I think that Saddam’s forces planned exactly what we’re seeing, having learned from the first Gulf War that their formal military was useless and helpless. So I don’t think that we won much.

Not to the Iraqis, it’s not.

The “correct” frame depends on the particular spin you want to put in it, right?

And the spin you put on it depends on your goals.

I have the goal of getting our army safely out of iraq, where we are doing nobody any good. (With the possible exception of kurdistan where they seem to like us. We appear to be their only possible ally except for israel, russia, and china, and they might want us to stay there. My mnain concern about keeping bases there is that they are landlocked and our supplies would have to go through potentially-hostile territory or through potentially-hostile airspace, namely through syria, turkey, iran, or iraq. However, it’s possible that one of the goals for the coming attack on iran is to get a seaport for kurdistan, which would settle that objection, if it succeeded.)

At the moment, nobody gets to decide on withdrawal except Bush. And he can get all the political advantage he needs by a small redeployment. After the elections, he can do anything he wants for 2 years that doesn’t get him impeached. I don’t know what he intends and neither do you.

The only thing I can do toward my goal of getting the troops successfully disengaged from iraq is to work toward getting Bush impeached. I don’t think that discussing iraq on blogs will have much effect about that. Bloggers have mostly made up their minds.

So my main purpose in posting here is to be able to look back later and say I Told You So.

I don’t knowk what Soru’s purpose is for his spin. He might quite likely have no worse intention than reducing his anxiety level.

Not to the Iraqis, it’s not.

While that’s possible:

1. Bremer is writing his memoirs.

2. Sadr is serving in the assembly

3. Sistani is saying nothing on the issue.

So I think that’s something that can be classified as a minor risk at best.

We can’t promise we’ll stop occupying them and just stay in our bases. It turns into a question of stay or go.

Very likely true. There is (post-Fallujah) no real likelihood of the US retaining bases in Iraq in peacetime, and bases + an ongoing war isn’t a net gain for anyone.

soru

Bush had no intention of doing that back in those days which seem so long ago. He may have no intention of doing it now.

“Except if you dont have insider info, you don’t the faintest idea what the actual questions in the other poll were – as we have shown, the same question and answers can be reported as 75% for or 91% against. This makes them pretty worthless.”

Ignore the poll where you don’t know what the questions were. The question you quoted can be interpreted as 55% for or 91% against. But look at the other questions on the poll. They want security, and they don’t trust the USA at all to get it for them. They don’t trust the USA to do reconstruction. They get scared when they see US forces and try to avoid them. (It really doesn’t matter whether they avoid us because they’re afraid we’ll kill them, or avoid us because they think we attract fire.)

A large minority of the iraqi representative Assembly has signed a demand that US forces pull out. It would be interesting to see how many of the native iraqi representatives have signed it compared to expatriate representatives. But it’s hard to get much information out of iraq.

Anyway, this particular poll does not seem worthless at all to me, though it was done back in November. But as usual with polls you have to be careful what conclusions to draw from it. They didn’t ask the question “How many years should US forces stay in iraq”. They certainly didn’t ask how many years US forces should continue to occupy iraq. Officially we aren’t occupying iraq any more, we handed off sovereignty to Allawi a long time ago. Just, the iraqi military takes its orders from us, and we do whatever we want, we can’t be tried in iraqi courts and our contractors can’t be tried in any court, that sort of thing. There’s a subtle legal distinction between what we’re doing and occupation. Since we can’t say we’re occupying the country, we can’t make the distinction between what israel does in palestine versus what the USA does in germany. We can’t promise we’ll stop occupying them and just stay in our bases. It turns into a question of stay or go.

Completely agree.

It’s just that later, with Sadr and Fallujah, it was very nearly lost again, and only recovered from by a bit of luck, and a lot of blood and sweat.

It’s perfectly possible for a similar screw-up to happen again. Here’s hoping it doesn’t.

Various americans pointed out that we hadn’t withdrawn from germany yet and there was no reason to think we’d ever, ever withdraw from iraq.

But that’s just playing with semantics, and in a rather dangerous way. There may happen to be US troops in germany, but it is not occupied, there is very little about german society that would change if the troops there left.

Palestine on the other hand, is still genuinely occupied after 30+ years, and you can’t make the same claim.

Anyone who has visited both countries will know that claiming they are the same is a flat out lie. But, not everyone in the world has visited both places, they may just look at a map of where troops are and think ‘what is the difference?’

And that’s a major fuel for the part of the insurgency that is not ba’athist or jihadist. Making that claim, knowing it to be a lie and knowing the likely consequences, is a pretty despicable act.

soru

Militarily, the war was completely won in the first three weeks. End of story. Sadr was irrelevant, he said he wanted us to withdraw, and we said we were going to kill him or put him in Abu Ghraib. The conflict with Al Sadr was a war of choice for us. We didn’t need to fight him at all, and it hurt us to do it—despite our military “victory” which Sistani interrupted.

If we had announced that we did intend to withdraw, but we wanted to leave things orderly and it would take as long as a year, then Al Sadr wouldn’t have had much support for military action and the whole resistance would have been dramatically weakened. But Bush refused to say anything like that. Withdrawal was not the plan. Bush had no intention of withdrawing at all. Various americans pointed out that we hadn’t withdrawn from germany yet and there was no reason to think we’d ever, ever withdraw from iraq.

About the time of the Sistani-imposed truce with Al Sadr, various military guys claimed that Bremer started it, that they didn’t make the decisions. But they had been pretty enthusiastic in their kill-or-capture operations against Al Sadr, If they’d shirked on that a little, Bremer wouldn’t have found out.

“The only requirement is to successfully get out in a way that avoids turning that victory into a defeat.”

Well, yes. Getting out without a defeat would be very very nice. That ought to be the goal now, and I think if we do it carefully it’s possible.

