitment to empowering the Iraqis. We’re not saying we’re leaving; we’re saying that it’s up to the Iraqi people to decide what’s best for themselves. And the results of a referendum may not be as obvious as some people think – careful consideration of life after a withdrawal may encourage Kurds and Shiites, for example, to back a continued American presence. So here’s what the CSIS referendum proposal amounts to: I stick a sword in someone’s neck, and then ask him to decide whether I should remove it. The sword, let us suppose, is now the only thing preventing him from bleeding to death. If he says “no”, then I argue that I must have been justified in stabbing him all along, since he has now invited me to continue the bodily intrusion. If he says “yes”, on the other hand, and then bleeds to death after I pull the sword from the neck, I can claim that he made his own bed, and is responsible for his own death. The US is perhaps now in the final, degenerative “peace with honor” phase of the Iraq invasion disease. Unfortuanately, we can recall that Vietnam lingered in this phase for years.

By: mw

mw — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:23:31 +0000

Rather, the occupation seems to be a catalyst for violence that will lead at best to an autocract The occupation is not the ‘catalyst’ for violence. What’s behind the violence is the loss of power by the Sunni Baathist elite and their efforts to get it back. Your metaphor implies that when the ‘catalyst’ is removed, the ‘chemical reaction’ will stop. But we have no good reason to expect that to happen. So ‘catalyst’ is a lousy metaphor. Has exposed to Muslims (and, indeed, the wider world) numerous weaknesses in American warfighting capabilities—I doubt any nation is as half afraid of the U.S. as they were four years ago. You’re nuts. Four years ago, before Afghanistan, there were many, many ‘experts’ who argued that US air power with a few special forces, and some rag-tag militias could not possibly succeed where the Soviets had failed (and the British before them). And even after Afghanistan, there were many predictions that Baghdad would turn into another Stalingrad (type ‘Baghdad AND Stalingrad’ into Google—there’ still some pretty entertaining stuff there). After Iraq and Afghanistan, few governments could feel comfortable that they could hold out even for a few weeks against an American invasion—and that was not the general belief four years ago. Where weaknesses have cropped up, of course, are in occupation and “nation building”, but it’s not much comfort to a tyrant to know that after he was gone, the US would likely run into difficulty trying to establish a democratic government in his place. The occupation has been a mistake of historic proportions, and continuing it is not in the American interest. That’s reason enough to end it today. Withdrawing and allowing a Baathist insurgency (allied with Al Queda) to regain control of Iraq (or a large part of it) or even callously allowing Iraq to descend into a vicious, all-out civil war (whoever ends up winning) would be a mistake of historic proportions.

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:28 +0000

But jlw, ape-like chest beating is all that’s left to us.

By: jlw

jlw — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:14:46 +0000

Shit, this isn’t hard. Set aside all the macho postering and apelike chest beating—In what way is the occupation forwarding American interests in the region? I can’t find any angle where one can make the argument that it does. Fostering democracy? Draining the “swamps” that breed terrorists? Scaring the bejeezus out of Ay-rabs? No, no, and most surprisingly no. Rather, the occupation seems to be a catalyst for violence that will lead at best to an autocract; it has blooded a whole new generation of jihadis, and has given them a rallying cry for further operations; and has exposed to Muslims (and, indeed, the wider world) numerous weaknesses in American warfighting capabilities—I doubt any nation is as half afraid of the U.S. as they were four years ago. Extending the occupation another year or two will not reverse those trends, but would rather lead to more repression in Iraq, more anti-Americanism in the Muslim community (and elsewhere) and a further degradation of American war-fighting ability. The occupation has been a mistake of historic proportions, and continuing it is not in the American interest. That’s reason enough to end it today.

By: c

Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:56:19 +0000

Baathist or democraticly electic islamist. Which to choice? ps. we all know the answer