Christ, what a bloodbath this is going to be. Shias have a numbers advantage, but the Sunnis from the descriptions of the raids they carry out seem to be better trained.

Sunnis made up the officer corps of the old Iraqi army. I suspect, too, that when the Shi'ite-Sunni war kicks into high gear, the Kurds will finally say, "Fuck this," and declare Kurdistan. With all the attendant bloodshed you can expect from that.

I immediately thought of We Regret to Inform You..., too. So, so horrible.

Question: is this a reason for American troops to stay?

I don't think our staying will stop what's about to happen. Baghdad is too large and too mixed for troops to stand between the various sides.

We have two options: leave, and hopefully at least have the heart to be ashamed of what we've fucked up, or stay (number of troops regardless, it will still be insufficient) and watch things fall apart around us. I'm sure at least some will come forward now (if they can finally stop denying what's happening) and say, "Look at what's happening -- we can't leave now." Not that we could do much to stop it.

Or, I guess, we could stay and fuck things up further. That's probably the default option by now, isn't it?

Question: is this a reason for American troops to stay?

I think leaving is a matter of when, not if. I think as the situation goes downhill we're going to see an uptick in our casualty rate, and that coupled with the toll being taken by multiple tours and equipment getting beaten up is going to force us out.

I have a bad feeling we're going to end up having to fight our way out of Iraq.

This is tearing me apart, because at precisely this point in any other failed-nation scenario, I would say, we need to go in there as quickly as possible and stop the ethnic cleansing. I've been opposed to this war since the idea was first floated in 2001, but how can I now argue for withdrawal? The correct moral choice seems more clear now than ever: we must stay and try to stave off the ethnic cleansing that will happen, and is already happening. I don't think we can really stop it. But these people are in more dire need of our humanitarian aid than ever.

Again, I want to make it clear that I've been a cautious supporter of phased withdrawal until today. These events have really turned me around.

we must stay and try to stave off the ethnic cleansing

How?

The third option is to start bombing Iran and let Iraq, like Afghanistan, fade into obscurity.

I don't know.

I think 7 is probably right.

Oh well, if we fight our way out, at least it'll clear the consciences of the folks who, like me and Jody, have lingering feelings of responsibility. And really, that's the most important issue here.

Joe's argument is the one I had in mind when I asked the question. It feels perverse to leave when this is happening, when we (liberals) usually argue for intervening. But maybe it's true that as a practical matter, we're only making things worse. Awful.

Unfortunately, this goes back to the "never should have gone in to begin with" conundrum.

when we (liberals) usually argue for intervening

Not this liberal.

What's the worst option here? I guess it's the most likely option, since it's what we've been doing: arming death squads and siding with certain militias over others, precipitating the rise of another Saddam-like strongman. Yeah, I guess that's pretty terrible. Is it worse than what happened in the Balkans in the 90s? I don't know. It depends on how many civilians are killed, I guess. That's the only worthwhile metric in a humanitarian mission. it might actually be the same result, actually.

I'm just on the side of preventing genocide whenever it's remotely possible, I guess.

Not this liberal.

Tutsi killer.

13/15: If it weren't that Ogged isn't *really* an American, I'd say that this distinction kinda emphasizes the only reason I think I'm still on the fence about just leaving: that American sense that *anything* can be fixed, coupled with the belief that we (I) are the ones to do it. It's remarkably hard to put that behind one.

I'm sure that it's easier for Apo to be all pessimistic, given that Southerners aren't really Americans, either.

And really it comes back to some of the initiial warnings by guys like Shinseki. Even if we want to intervene, the reality is a country the size and population of Iraq would take several hundred thousand troops. It'd take an army we don't have.

Strike at least two instances of the phrase "I guess" from 16. Possibly 3. I don't want to qualify my opposition to genocide, come to think of it.

Joe D: Objectively anti-genocide.

I take it that Joe's stating a view I was trying to get at a couple of weeks ago, which basically has to do with everyone saying hundreds of thousands more will die in a full on civil war (by the by, what's the sourcing on that figure). But I don't see how hanging around for a year or two more avoids this result. Perhaps hanging around for fifty years or so and giving up on a democratic government might avoid this result, but the costs of that don't seem worth it, nor should they be on the table.

16: The way I see it, the worst option that doesn't involve mushroom clouds is that Baghdad turns into 1980s Beirut, with seventy jillion militias all operating at cross-purposes, with constantly shifting alliances and betrayals, no central government, and every country in the region with their finger in the pie, stretched out over a decade or longer. Our role in this version most closely resembles Israel's in the last one, which certainly doesn't bode well.

That is to say, I think the worst option has already been forced upon us, regardless of whether we stay or go, unless we're prepared to triple or quadruple the size of our military.

That sounds like a nightmare.

Honestly, what surprises me the most about the current situation is that it took three and a half years to get here. I thought it would arrive much sooner.

Oh hey, speaking of Beirut.

This liberal doesn't advocate intervention when there's a remote possibility of success either, but only on Powell-like principles.

I don't know whether the situation would be better or worse with our absence. If worse, I do think it would end up petering out as the various factions reached some kind of exhaustion/equilibrium.

I have been drifting a little against the current with this one however. It seems to me that our primary national interest here is not in preventing genocide, but in preventing the creation/emergence of a AQ tolerant failed state. One faction is (a) strongly in favor of Iraqi unity (at least of the Arab provinces) and (b) aggressively going after self-proclaimed AQ affiliates. That is the Jaish al-Mahdī. Yes, this faction wants us out on a definite timetable too. Good. So, can we not kill three birds with one stone, by making a deal with al-Sadr that has us beating on AQ as we prepare to leave?

I can't add anything intelligent here, but Andrew at Obsidian Wings had a disturbing analysis of the logistics of a pullout a few months back:

Normally, our forces leave Iraq by first moving to Kuwait and then flying to the United States. If we decide to pull all of our forces out of Iraq, they would either have to move all of their equipment south to Kuwait in order to return it to the U.S., or abandon millions of dollars worth of equipment.

Given how much the war has already cost, abandoning the equipment seems fiscally unwise, and it would also provide a major propaganda coup to our enemies, so that's not a good answer. Therefore we'd have to gather all of our forces, probably going from north to south, and evacuate the country in stages.

This would not be a simple matter of putting together convoys and driving south. The level of violence in Iraq would probably grow significantly worse once it was clear we were leaving, as power groups began jockeying for position and as terrorist groups sought to present the impression that we were withdrawing under great pressure from their forces. There are few more difficult military operations than a withdrawal while in contact, and that's when you're fighting a conventional battle with relatively clean lines.

Extricating ourselves from the middle of cities could lead to fighting that would make Mogadishu look like a walk in the park. While there is no way to know how many civilians were killed during the battle of Mogadishu, an American force trying to leave Baghdad under fire would likely cause many more. Unless the enemy were to decide to simply allow the American forces to leave Iraq, a pullout would not be a simple operation.

While admitting that Apostropher's probably right, and that I'm enormously glad I don't have responsibility for making these decisions, I'm with Joe. I cannot believe what we've done.

. It feels perverse to leave when this is happening, when we (liberals) usually argue for intervening. But maybe it's true that as a practical matter, we're only making things worse.

I've been wondering lately if this has been wishful thinking or rationalization on the part of liberals. I can't see how hanging around, absent another 300,000 troops, will stabilize the situation, but the idea that if we left the civil war would lessen seems to me unlikely.

