This in Foreign Policy has given me pause for thought on how precipitous a withdrawal should be. The problem is that I've seen comprehensible arguments of what Iraq would be like if we leave. What would it be like if we stay?

Yep, that's about how I'd call it, not that I'm an expert or anything. I guess the only things I wonder, after reading the article, is to what extent all of this is being taken into account at the P-gon and the White House, and also what are the relative strengths of the various actors' desires that the US should stay. Obviously, there's probably a lot of Kurds who are ambivalent about it, not to mention the various factions in all the governments -- even the one-party states and dictatorships. I imagine there's probably a lot of those princelings in Saudi Arabia who would like to see the US leave as a furtherance of their own interests.

Man alive, I am just not able to write grammatically today.

So, so completely fucking stupid, this entire enterprise.

In their quest to win the policy argument, those who favor heading for the exits in Iraq shouldn't dismiss as mere political rhetoric the idea that a sectarian blood bath--not reconciliation--is the most likely outcome.

Of course that's the most likely outcome. It was *always* the most likely outcome, no matter how we executed the war. No matter what we do between now and the time we do withdraw, it will remain the most likely outcome. My money is on there not being *any* other possible outcome. That's exactly why you don't start the war in the first place. Having started it, though, it's no kind of reason to just stay there for the rest of time.

Saw that, find it convincing. To be fair, given that I've been iffy (at best) about withdrawal, I'm likely a member of the most receptive audience.

I've been receptive to the argument that when we pull out and the bloodbath begins, we'll have a humanitarian obligation to return. Given the complete insanity of our current leadership, though, I suspect that Congress's forcing a pullout is the only way to alter our strategic course.

Apo's right. We fucked up the entire region by invading. Whether we withdraw now or in 2 years or in 10 years, we can hardly expect the results to be different. Better to do it now than continue getting our soldiers killed for absolutely nothing.

Toby Keith owes us all an apology.

There are degrees of "fucked up."

I'm sorry DaveB and Apo but I'm calling bullshit. The fuckedupedness of Iraq was not caused by the invasion. It was there, and has been for thousands of years because Iraq is the meeting place of both Arab and Persian as well as Shia and Sunni. Two outside players held a strong hand over the course of the last century- the Turk and then the Baath. Absent that you have various parties vying for control.

One may argue that this is not the US's problem but no one else has the force projection capabilities to handle the job. It all comes down to mission, which as the article points out no one even knows what that is any more. Given the realities, I for one think it is time to stop playing both ends against the middle, choose a side and be done with it.

Iraq is the middle, TLL.

The fuckedupedness of Iraq was not caused by the invasion.

Neither did Pandora create the box. She just opened it.

Agree with #12 entirely.

Ah yes, for thousands of years the Sunni and Shia have stared each other down in the neighborhoods of Baghdad.

Iraq was fucked up to a degree before the invasion, but it was relatively stable and didn't threaten the stability of the region. Nobody was using that delightful phrase "sectarian bloodbath" to describe likely outcomes.

but no one else has the force projection capabilities to handle the job

Much better -- we're not handling the job, TLL. Although actually, Iran probably does have the necessary "force projection capabilities".

I must say that I hadn't been aware of how sectarian and unstable Iraq was; I was worried about an Algeria-style insurgency, not this maelstrom of regional suckage. War really is God's way of teaching Americans geography.

but no one else has the force projection capabilities to handle the job.

The last three years has made it abundantly clear that the U.S. does not in fact have the force projection capabilities for an occupation of this magnitude. Shinseki ring any bells here?

Given the realities, I for one think it is time to stop playing both ends against the middle, choose a side and be done with it.

Choose sides in an ethnic cleansing campaign? No fucking thank you. I think we've messed up enough of our guys. How about we not make them participate in a godamn genocide.

The fuckedupedness of Iraq was not caused by the invasion.

Our being stuck in Iraq with no good options was caused by the invasion. The enduring fuckedupness of Iraq was an excellent reason NOT to invade in the first place, so as to find ourselves in this inevitably pointless and unwinnable situation.

And hells bells, before anyone talks about staying there a few more years, take a look at our military, both people and equipment. You think we can sustain this? Get a grip.

Someone, somewhere is taking bets on the over/under for the increase/decrease in deaths after we leave.