“This means a voluntary, planned withdrawl, not one forced by domestic political pressure, or one that looks like it was.”

Sure, but what’s the evidence that we’re planning one? What I see being planned is a reduction in forces—one demanded by our military manpower crisis. Scheduled before the November elections this year. I have no real clue what the Bush administration is planning beyond that, and neither do you.

If it happens that we aren’t actually planning a withdrawal but only an occupation with fewer troops, then the chance of a successful withdrawal is small.

One is that if you kill or capture the people, the idea will still exist, and inspire a new generation to new acts of violence.

The other is that if you defeat the idea, the people will still exist, may still manage to huddle somewhere in some obscure cave.

Pick which view you prefer.

soru

It sounds as though you are still pushing a version of the flypaper theory, but I think that the US is more tied down in Iraq now than al Qaeda is.

I am not in any way claiming it was worth it, at least from an US point of view, merely making an argument about what the best way to proceed is now.

In my view, a lot of people have been asking the wrong question: ‘was al qaeda involved with saddam, was al qaeda present in iraq’?

Phrasing things that way seems to have confused both sides, as the ambiguous and vague ties that seem to have existed don’t really provide a moral justification for anything, but do seem to have had a big pragmatic effect on the tactics and effectiveness of the insurgency.

I would say the right way to frame this question in the present circumstance is: ‘can al qaeda be defeated in Iraq?’

soru

Actually, I would expect that to be relatively quickly, starting this year if nothing unexpected happens.

Militarily (i.e. as a matter of counter-insurgency, see other posts on this blog for a primer) the war is won, has been for over a year ever since Sadr failed to organise a unified national resistance movement.

The only requirement is to successfully get out in a way that avoids turning that victory into a defeat.

This means a voluntary, planned withdrawl, not one forced by domestic political pressure, or one that looks like it was.

If we include those with the get-out iraqis instead of the stay-put iraqis, it’s 91% that want us out pretty quick.

Except if you dont have insider info, you don’t the faintest idea what the actual questions in the other poll were – as we have shown, the same question and answers can be reported as 75% for or 91% against. This makes them pretty worthless.

soru

First, I said that I wasn’t convinced that your desire for a liberal/left-wing party was genuine, in that you’d actually want the existence of a party with the traits that you subsequently described. Being able to describe such a party in the abstract isn’t at all the same thing—which was the entire point of my post, come to think of it—so no, rattling off a laundry-list of policy positions doesn’t accomplish much.

Second, of course I’m wrong about some things. That’s a vacuous claim at best. Whether I’m wrong about things that pertain to this particular matter is a completely different question, and one that you’ve not yet begun to address in any meaningful way. Of course, should you wish to recant your errant nonsense about how liberals and left-wingers have no understanding of history or of foreigners and foreign countries or of the rationales behind war—which is, to be generous, BS —this could all change. And who knows? I might be convinced that what you profess to desire is actually what you want.

Soros, here’s the actual poll.

Check questions 31 and 32.

Q31 - Since the war, how do you feel about the way in which the United States and other Coalition Forces have carried out their responsibilities in Iraq?

Base = All respondents who heard of the Coalition Forces (Q19)
Have they done … Count %
A very good job 164 9.6
Quite a good job 454 26.6
Quite a bad job 322 18.8
A very bad job 679 39.8
I do not know enough about it 47 2.7
I prefer not to answer this question 41 2.4
Total 1707 100.0

Q32 - Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition Forces in Iraq?
Base = All respondents who heard of the Coalition Forces (Q19)
Count %
Strongly support 218 12.8
Somewhat support 330 19.4
Somewhat oppose 355 20.8
Strongly oppose 746 43.7
Difficult to say 58 3.4
Total 1707 100.0

58% say we’ve done a bad job, 36% say we’ve done a good job.

64% oppose our presence, 32% support our presence.

Consider question 38. The people who think security has improved mention coalition forces 1st or 2nd about 5% of the time. We come in 8th on the list, where Don’t Know/NA comes in third.

But the ones who think security has deteriorated attribute it to coalition forces 33% of the time, we’re the first on that list.

Getting US forces out of iraq is one of the top three priorities for 25% of the sample, we came in fifth after regaining security, rebuilding infrastructure, establishing a stable national government, and getting a decent living for most iraqis. It ranked above rebuilding the economy, increasing oil production, rebuilding education, etc. (Q14A)

Q10 —What would be the worst thing that could happen to Iraq in the next 12 months? The occupation not leaving came in fourth, ahead of Division of the Country, No government, Current situation continues, No services, etc.

You interpreted Q32 to say that 51% of iraqis don’t want us to leave soon. But the way it went, 45% said we should leave when the government is in place (that should be by April at the latest). Another 31% said we should stay until security is restored. You figure that will be a long time, but maybe they think it will be pretty quick. Another 15% thinks we should stay until their security forces can act independently. Again you figure that’s a long time, but they likely expect it to be very soon. If we include those with the get-out iraqis instead of the stay-put iraqis, it’s 91% that want us out pretty quick. Which way should it get interpreted? I dunno, but the other questions I quoted look less ambiguous than that one.

Incidentally, Q22 is interesting in itself.

When they asked people about political actions they have done, might do, or would never do, 65% said they’d never join a political party. 64% said they’d never take action like demonstrating. And 22% told the polsters they’d never talk with other people about politics!

These are people who’ve lived a long time with secret police. Two thirds of them say they oppose the presence of coalition forces. Only 4.3% say that getting us out of iraq is no priority at all. (Q14B) Rather like the Q33 4.5% who said we should stay forever or leave eventually. These are likely to be the ones who still don’t trust pollsters not to turn them in to the secret police. On the other hand, some of them might be kurds.