This is why we should not start stupid wars.

This situation has definitely proven that the US government is not hiding secret time-machine technology. I can't imagine a situation where it would be more desirable to go back in time and convince the policy-makers to not do something.

2: the Kurds will finally say, "Fuck this," and declare Kurdistan.

Only if they want the Turks and Iranians stepping in to "help" stabilize Iraq. The Kurds have an interest (for the near future) in maintaining the fig-leaf of Iraq as a country.

28: The US forces still have an overwhelming edge when it comes to conventional combat. Driving back to Kuwait wouldn't be any more difficult than driving to Baghdad. Of course, we can expect the politicians to order the pull-out during the sandstorm season, where air power is difficult to use and the land vehicles break down.

Here's an interesting idea of the way things might turn out after all the blood has soaked into the sand:

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006//06/1833899

In terms of worst-case scenarios, I just hope that meddling neighbor-states content themselves to working through proxies.

Well, not "hope".

How?

This is a bit of an unfair question, Apo, in so far as Joe isn't supposed to be able to answer such questions.

I eventually decided against withdrawal b/c I felt it would lead to catastrophic political consequences for dems. It doesn't matter if a majority of the public doesn't feel like being in Iraq, what matters is what the public would feel after we withdrew, and things went nuts.

Of course we have to stay. Our military is still voluntary, and still largely behind staying. We're not exactly forcing young people to go fight a war they don't want to fight. (yes, the extended tours of duty makes this distinction less clear, but I don't think it defeats it.) The war is a terrible cost of manpower, money, and other resources, but we've firmly backed ourselves into a corner.

What can we do? We can provide some safety. It's better than nothing. And at this point, we're there, and we have to try. We can't just turn our backs. Even if we surrender baghdad, we have large bases that can probably house refugees, and we can perhaps protect other parts of the country, also for refugees.

33:Neighbor-states don't really have the armies anymore to do much else than work thru proxies. I suppose Iran might be able to take Basra for example, but I don't think they could productively hold it, and the US could give them hell by air.

Healing Iraq ...the blog; state of play

34 is incredibly important, and apparently impossible to convince Dems about. The left always loses lost wars; it doesn't matter who or who or how Vietnam was lost:Reagan came along and said:"I can make you feel tough and strong and righteous again. Let's go beat up somebody."

As did Kennedy for that matter; but that was a different era for Democrats.

I actually met Zeyad (of Healing Iraq fame) the other day in Manhattan for an hour or so. He seems to be as good a guy as you'd expect from his weblog, and to be dealing with the situation as well as one possibly could. But oy--if you think you feel guilty now, try meeting an Iraqi almost exactly your age, with similar career aspirations to you and twice the talent, who is trying to write stories on Brooklyn politics while his hometown goes up in flames and he wonders if his family will live through the week.

The correct moral choice seems more clear now than ever: we must stay and try to stave off the ethnic cleansing that will happen, and is already happening

I went to a panel on Iraq just a few days before the election with Juan Cole, George Packer, Anthony Shadid, and some British dude whose name I'm forgetting, Rory something, and he said something that really stuck with. It was something like "People keep saying that we ought to stay there and fix it. But "ought" implies "can," and we can't have a moral obligation to do something we can not do."

I don't know if that's right, but it was persuasive at the time. All of the members of the panel were quite convinced that our staying there could not and would not have a positive effect on the situation.

I never wrote up this panel; perhaps I should do so now. It clarified things a lot for me.

Rory Stewart?

Yup, that's the one. Incredibly engaging and bright speaker.

we can't have a moral obligation to do something we can not do."

Exactly right. At this point it's like putting 90 year-old parents into intensive care for nasty procedures that don't do more than prolong the dying. That is, if not actually immoral, actually done to allow the kids to feel good, not for any benefit to the patient.

41: I think a certain amount of `making the kids feel good' is pretty much unavoidable at this point. Dealing with failure is not a strong point of the US after all. Bottom line is, the US & UK went into the country, tore apart the civil service and military, blew up much of the infrastructure, bumbled all political efforts at reconstruction, caused the death of 10's if not 100's of thousands of civilians, and ripped off billions of dollars. Every person in the US and the UK bears a little bit of responsibility for this --- but that doesn't mean most of them are ready to swallow it. At this point it is pretty much inconceivable that the country will not be left in vastly worse shape than when it was invaded, and no about of furious media spin will affect where the blame mostly lies.

In terms of negative consequences for the Democrats, what would keep the news media from ignoring the clusterfuck in Iraq just like they do now with Afghanistan and with tons of other conflicts?

I googled Stewart and read an article of his. I'm now depressed beyond words. Thanks, leblanc.

The ready reserve thing makes "it's a volunteer army" not work for me. Actually, it shouldn't work anyway. They did not volunteer to die in ineffectual wars that we aren't mature enough to admit are already lost.

At the same time, if we can still do some good, we have an obligation--and as bad as things are, it can usually be worse. But more and more I think it's too late.

This is a bit of an unfair question

It's not only a fair question, it's an essential question. We don't ask our forces to do the impossible. If nobody has a decent idea how we're going to prevent the looming bloodbath, then that's a pretty clear indicator of what we need to do.

We're going to leave eventually, and I guarantee that when we leave, the situation will be worse than it is now. So I'll resubmit John Kerry's question: How do you ask somebody to be the last man to die for a mistake?

And more crassly, we've already spent half a trillion dollars on this goddamned idiocy. How many trillions more are the stay-the-coursers here prepared to spend before we say it's no longer worth it?

Yeah, listening to him was pretty sobering. I heard him two days before the election, when I was secretly convinced that the Republicans were going to win it all anyway, and I just sat for 45 minutes in the Daley Plaza drinking a cup of coffee and thinking "fuck."

It seems like the main tension is between what apo just said (when we leave, the situation will be worse than it is now), which is pretty clearly true, and what Katherine just said ("if we can still do some good, we have an obligation"), which also seems true. Those two taken together seem to point us to not withdrawing. However, I think it's important to not overestimate the extent to which our presence is having any positive effect right now.

People keep saying that Iraq will descend into all-out civil war. It's already there, people. The worst has happened. Yes, I'm sure things can get technically worse. But the nightmare is already here. All we're doing by remaining is giving the people who are there a hope to hold on to that someone will bail them out by taking out the other side, and also providing a foreign evil that legitimized the insurgency. We're not helping anything, and we haven't been for a while. Our attempts to build infrastructure and a government have mostly failed. Our only certain accomplishment has been destruction.

Yes, this is doom and gloom. But it's that bad. It has been, before this.

I am perfectly happy to know that I don't know what we should do in this situation. It is totally fucked up and I'm an eighteenth-century scholar who knows nothing about conflict resolution. However, it seems that, for the past five years, I seem to have known more than anyone in our government about what not to do in the Middle East. There is a certain amount of satisfaction one can get, sitting in one's pajamas thinking about how one knows so so much about military strategy, but this satisfaction fades when one realizes that, holy fuck, people are dying because stupid people are deciding where to point billions of dollars' worth of guns.

When shit like this blows up, it makes me wish, harder than ever, that we had really really smart people advising our government.

Back when I was a polisci minor in college, I took a class called "Violence" about terrorism and conflict resolution. It was brilliant, interesting stuff. The professor of that class wrote briefs for Clinton about how to take the heat off of potentially disastrous situations. Who is advising Bush now? Someone who thinks those movies where shit blows up are cool?