Query: Is a bloodbath defined as more or less than the Rwanda genocide?

Depends on the job that they're there to do. If establishing a secure Iraq isn't the mission, I bet we can do with a lot fewer troops.

If establishing a secure Iraq isn't the mission, I bet we can do with a lot fewer troops.

But what mission then, if not that?

20: Depends on how many bodies are shown on CNN.

22: Kicking the shit out of any faction that we don't like that gets too big. Sustained chaos until a deal we find acceptable can be struck.

22: Protect the oil? Protect GWB's sense of himself as a decisive and virtuous leader?

When you say "bodies" are dark bodies counted as a whole or just a half?

20: They're already closing in on the 800K bar established by Rwanda.

3/5, obvs

How about we not make them participate in a godamn genocide.

That is what our participation is preventing, even as the Sunnis withdraw. I read yesterday that the Sunni population is to 5% of the Iraqi total, down from 20%.

The other point of the article underscore why the executive is in charge of foreign policy. Thanks to GWHB, the Shia are expecting to be betrayed again, so potential allies are not willing to commit fully to the enterprise. I fully agree that the US is not committed enough to this enterprise. We are either not being ruthless enough with the force on the ground or not enough forces to be in control.

I must say I am shocked by the number of people who now advocate "stability", which is code for a dictator. Sucks to be you, I guess.

24:

And identify the members of these factions how? What faction will engage us in a pitched battle? Haven't the last couple years demonstrated we cannot do this?

I must say I am shocked by the number of people who now advocate "stability", which is code for a dictator.

This is where it was always going to end up. I genuinely don't understand people who believe otherwise.

That is what our participation is preventing, even as the Sunnis withdraw. I read yesterday that the Sunni population is to 5% of the Iraqi total, down from 20%.

So by "preventing" you mean "allowing to happen".

24: No thanks. We're already on the hook for better than a trillion dollars, all of which has been put on the national MasterCard. How many trillions more are you willing to charge for this?

32- They aren't all dead in the street. Most have moved. If you have money, ok. If not you are a "refugee".

I am shocked by the number of people who now advocate "stability", which is code for a dictator.

You'd probably also be shocked by how many of those people live in Iraq.

The only reason Iraq is a clusterfuck is because Bush/Cheney are too cowardly to use to nuclear option in Iraq. If they'd grow some fucknig balls we could clean the place out in a hurry.

We didn't talk here about the boggling news about the proposed (and partly built, I understand) WALL around a Sunni neighborhood. Unbelievable.

35- I know, security first, democracy later. Except later never seems to arrive. One man, one vote, one time.

Jackmormon:
"Wall" sounds so pejorative. "Gated Community" has a much nicer ring.

I will use it in a sentence:

"The refugees were kept in a gated community before Sharon allowed them to be slaughtered."

See? Doesnt that sound better?

37: It's not a wall, it's a barrier.

29 - I'm sorry, but how does your argument not reduce to "Democrats can't solve the insoluable problem George Bush created, so let's wait for the magic pony"? Our presence in Iraq simply can't be indefinite; we don't have enough troops for it, and even a few years at this level have already put a tremendous strain on our force projection capacity. I know what the situation is doing to my friends and colleagues who are reservists or Guardsmen. If we're the only thing preventing a bloodbath, the Iraqis are already fucked. It's a shame David Broder and Tim Russert were too busy laughing at Janeane Garofalo's naivete and admiring Bush's codpiece when there might have been time to do something about this.

Democracy's appeal is limited when you're headless in a sewer.

"Gated community" pwns.

I hear the Germans built a lovely gated community in Warsaw.

That made me think of another one:

"I wonder whether Vick will live in a gated community in the future."

I've been shocked by the number of people who've advocated "freedom" when they meant "bloody anarchy."

Anyway, Luttwack's "Logic of Disengagement" still gets it right, I think. If a total withdrawal is too precipitous, then forces should at least be moved to the borders. We can keep forces close enough to intervene in a killing fields, while preparing for the complete withdrawal.

How many trillions more are you willing to charge for this?

Dunno. One dollar less than it will ultimately cost us if we leave and either have to go back or accept severe consequences of regional conflagration, I guess.