From this Rory Stewart piece:

What expertise foreign officials build up is continually lost as each one leaves and is replaced: every six months for the British military and US marines, every 12 months for the US military and some civilians. There are very few people on the ground who can even remember the final days of the CPA. There is almost nobody who has worked in Iraq continuously since the invasion, which was less than two years ago.

This is how bad it is, this is how little we understand Iraq. And there's more.

The gap between the way foreigners talk about Iraq and the reality is monstrous. Our political vocabulary - 'rogue states', 'nation-building intervention', 'WMD', 'neo-imperialism', 'terrorism' - is useless. Does anyone know how to govern Iraq, or what the country will look like in five years' time, or what effect this will have on the international system?

Critics are no better informed than members of the administration. Many authorities on Iraq have spent little or no time there. The most to be hoped for of a foreigner's book published today would be the equivalent of an account of Britain written by a non-English-speaking Arab who had spent 18 months in the country, unable to travel freely. But the generals, the journalists, the academics, the politicians (Iraqi or foreign), the diplomats and the aid workers rarely admit that they have almost no idea what Iraq is like or is going to be like. Everyone is an expert.

49: There are smart people advising the government, the problem is no one listened. It's as if Bush and Company had a list of everything that had ever been learned about occupations, insurgencies, empires, military force, policing, civil administration, etcetera ad nauseam, and they went down the list deciding how they could handle each factor incorrectly.

One of the things I feel I really understood from reading Bill Clinton's My Life was that being the President mostly involves maintaining a few principles, like "Peace is better than war" and then listening to the smartest people in the world and doing what they say. Whenever BC fails to listen to what the smartest people in the world say, he fucks up. So he listens to them more when the situation is important. It was deeply therapeutic (and infuriating) to read that book as Bush started all his major fucking-up in Iraq.

"But it's that bad" ...it's worse. Always worse.

1) I don't know what Bush/Cheney are doing with all the recent diplomacy. No real clue. The situation could change, eg, bombing Iran.

2) I agree with Gilliard, Bush/Cheney will not serve out their terms. Could be mere months.

3) I don't know if we can pull out. This isn't the last stages of Vietnam. At best it would take months to a year. We are not leaving the electronics, the high-tech equipment behind. Gilliard has been thru this, Andrew of ObsWi, as the force gets smaller it gets harder to protect, a better target, the enemies, who then will be, umm, everybody, will become bitter and emboldened.

3a) Down to 100k, Sadr and militias take the Green Zone, killing everybody, ambassadors, clerks, etc. Then the American President says ok, we just take the loss and run, they beat us, can kill our guys at will, we give up. Right. Reagan didn't really pull out of Beirut, 261 died and he just didn't go back.

3b) On the way out, Iran grabs Basra, just sacrifing 50k grunts. Now that is real near the Kuwait-Baghdad supply lines, but never mind. We bomb Iran outathere, destroying the only Iraqi source of income, and then announce we are leaving?

I don't think we are in control, not even enough to leave with our tail between our legs.

41:Not your 90-yr-old parents, but your 5-yr-old kid. You give up control and just let the kid die when? Ok doc, nothing can be done? Maybe, it happens. It is total hell, and you want to die yourself. This hasn't even begun to get as bad for Americans as it is going to get.

Oh, there will be a price to pay. Nobody is gonna wanna pay the price, most people don't even want to look at it. Liberals think we just walk away, and spend the peace dividend. Your life is shit after this.

Think 1970s.

I'm saying it could be worse not because I think it's NOT a civil war now, but simply that the rule of the last 100-odd years of geopolitics is "it could always be worse."

That said, it may always be true that it immediately worsens when we leave, and we can't stay there forever. I am inclined towards supporting withdrawal. But I do think in the short run it will get even more awful. At this point I'm thinking more about things like refugee policy than anything else.

It's an odd sort of exodus they're experiencing, because it does seem to be possible to get into Jordan, Syria, and Turkey. So you don't see refugee camps on the border...I need to learn more about it.

There was an interesting interview with Rory Steward by Leonard Lopate last week; it's archived here.

53: mmmhmm. I was inarticulate about that part above, but the idea that one could just walk away from this as if it hadn't happened is laughable. There is some room for damage control, and some question of how bad it will get, but it's going to be bad. Even just dealing with the debt run up by this admin isn't going to be comfortable, and the political capital squandered on this idiocy is hard to underestimate. And that's just the start.

Afghanistan is a substansive failure too, and only the focus on Iraq has kept that out of the public eye (well, that and apathy). Sure, the US helped the `northern alliance' win, but afaics that's pretty much the same people who ran the country into the ground post-USSR occupation, and set the stage for the taliban success. So has anything been achieved other than beating up an already trashed infrastructure, killed a bunch of civilians, and then reset to 1990? Maybe if (when?) the taliban takes over again, bush could beg them to rename first so he can still claim some sort of victory there.

People keep saying that Iraq will descend into all-out civil war.

Over the holiday, the local paper at my parents' house had headlines that read 'Iraq slides towards civil war', and all I could think is how isn't already a civil war. There are thousands of casualties every month, and most of them aren't American. Who do they think has been dying?

48: I think the question is not the short-term but the long-term. The near future is going to be awful, either way. But the five-ten year picture?

I have no clue.

57: Yeah, the short term is going to suck regardless, but the long term has so many variables.

It's frustrating. Before the invasion, I was absolutely certain it was a bad idea, and even if it weren't having it run by this bunch of chuckleheads would pretty much guarantee failure -- so it was lose/lose. No ambiguity. Even if my pathetic efforts amounted a few letters and a bit of bitching, I knew who to bitch at, and about what.

Now though? I don't feel I have any competence whatsoever to judge what the most effective way out is. It's pretty easy to come up with: don't make things worse by attacking Iran. Beyond that? I don't know. And reading people who clearly know a lot more than I do isn't showing any sort of consensus.

50: It's really the last part that you quoted that resonates for me, particularly after listening to a Fresh Air interview of Stewart. The problem isn't simply that we don't know whether it will be better or worse for the Iraqis if we stay; the problem is that we don't have any idea how to apply concepts like "better" or "worse" to Iraq. If the Shia win and impose sharia law, it might mean that unaccompanied women are more likely to be raped than they would have been under Saddam, and that if they are raped, they are more likely to be punished or even killed for having been the victim. And most tragically of all, that might be a good outcome. Or there might be an ethnic cleansing of the Sunni or the Kurds. And that might be a good thing. We just have no ability to judge at all, not because of some series of mistakes we've made, but because of the nature of the thing. And, from what Stewart says, the Iraqis are only marginally better situated to make such a judgment. All of our attempts at fine-grained moral calculation amount to futile posturing. Here's someone who at least I find credible who thinks the small footprint was the way to go, and that heavy-handed attempts to limit disorder are mistakes. And all this while knowing the chaos that will result.

I just can't believe it.

We don't even have a good grip on who the different sides are, much less how to keep them apart. It's been clear from the get-go that our intelligence on the ground is next to non-existent.

I maintain, as I long have, and wrote about today, that it's in the hands of Moqtada al-Sadr now. It's been a civil war for months now, and the Thanksgiving massacre has merely pushed it beyone everyone's denial.

Sure, he doesn't rule the chaos of the day. Anyone would be stupid to rein in the mobs at the height of their passion. But that passion will abate enough in a few days, to grant him that opening.

In the meantime, the ONLY way the White House can help quell the current fire is to deliver a timetable - or a promise of one by Christmas - when Bush meets with al-Maliki on Wednesday.

As for the perception of a genocide waiting in the wings, I think that's largely overblown. Many of the strongest Saddam loyalists have already been taken out. al-Sadr will likely pursue the rest of them, and a few Sunni military leaders, but I expect he's more interested in healing the rifts between Shias and Sunnis, as soon as practicable, rather than a Sunni genocide.

The biggest questions are whether the Bushies will try to take out al-Sadr, and whether they'll succeed. If they do, they'll ensure continued chaos and bloodshed.

And, unfortunately, they have a penchant for always choosing wrong.

53: Then the American President says ok, we just take the loss and run, they beat us, can kill our guys at will, we give up. Right. Reagan didn't really pull out of Beirut, 261 died and he just didn't go back.

With bob I can never tell if comments like this are meant to be serious or bitter irony. But of course Reagan did pull out of Beirut. He even gave the rhetorical prototype for how to do this (say "we will not cut and run" and complain about how terrorists "think they can gain by waging war against innocenet people," then reassure everyone you are just "concentrating your forces" in order to "take the initiative away from the terrorists"). Nobody serious believes you, but the rhetoric is just cover anyway, the thing is to get your troops the hell out of a situation you know is going to eat you alive.

Of course Reagan only had to do this with 1,400 Marines. It's a whole other trick doing that with 140,000 troops, and "ugly" isn't even going to begin to describe it. Moreover, a large number of people are going to be pissed about the wasted investment of those "enduring bases," and the Middle East left behind will be a mess, hostile to American influence for a generation. But that ship has already sailed -- the longer it's put off, the worse it's going to be.

But that ship has already sailed -- the longer it's put off, the worse it's going to be.

And that's a crap sentence. But you know what I mean.

It seems to me that the allegiances of people in Iraq are more fluid than one might suspect. Remember when Ayatollah al-Sistani was the most powerful man in Iraq and if he endorsed a government the Shiite masses would go along? Well, the masses seem to have decided that he is an old fogy and Moqtada al-Sadr is the wave of the future.

That is to say, that theoretically if the United States had convinced other countries to help (this is assuming a fantasy world where Saddam posed some sort of threat to international order and therefore other countries would think it was a good idea to help), and been an honest broker more than 0% of the time, there could have been a non-violent coalition government by now. If there was some leader in Iraq who could be convinced A) to be non-violent and B) that the American invasion was a good idea, that is. The fact that there was no such leader pretty much shows that nobody in the Pentagon or White House had thought about what sort of post-Saddam government was desirable. Which pretty much shows that they didn't care about the Iraqi people, unlike at least a few Iraqi leaders who might possibly have been on our side once upon a time.

I guess this comment is aimed at people who still think the invasion was perpetrated with good intentions, none of whom are in this blog community. Oh well, print it out and mail it to them.

64: Oh, they thought about what sort of post-Saddam government was desireable. They wanted the sort that spontaneously gets behind the US picked leader and magically makes a state with all the advantages of a puppet dictator but with a plausible democratic sheen. One that would beg to suck US corporate cock while simultaneously ceding US basing rights and turning a cold shoulder to EU governments.

They also wanted a pony.

It's a whole other trick doing that with 140,000 troops, and "ugly" isn't even going to begin to describe it.

The current US military was designed to fight a highly mobile war against massed Soviet armies, using air superiority to enable the ground troops to get where they wanted to go. Getting 140K troops out would be easy enough if ugly isn't a consideration.

Once Operation Retrograde Advance starts no one will care what happens to any nasty uglies who get in the way of our respecting to the sovereign will of the noble Iraqi people.

Staying in Iraq is costing a lot in blood and treasure while not doing anything for the United States. Therefore we should leave. Seems simple enough to me but then I am not a liberal.

67: just curious: but as a `not a liberal', do you feel there is any moral obligation to help clean up the mess?

actually, strike `moral' in 68

68,69 Since no one seems to know how to clean up the mess this question does not really apply here. In general I think the United States should pursue its self interest. In the long run this means helping others when the costs are reasonable. However the results of our efforts to date to help Iraqis suggest further such efforts would not be wise.

I think we have an obligation to clean up the mess; but I don't think it is possible for us to do so. The question of whether it's "better" to leave or stay depends on for whom: for us? To leave. For Iraq, broadly speaking? Probably marginally better if we stay, if only because we serve as a lightning rod (although yesterday's developments suggest, to me, that we're becoming more irrelevant).

I read something this morning, I forget what (such a helpful and contentful comment, this), that brought me over to the "we should pull out" side. In that case, though, the question becomes not just when, but how. What do we owe the people who have worked, in good faith, with U.S. troops? What about refugee policies? What resources are we able and willing to expend on mitigating, however marginally, the suffering/deaths of some Iraqis?

How do countries ever emerge from civil war? I really don't know what shifts bring about peace in other situations. Besides rain.

I'm afraid of the rain.

Smallminded as I am, I think that the most important question is whether the people responsible in the US (policy-makers and pundits) are removed from power and called to account. They should be disgraced and marginalized for the rest of their natural lives, and prosecuted to the extent possible. From here on out they should have the same status as the isolationists and apologists for Hitler did after 1941. Voices crying in the wilderness, once-famous people.

There's no assurance of that. My prediction of war with Iran before the election didn't come to pass (thank Dospog!) but Bush will be sorely tempted as his administration disintegrates, and if his administration doesn't disintegrate he certainly will attack Iran.

So getting him (and Cheney) out before they do more harm is the most imprtant thing. And that's not political score-settling.

Disabling the pro-war political movement as far as the political process and public opinion goes is equally necessary, because those people still completely believe their own lies, and they're already planning a counterattack against the Democrats.

As for Iraq itself, the sooner out the better. The usual practice is to destroy weapons left behind. I don't think that a staged withdrawal should be that difficult now, though it may become so. It's been a long time since we had any non-disastrous options.

There's no assurance of that.

Sadly, I think the assurance runs the other way.

As far as I can tell, the American dynamic is to stay in until we absolutely have to get out, in which case getting the troops out safely will be genuinely difficult. The villains will then proceed to point out that the hippies are to blame, and the media will back them up.

I would just feel bad about abandoning Riverbend to the powerdrillers. E'en tho it might be her wish, I don't think it would be Sadr she curses with her dying breath. And getting Riverbend out misses the point, Riverbend has always represented a million to me.

She was not in danger when we went in. I am responsible.

And I am with John, in terms of removing Bush and Cheney from office and installing a Democrat. Tomorrow. By any means necessary. This is responsibility, not some sentimental attachment to means, process, rule of law. :)

They also wanted a pony.

Jim Henley was on the line -- he just wanted to let you know the pony has been found.

56:
Afghanistan is not a substantive failure as long as the Taliban does not control Afghanistan and the Karzai (or a substitute) regime has a measure of authority. It is true that this authority is eroding to the Taliban, but this is not the same as a total loss
and can be reversed.

As far as the Northern Alliance is concerned, it is true that it bears a measure of responsibility for the chaos in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal, but there is no political formation that does not in Afghanistan. The civil war in the early 90's was between former American proxies like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (who shifted allegiances to Pakistan for a while), Pakistani proxies (the Taliban) and those elements of the other mujahideen, mostly non Pashtun, who wanted to have an independent govt. The most important and sensible of this lot, and the founder of the current Northern Alliance was Ahmed Shah Masud who was assasinated shortly before 9/11 (on 9/7/2001). I do not think the Northern Alliance facilitated the Taliban takeover although the civil war did create the opportunity. Initial Taliban attempts to take over parts of Afghanistan were militarily defeated, after which regular Pakistani Army formations joined and officered the Taliban. Through a combination of bribery and military victories, they took over most of (95%) Afghanistan in 1996-98.