Here's the part nobody seems to be cottoning onto: we don't ever have to go back. It's our choice to invade other countries, not our obligation.

48- You don't think we bear some moral responsibility for this war, Apo?

48: Sort of. I'm not worried about moral obligations, but rather negative effects of total chaos in the area on US interests. If the negative effects are significant enough, we'll go back.

35: That's more or less how the Taliban came to power.

In the past, I've liked the idea of moving a smaller, intervention-ready force to the border areas, but I'm really beginning to wonder whether it would work. The killing is going along rather nicely now, and soldiers are patrolling the streets and trying actively to recruit informants. If the US soldiers retreat to the borders, will they even be able to guess where the killing has been taking place? I wish I could trust our military to tell the politicians honestly whether this "over-the-horison redeployment" idea is plausible.

41. How long did it take to stabilize the Philippenes? Nicaragua? Germany? Japan? I always thought we would be in Iraq ten years minimum.

Outside of outright conquest the successful empires (if there can be such a thing) have at their core a permanent foreign policy, often with a long standing Foreign Minister. For the US this has been things like the Monroe Doctrine and Cold War against the Soviets.

In the post Cold War world the US has not decided on a permanent foreign policy. We must choose between isolationist and interventionist, and tailor our policy instruments, such as the military, accordingly.

51: Not to mention the ICU in Somalia. We've replaced them with freedom/bloody anarchy as well.

We bear moral responsibility. That moral responsibility does not entail an endless military occupation. When it comes down to brass tacks, we live in a (ostensibly) representative government. If a majority of the American people say we shouldn't be there, that's the highest authority. That will doesn't get moved into second chair for the rest of time because George W. Bush stole an election in 2000 and decided to use that to wage a vanity war.

What makes me the most heartsick about all of this is that I honestly don't know what to do. It's one thing to protest against a war that you think is going to be a disaster. I did that. I called, I wrote, I marched in the streets.

Now I don't know what to do. I write asking for better healthcare for troops and veterans. I write urging no additional wars. I send care packages.

But I can't get myself out of the house to stand on a corner and actively ask to bring the troops home. Rationally, I know this is crazy, and it's not like the situation is going to magically get better one of these days, but emotionally, I can't do it.

I can't get myself out of the house to stand on a corner and actively ask to bring the troops home

There isn't any point to standing on a corner and asking for that. The streets were flooded the world over before the invasion and it didn't stop anything. Inertia has only gotten more powerful since then. They didn't care about public opinion then, and they care even less now that they don't have to stand for re-election.

One of my partners has a form of cancer. Do I have a moral obligation to cure him? Certainly not beyond my means to do so.

53 - Wait, you're citing Nicaragua and the Philippines as examples, but attacking other people for being cool with installing a dictator? The answer looks like "nine years" for Germany and "seven years" for Japan, meaning that if we had a fully mobilized American military, the support of a fully mobilized France and Britain, and the legal and moral authority of having won a war of aggression started by Iraq, we could expect to be out in 2012-ish. (Neither occupied Germany nor occupied Japan was the site of a civil war, nor were those societies driven by sectarian hatred, but I'll offer you those as a gimme.) So, assuming these counterfactuals and a magic pony at the end of the ride, you're willing to wait out five more years of the expenditure of American blood and treasure? Is that what you're arguing here, that if we assume your ludicrously optimistic case we can get out at the cost of only a few thousand more American dead and several trillion dollars?

the cost of only a few thousand more American dead and several trillion dollars?

And several hundred thousand more dead Iraqis, yadda yadda yadda.

Even if I had been a supporter of this war, I'm not sure I could countenance breaking the American military to get to TLL's best case scenario. I'm not a vet or a military policy thinker, but I wonder what someone like Phil Carter would think about sending the Army back to 1977 levels of morale and preparedness.

59 reminds me that the surest sign that the Admin doesn't believe in its Surge is that it hasn't embraced the timeline proposed by Congress with: 'we're going to agree with this now, but in 8 months when you see how well everything is going, you'll grant my request for an extension of time before the withdrawal.'

58 applies better to the case in point if CharleyCarp's partner has SIDA, and got it after being seduced by cad CC.

(Not that that really affect the upshot of the analogy.)