As long as the US maintains a presence in Afghanistan, it is likely to receive help, military and otherwise from other nations in the region in maintaining Afghan stability and rebuffing Taliban attempts. This is a very different situation from Iraq, and there is much more support for an American/multinational presence in Afghanistan. So, I dont think it is a lost cause, unless the US goes back to ignoring Afghanistan completely. And ignoring Afghanistan will be a very big mistake.

"The Blue Flautist"?

Getting the troops out safely should not be a problem. The US military is competent enough given a clearly defined military objective.

The main downside of withdrawing is that the Iraqi government might be unable to sustain current oil export levels. I don't know enough about where the production facilities are relative to the fighting to predict what will happen. However even losing all Iraqi production would not be the end of the world.

81:
It has distinctly non western origins. Make what you will of blue flautists.

79: I'm not convinced that merely keeping the taliban out of power counts as success. From what I've hear Karzai's authority is rapidly becoming irrelevant in large parts of the country.

I also didn't mean to suggest that I think the taliban will neccessarily retake power, or that it was even a given that they would make it in the first place, as you note Pakistan helped there. My point was more that the post USSR factions (which have a fair bit of overlap with current `norther aliance') proved completely dysfunctional -- something had to fill the power gap and the taliban ended up being it. It's not clear that a lot of these warlords have ever moved past it though, or that they are any more likely to form a functional government now than then.

I'm part way convinced the only thing keepin the US in Afghanistan at the moment is the crushing blow a taliban resurgence would deal the current administration. Other than that, they'd love to ignore it. Maybe that's just because I can't classify the efforts made there as ever having been serious about nation (re)building. It is a very different situation in than Iraq, yes, but the approach seems to be keep enough presence there to just barely keep the capital from falling apart, and let the rest of it rot. It's hard to see how Karzai can pull anything useful out of it without real support. Unlike Iraq, I think --- probably naively, and definately from some ignorance, Afghanistan is a place where some real progress could have been made if a) there was any political will to do it right, and b) real resources were commited for a longish haul.

79, 83: This is all making me think of Osama, the single grimmest movie I've ever seen. The sense of despair at the end of that movie, for any kind of decent life for a girl in Afghanistan, was overwhelming.

And ignoring Afghanistan will be a very big mistake.

From the very narrow objective of depriving Al Q. of a sanctuary, training area, etc., what's the difference if Iraq become the replacement for Afghanistan?

Sorry, can't really keep up with the argument, and I'm only skimming the thread as is.

Several of you (leblanc, biohazard, apo, maybe katherine) seem to be arguing that since we can't fix Iraq, or stop/prevent the civil war, then we should withdraw. But just because we can't control the situation doesn't mean we're not having an effect on it.

Maybe we'll have to pull back to our (very large) bases. We can still run humanitarian operations there. We can prevent large armies or all-out genocide. If we leave, then one side could just mow down the other with some large-scale operations. Our monopoly on airpower prevents them from doing that while we're around.

Another point to consider: the Sunni insurgency has limited manpower. How long can they keep this up? They are not, from what I understand, attracting large amounts of foreign fighters. I do wonder how many casulties they can sustain before the wind goes out of their sails.

Maybe I should turn this into a question. Why is withdrawing altogether a better option than, say, withdrawing out of the hottest spots? Or withdrawing back to our bases? From which we can still wield some influence, but minimize our own casulties.

Why is withdrawing altogether a better option

1. Because being the largest force on the ground in the middle of a civil war means we will eventually find ourselves having to pick a side, when the truth is that we have no allies in the conflict except (perhaps) the Kurds.

2. We've sunk something on the order half a trillion dollars on this exercise already, almost every penny of it deficit spending. Our entire accumulated federal debt is ~8.6 trillion dollars. We can't afford to keep throwing money down this rathole.

3. Withdrawing to bases didn't go so well in Beirut in 1983.

4. Over 70% of Iraqis want us to leave their country.

I do wonder how many casulties they can sustain before the wind goes out of their sails.

This has been a staple of the administration rhetoric for three years now, while we've been killing with abandon. The number, apparently, is quite high indeed.

1. picking a side even semi-arbitrarily seems better than not picking a side.

2. I'm rather uncomfortable with our deficit as well. I still think the costs of leaving (abandonment of all responsibilty, likely republican lock on govt' for a generation) could be worse.

3. sadly, i know nothing.

4. a good point, but they may decide they want our protection after all, soon enough. I know we're playing occupying-power here, which I'm not happy about, but because the consequencces of our actions are so dire, I'm more concerned with them. Is what happens if we accede to public will better or worse than if we don't?

88. ah, missed that. I knew other people had written about that, just didn't know it was the Bushies.

We won't withdraw while Bush is President, so we will be there until at least 2008 (Bush will not be impeached, but Cheney will resign for health reasons). We will probably assist in keeping genocide from occuring, but Iraq will continue to partition the way India/ Pakistan did. Massive displacement, but eventual stability (if you can call a couple of wars stable). Federal oil revenue sharing will help. Kurdistan will not go independent for 50 years.

Packer in TNR made the most positive suggestion yet: get out, and save as many of our friends as possible. That's the only positive purpose I can see to anything we can do from here on out.

I have no idea what Michael or TLL think can be accomplished at this point. To me they're trying to pretend that what happened didn't really happen, and that we didn't really do what we just did there. It seems like some spasm principle of never admitting you're retreating defeated.

I think that we're now facing the possibility of a major military disaster for American troops. What happens after that I have no idea.

We just can't assume that the Republicans will be able to turn their massive fuckup into a political plus. If they're able to do that, then this country is lost forever and not worth saving. If Democrats continue to cringe like that, there's no hope. And we can't continue to make military and foreign policy decisions on the basis of electoral politics.

If Cheney resigns or otherwise leaves office, I hope Bush is impeached and expect that he will be. Not otherwise.

To me they're trying to pretend that what happened didn't really happen,

To me you're inchoherent.

It's a disaster, we've been trying this and trying that for a year or more, but things are getting worse and no one can imagine how they'll get better. Just getting our troops out safely has become an issue. And you guys are playing with these scenarios where somehow good things start happening.

93 gets it exactly right. Civil wars over the past few decades have lasted an average of 7-10 years. How long are y'all committed to staying hunkered down in our bases?

Packer in TNR made the most positive suggestion yet: get out, and save as many of our friends as possible.

No way do we do that. The Republican base is anti-immigration, anti-spend on others, and anti-Muslim. Perhaps we pay for settlement in other countries.

When George Packer starts talking about visas for people who worked with the Americans, it's time to start disaster-planning. Not turning-things-around planning, not snatching-victory-from-the-jaws-of-defeat planning, but refugee planning and humanitarian-assistance-on-a-massive-scale planning.

The Iraqis who believed, even temporarily, in our vision of a democratic Iraq have had giant collaborationist signs on their backs for some time now. It would be decent of us to help out those who still survive.

Meanwhile, back at home, The Republic holds firm:

A homeowners' association in southwestern Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that some say is an anti-Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan.

Everyone! 'Round the hearth we gather!

god, no one is fucking around this blog at this time of night

what the fuck is up with that people

y'all are squaress

yeah, so i went out drinking of a motherfucking monday night. so? that's fucking righht

I'm awake, m.

But I'm going to bed, because it's almost three in the morning.

hi, apostropher. goodnight.

And you guys are playing with these scenarios where somehow good things start happening.

That's really not what I have in my head. As I've said here before, what I fear is Iraq becoming another Rwanda. I think, at the moment, that we can just barely prevent that, using our airpower. I'm not sure what I've written is being interpreted as some happy fantasy, but I assure you that's not how it was meant.

How long are y'all committed to staying hunkered down in our bases?

The people in charge already have ideas of committing us there for many years. The logistics of this is beyond me, but with a partial withdrawal, perhaps its doable. There was a former-Clinton official on NPR yesterday (All Things Considered, I think) saying the same things I've said here, FWIW.

Of course, I could ask a similar question: how long are you willing to give up seeing dem politicians in office if they force a withdrawal? I think 7-10 years would be overly optimistic.

A squaress is a female square. Nice to see the lovely and capable M. upholding our time-hallowed sexist traditions.

Keeping the US Army in Iraq for the sake of the Democratic party in the US is fucked up.

Also, every poll I've seen recently has a solid majority favoring a withdrawal within 12 months. Making the safe assumption that the situation continues to spiral downward, that number is only going to rise. Granted, I'm no math whiz, but I don't see the calculation that turns that into a decade of Republican dominance.

Apo, I don't have the numbers at hand, nor do I think this constitutes an anti-withdrawal argument, but wasn't a solid majority in favor of withdrawal from Vietnam for a good deal of time prior to actual withdrawal? Did withdrawal hurt (and does it continue to hurt) the electoral prospects of Democratic candidates?

How the hell does airpower prevent another Rwanda? In Rwanda, people were chopping up their neighbors with machetes, not massing on big fields to invade the town over.

Seems to me that when Iran becomes the overt sponsor of the Iraqi state (or states?) after having kept just enough of a lid on the place to prevent a tri-partite blood-orgy, the irony will be complete.

Then you'll be able to start all over again with a clean sheet, right? And the dress rehearsal will have helped to iron out the wrinkles in the script.

108: It doesn't. It's astonishing how many people still seem to think overwhelming air superiority is particularly useful at this point.

There will certainly be a Republican attempt to blame whatever happens on the Democrats, but the answer to that is to push back hard, starting (not with a defense) with an aggressive attack against the people who were in the driver's seat (Bush and his crew in the executive). There really have to be recriminations and destroyed careers, or these same people will return again the way Kissinger, Elliot Abrams, Negroponte, et al have returned now. The whole bipartisan comity thing is an incredible fraud at this point, especially because it's being pumped out by the Gingrich-Delay-Limbaugh attack-hyena party.

But yes, if the Democrats fail to respond effectively and aggressively, they will lose big time.

If domestic politics requires that Democrats remain the #2 war party, emigration will be necessary for me.

I think, at the moment, that we can just barely prevent that, using our airpower.

Ha ha ha. To my very limited knowledge, plans depending on "air power" have been widely considered the last refuge of the deluded since prior to Vietnam. I think dependence on air power gave us the Kmher Rouge.

Also, Iraq is not Vietnam. We didn't start it (there used to be a theory that the Dems were going to lose the e executive for about twenty five years because they had put us in Vietnam). There is no massive social unrest (or civil rights) to be blamed on hippies. There will be no splitting of the Democratic Party into two--we've already had that split. And the only dangerous fantasists who behave like hippies were all war hippies like the neocons and the 101st. (Stolen from a similar comment at Yggy's.)

Did withdrawal hurt (and does it continue to hurt) the electoral prospects of Democratic candidates?

There's one big asterisk on that analogy: Vietnam was started by a Democratic president.

tim-pwned.

Did withdrawal hurt (and does it continue to hurt)

The withdrawal hurts when it's from the asterisk in your analogy.

Sorry, this was a serious thread. I'll ban myself now.

116: nah, look at the title again and tell me you're not on topic.

It was a worthwhile comment, m.

103: what I fear is Iraq becoming another Rwanda. I think, at the moment, that we can just barely prevent that, using our airpower.

We didn't have religious/tribal detectors in the avionics packages. We could use air support to get our troops out if we didn't care about who we killed along the route but air can't separate small bands playing hide-and-go-kill in a city.

Keeping the US Army in Iraq for the sake of the Democratic party in the US is fucked up.

Maybe if you assume keeping the army there is bad for the Iraqis. I'm assuming the opposite. So your assertion, to my thinking, is completely wrong.

How the hell does airpower prevent another Rwanda? In Rwanda, people were chopping up their neighbors with machetes, not massing on big fields to invade the town over.

I Am Not A Military Expert, but arguing that airpower would be useless strikes me as absurd. It's an offensive and defensive weapon, and it worked in Kosovo.

To my very limited knowledge, plans depending on "air power" have been widely considered the last refuge of the deluded since prior to Vietnam.

Kosovo.

There's one big asterisk on that analogy: Vietnam was started by a Democratic president.

I'm sure you've talked to more people about this than I have, but in my experience, people who are angry at the Dems for forcing a withdrawal from Vietnam don't really care that the Dems started it. The only people I know who care about that are liberals. Anyway, I don't think this comparison is that important.

every poll I've seen recently has a solid majority favoring a withdrawal within 12 months. Making the safe assumption that the situation continues to spiral downward, that number is only going to rise. Granted, I'm no math whiz, but I don't see the calculation that turns that into a decade of Republican dominance.

Because you're assuming the public is going to be philosophical about this - that when Iraq goes to hell in a handbasket, people are going to say "well, that's what we wanted to do!". I have no faith in this scenario, at all.

but air can't separate small bands playing hide-and-go-kill in a city.

no, but we could potentialy protect a refugee population.

Maybe if you assume keeping the army there is bad for the Iraqis

I am assuming precisely that; also, that keeping the army there is bad for the army and its component soldiers.

Also: How long did Kosovo last? And how many people live there?

Kosovo wasn't remotely the same. Compared to Iraq, Kosovo was barely a real conflict. The total number of deaths in the Kosovo conflict was of the same order of magnitude as a bad month in Iraq.

In Kosovo there was a functioning state upon whom pressure could be applied and (more or less) a single opposing militia with whom deals could be struck.

Anyone who thinks that the use of limited airstrikes in Kosovo is even remotely comparable to the situation in Iraq is deeply deluded.

Michael, you always slip back into the electoral justification, and it's crap. And your claims about the possible benefits of America staying still seem wishful to me. (Your electoral claims seem defeatist and craven, too; we can't cringe our way to triumph.)

The Kosovo comparison is weak for a lot of reasons; if we could intimidate one side or the other in Iraq the way we intimidated the Serbs in ex-Yugoslavia, I think that we already would have succeeded in doing so by now.

By the time we intervened, the ethnic groups in Yugoslavia had been pretty well separated by flight and massacre, but they're still mixed in Iraq, so who'd we target?

To me the biggest problem is that most of the media and a substantial part of the Democratic Party are implicated in the Iraq War, and all of them would rather see Armageddon than admit that they've been so terribly wrong.

An interesting bit: Murtha's plan is for us to withdraw, but only to surrounding areas so that troops can quickly redeploy in emergency situations.

This could very possibly have us in short order establishing humanitarian camps - maybe in the safety of our bases, but possibly more exposed if we lost those bases.

So Murtha's plan seems similar to the one favored by myself and plenty of other Dems, but with potentially greater downsides. It would have the benefit of making us into less of an occupying power, and the Iraqis would get their wish that we leave.

but in my experience, people who are angry at the Dems for forcing a withdrawal from Vietnam don't really care that the Dems started it.

I'm sure there are people who blame the us for letting women vote. Who the fuck cares? They weren't voting for us anyway, and our only concern as regards those people is how to use our power to hurt them most.

124 is completely misguided. Matt seems to think I'm arguing that airpower in Iraq is like Kosvo b/c I have some crazy idea that there's a state we can apply pressure to in order to resolve the conflict. Let me assure you that I am not a blithering idiot. I am not assuming that we're going to use gunships and planes to end this violence. I'm arguing that it's conceivable that we can use those things to provide some protection to some of the noncombative populatce. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but didn't we do that in Kosovo? We protected the fleeing refugees?

hm, and Pelosi endorses Murtha's plan. Is anyone of consequence actually in favor of a total and complete pullout? I can't think of anyone.

We also created some of those refugees--people flee bombarded areas. We also accidentally bombed some of them.

I was reading up on Kosovo here, and what really struck me was that NATO bombed things like Yugoslavian tanks. Tanks. I don't even know what vehicles the various Iraqi groups are using, but I'm willing to bet it's going to look from above like the vehicles everyone else in Iraq is driving.

Tanks.

re: 128

I just can't see it. Any more than air power could have stopped things in Rwanda. If people are going door to door, or slaughtering people in acts of ethnic cleansing, there's not much there for airpower to either protect or attack.

we can't cringe our way to triumph

what are you talking about? who's cringing?

Keeping three groups of non-combatants safe in a two way power struggle while a third party follows its own agenda AND when those groups are scattered seems like a horrible non-starter. I do not think there is any use of force on America's part that can stop what it started.

If you stay, my money is on fighting -the-way-out scenario, before the main match starts.

The whole point is that american power in the region cannot be adequately projected and thus has become almost irrelevant.

129: The over the horizon force is what many people mean when they use the words "pullout" or "withdrawal."

I don't even know what vehicles the various Iraqi groups are using, but I'm willing to bet it's going to look from above like the vehicles everyone else in Iraq is driving.

Wait. You don't have a sunni sniffer in your arsenal? Nor a Shi'ite sensitive daisy cutter?

Well hell, drop bomblets. The people who cop it, are certainly going to have been guilty of something.

Maybe this is all a misunderstanding. I'm certainly fine with our use of air power or small forces to protect refugees and the like. We're going to be in the area for a while anyway--it's too important an area for us to abandon to the ME regional powers--so why not help where we can. But we're just not going to do anything based primarily on humanitarian grounds, and I suspect we'll mitigate rather than prevent harms.

Perhaps we can tentatively agree on some common ground - Obama and Clinton are for a phased withdrawal, which sounds good to me. Start taking out some troops, and see how the situation develops.

I suspect we'll mitigate rather than prevent harms.

right, what i've been trying to say.

134. It appears so, but it gets muddled when they at the same time throw out terms like "bring the troops home". I can see that it's not a contradiction, but honestly I can't bring myself to read about this stuff too often, and so, not reading in-depth, I obviously had a different idea of what "withdrawal" meant. Still, "withdrawal" is a bit of an odd term for a plan that expects our military to still be involved, at some level, in the conflict.

"See how the situation develops" isn't really consistent with the kind of continued mission that has to start getting planned and sold to the US public right now, which is stuff like, oh, setting up massive refugee camps and streamlining visa processes for Iraq collaborators.

Well the cynically astute policy would be to pull out at a pace fast enough to appease the critics and slow enough to save just a little face, then fund all sides (political wings as well a paramilitary) to play all ends against all middles.

On the other hand a really useful if radical step might be to appeal (?) to the arab/islamic world to take over the policing duties sooner rather than later. Just don't see it happening though.

139. I don't see that watching the situation to determine the next move excludes preparing for contingencies.

"What are you talking about? who's cringing?"

When you assume that leaving Iraq will hand control over to the Republicans for ten years, that amounts to saying that Democrats will be incapable of making a case for themselves on this issue and thus must not defy the Republicans. That's cringing.

Obama and Clinton are for a phased withdrawal

I've got no real opinions about Obama but, going by past history, anything Hillary Clinton has to say about Iraq ought to be roundly ignored just after she's told to shut the fuck up.

appeal (?) to the arab/islamic world to take over the policing duties

I'm trying to imagine Islamic countries with any military of significance that I'd be happy to see policing Iraq.

Morocco---no military, really
Algeria---some bad recent history of islamicism and torture
Libya--well, it could be interesting
Tunisia---no military? dunno
Egypt---putting the birthplace of the (sunni) Muslim Brotherhood into Iraq sounds like a very dubious idea
Saudi Arabia---if we want to speed the coming Saudi-Iranian regional conflict, sure
Iran---ditto
Syria---ditto
Turkey---it was nice knowing you, Kurdish people
UAE---military?
Yemen---military?
Azerbajian---Iranian flanking manoeuver
Pakistan---oh, God, let's not give the Pakistani military any more failed states to play around in.

Maybe Indonesia?

144 -- what about Palestine?

143. Is there actually another option besides stay or phased withdrawal? I mean, we can't actually pick up and leave en masse can we? (I mean logistically.) I suppose we could commit to a total pullout beforehand (quasi-pullout if we follow Murtha), but de facto we'd still be watching the facts on the ground.

I'm trying to imagine Islamic countries with any military of significance that I'd be happy to see policing Iraq.

It is as weak as any other options there are from the point of view of the US but it might just save a few lives. If your concern IS the geopolitics, then nothing will prevent what is about to happen. Also, my point was aimed at who the Iraqis ( the largest union of the sets of sunni and shi'ites) might be happy to see.

Whereas I take your point, surely the idea would be to appeal to the community of states (yes i recognise the potential wry humour here) and to get individual states to take a subordinate role.

Plus, I do mean policing; not occupation.

I don't think that there's any alternative to phased withdrawal -- the argument seems to between the length of the phase. Pulling out immediately would still probably take a month or so, as remote soldiers were pulled in and remote bases closed.

I really think that we need to quit fooling ourselves, and the people who screwed this up need to have their faces slapped. To me, preventing the repetition of this kind of thing in the future is the most important thing at this point. None of the American bad guys have conceded anything yet, and the media will support them when they counterattack. Someone has to be blamed, and it has to be the guys who actually screwed up. If it isn't, we will be the ones blamed, and this country will become unlivable.

Mélange, perhaps I've become much too cynical, but I can't think your proposal would work out.

For one thing, until Iraq has something resembling a functional legitimate government, the line between "policing" and "occupying" is very...nuanced.

Another problem shows up in your word "subordinate": subordinate to whom? No new country is going to send troops to serve under US command, and I seriously doubt countries are going to want to volunteer to become divisions in the New Iraqi Army. Maybe if centralized command is turned over to the UN or NATO or someone.

And, yes, I'm very, very worried about the geopolitics. If the Iraq meltdown doesn't lead to some major regional upheavals, I'll be astonished.

Jackmormon, I have to declare that the first comment itself was sarcastically motivated. Not to troll though. In all practical respects it probably wont work. A note I tried to end on.

Yes, the line between "policing" and "occupying" is damn thin (it was managed to a degree in Cyprus)

When i wrote "subordinate" i certainly did not have the US or NATO in mind. Something like the Arab League was what was slumbering there. Only the Arab League would not be able to pull lift the weight. Any form of external inclusion in an Iraqi Army will be a non starter for keeping the peace.

What I am trying to get at, in all honesty, and without the sarcasm (none of which was directed at anyone here,) is that american power is too weak to prevent an upheaval; american policy in the region so discredited that the geopolitics are going to roll her over. If America tries to take sides in the struggle that is coming your committment will dwarf the current day out you're having. Once the debate turns to "how" to exit in the face of failure, the game is over.

In that light, facing facts (not least of which is that america is viewed with mistrust and misunderstanding everywhere other than Britain,) and taking steps to reduce the political friction long term (and it is a long term task) while solving at least trying to solve the short term problem with something other that bullets (of which there will never be enough) is about the smartest thing you can do, geopolitically. Getting muslim policemen on the ground instead of the hated army of the infidel might just be start.

I am aware though, that this is so much hot air.

If America tries to take sides in the struggle that is coming your committment will dwarf the current day out you're having.

And guess what.

But in a sign of the discord in Washington, the senior U.S. intelligence official said the current situation requires that the administration abandon its long-held goal of national reconciliation and instead "pick a winner" in Iraq. He said he understands that means the Sunnis are likely to bolt from the fragile government. "That's the price you're going to have to pay," he said.

That's just the beginning of the price.

I am surprised there is not more support for immediate and total withdrawal. I guess liberals really do have an instinctive faith in the efficacy of government.

That's an impressive leap, James.

153: When did "liberal" get defined as "Someone who wants the Iraqi folk who believed the bushshit to have their heads cut off"?

I think we should figure out how to get those people out before declaring mission accomplished again.

154: did you mean that as a response to 152? 'cause I can't make sense of it as response to 153

So far two people in this thread have mistakenly interpreted the number below the comment as the number by which the comment should be referred. I blame the new server.

But in a sign of the discord in Washington, the senior U.S. intelligence official said the current situation requires that the administration abandon its long-held goal of national reconciliation and instead "pick a winner" in Iraq. He said he understands that means the Sunnis are likely to bolt from the fragile government. "That's the price you're going to have to pay," he said.

Oh good god. This is basically Jonathan Chait's "Put Saddam Hussein and the Baathist army back in charge" thought experiment...except that it's much stupider because it requires that a new Shiite government be formulated out of either A) nonexistent secular Shiite parties or B) the recently-convened death squads that have been winning the civil war recently.

155: Yeah, I was commenting on 152. Being accused of believing in the "efficacy of government" made me dizzy for a moment.

156: I blame site design.

160 gets it exactly right.

154 Personally I care more about the American kids who believed the bs politicians spout on patriotic holidays and enlisted. Their lives continue to be thrown away for nothing because no one in power has the courage to bring them home.

154 Personally I care more about the American kids who believed the bs politicians spout on patriotic holidays and enlisted. Their lives continue to be thrown away for nothing because no one in power has the courage to bring them home.

151.--That bit of leakage coincided with the other bit about Cheney's having been summoned to consult with the Saudis. I've got to hope that the two together mean that the Saudis are going to open their borders to Sunni refugees.

Shearer's point should be addressed. Often I think that we don't consider enough the fact that the US government is supposed to address the interests of the people of the US, not the people of the world.

It's unfortunate that the Bush administration has taken such a unilateral approach to the world. They say "We're the world's cop. International alliances are worthless unless our mighty military is involved. And in order to get us involved, you have to relinquish all the power to us." This leads to two bad outcomes:
- When horrible things happen in the world, people blame the US for not stepping in, whether or nor our stepping in could have done any good. Just like when the government reroutes the rivers, the people blame things on the government that they used to blame on God.
- Foreign policies that might have worked if an international consensus had been reached are now less likely to work because the United States are actively discouraging any other country from acting as our ally. By "less likely to work" I mean both that the policy is less likely to go as intended, (look at the idiotic scandal whereby our spies clumsily abducted somebody from under the noses of the Italian police), and that the policy is less likely to be supported by people who would otherwise have supported it - including the foreign people who are supposedly being helped.

If the governments of Europe, North America and South America were united and vocal in their disapproval of Iran's nuclear weapons program, a moderately well-educated Iranian person would be far more likely to say "You know, they might have a point." Instead, we have John Bolton saying "Iran's nuclear weapons program is a bad thing. Iran has no need for nuclear weapons. Also, the United Nations is worthless and all the European countries that hold power in the UN and NATO are dinosaurs whose diplomats are a bunch of limpwristed prigs," and Bush saying "Well heck, we'll be glad to sit down and start negotiating with the Iranian folks as soon as they agree to demolish their nuclear facilities. Otherwise, heh heh heh, military options are on the table."

This doesn't convince other governments that we are serious or have a plan.

It seems that my long comment did not actually address Shearer's point. And now I have to go home. Oh well, I guess my point was that at this point, for the US to act in the interests of its own people (those boys who enlisted) in the current situation, where it would require abandoning the country of Iraq to a warlord-laden Somalia-with-oil scenario, might make us an actual pariah. It would be a lot easier in a theoretical world where our unnecessary unilateralism hadn't alienated our logical allies.

164: Two things: One, it's even worse than that because to a certain degree US behaviour is driving Irans nuclear ambitions. Two, more generally it's true that so long as US govt. is addressing interests of US people in *other* peoples countries, there isn't any acceptable complaint if those people just want you to fuck off and die. It gets worse when, through its actions or inactions, the US has an ethical responsibility for some part of the struggles of those people, such as in Iraq.

I'm more or less with Shearer on this, on Rory Stewart grounds.

165 So you think the world is demanding we stay in Iraq? I haven't noticed.

168: I think the world, insomuch as it makes sense to talk that generally, is more demanding generally smartening up, and sort of at a loss as to how to make that stick.

The world will hate whatever the US does in Iraq, because Iraq will get worse no matter what we do, and the world is convinced that we are led by morons. Bush may be doing the US's reputation (although not our soldiers or our budget) a favor by announcing that we will not be changing our Iraq "policy" until he leaves office; our next president might get the benefit of the doubt from the international community.

to a certain degree US behaviour is driving Irans nuclear ambitions

To a huge degree. And if they actually are pursuing nuclear weapons (which, it's important to note, nobody has proven at all), that is a perfectly rational policy in the face of 1) America's actions toward Iraq and rhetoric toward them and 2) Israel's nuclear capabilities.

I'm more or less with Shearer on this

Me too.

171: yes; I think currently it is the primary motivation; there are others of course. Israel's nukes are a longer term motivation.

162: I guess you're right, as long as we've screwed it up we might a well go for 100%, which is what abandoning the Iraqis who are identified as "ours" would make the score.

I'm sure some of those were and are pure opportunists and some have to be actually against us, but that's not really important. Pure pragmatism suggests we might need allies of various kinds in the future. It's going to be a hard sell as it is without those allies knowing we'll sell them out whenever it suits the politicians back in D.C.

174 We might need soldiers again too. Throwing their lives away so the politicians can save face can't help future recruiting. And allies who can't survive without us aren't worth much.

175: That horse bolted a while ago; by all means shut the barn door if you'd like.

176 Soldiers are still dying in Iraq.

y'all reading this?