59 also reminds me that (a) WWII in Europe was won with a whole lot of help from Stalin and several million of his friends and (b) after the war, virtually no one was shooting at US forces in Germany. Depending on when you want to start the clock, the WWII comparison completely breaks down: if at Pearl Harbor, we don't have anything like the help or if at Potsdam nothing like the resistance.

I'll allow that anyone who entertained this kind of fantasy in the first 8 months of 2003 is simply a misguided fool. After that: deliberately delusional.

I also do not agree with the notion that deaths in our ansence will necessarily exceed deaths now. The nature of the war -- and support for various factions -- would fundamentally shift. We can't say how, because we only barely understand what is going on now. I'd bet on ethnic cleansing, sure, but mostly non-violent, as people sort themselves into different neighborhoods. I don't see a Rwanda, but if one comes, I don't think our decision that we're not capable of creating a stable Iraq is the primary cause of it.

59. We still have troops in Germany and Japan and Korea. No longer as occupiers, but the Status of Forces agreements allows our troops to do things that would not be tolerated by a foriegn power in the US.
I am not trying to make any historical analogies, first because they are banned, second because they can only be partially correct. There are always extenuating circumstances. My point is that having chosen this course of action we must see it through, which will take alot more time and treasure and blood. My critique is that we do not have a defined mission, which makes accomplishing that mission difficult at best. You can argue that the mission can never be accomplished, but without defining that mission, how can you be sure?

Here's what I don't get about the TLL position: Where do we find anyone advocating the kind of sustained, massive commitment of the forces that would be able to simply crush all opposition and impose a strong, US-friendly, professional government in Iraq ? (Notice that I do not say "democratic".) The military and the Repugs aren't arguing for that. The Dems certainly aren't arguing for it. The average person-on-the-street in Denver or Atlanta or Pass Christian, MS seems to think that this sort of commitment would be the worst of all possible worlds, regardless of their feelings about the war in general.

We don't currently have the bodies or the budget to institute that kind of regime. Nobody really wants a draft. Nobody wants to pay the kinds of bonuses the armed forces would have to offer volunteers to bring them up to the strength required. Nobody wants to buy 20-year War Bonds paying 1% interest. Nobody want their son or daughter to be exposed to IED attacks on under-armored Humvee's.

Arguing that we should expect to be in Iraq for 10 years (of which 4 have already elapsed), and that we'll get a West Germany or Japan-like ally out of it at the end is pointless, since nobody wants to do the things necessary to make that happen. And even if they did, it's much more likely that we'd end up with a Nicaraguan or Salvadoran-style dictatorship that brutalized its citizens so badly that we'd just be back there in 20 or 30 years anyway.

I'm not advocating a Saigon, 1975 "every man for himself and devil-take-the-hindmost" solution, although that seems the likely outcome of the current situation. But it's ridiculous to think that we can just play empire over there and escape unscathed. If anyone in power were serious about a solution for this mess, there'd be multilateral talks with every interested party present and prepared to deal in good faith. However, as the linked article points out, it's not in the interests of the elites for this mess to get solved to quickly, if at all. If you think Bechtel and Halliburton and Blackwater are going to sign on to any plan that involves them cutting and running on their multi-billion dollar contracts, you're not dealing in reality.

There isn't any point to standing on a corner and asking for that. The streets were flooded the world over before the invasion and it didn't stop anything. Inertia has only gotten more powerful since then.

I don't quite buy this. For one thing, I think the majority of the effect of standing on a corner, at least in my town, is having your neighbors see you. My acquaintances who were (if I may be unkind) sort of thoughtless war-supporters, to the extent that they've now moved to being tepidly in favor of an end to the war -- well, part of that seems to be that they perceive a greater/more representative groundswell of opposition. In other words, it's no longer just five ancient, crazy Quakers standing outside the post office with signs.

My point is that having chosen this course of action we must see it through

Just like we did in SE Asia in the 70s? Honestly, we don't have to see it through.

We must choose between isolationist and interventionist

This is not a black-and-white, either/or choice. I would argue that neither term really encapsulates the proper approach. The US has all sorts of power--military, economic, diplomatic, cultural, etc.--and in all cases has an obligation to use that power wisely. Whenever we see a situation that we think we can help to make better, we should carefully decide how, when, and by what means we should bring our power to bear on the situation. And it should go without saying that we should look at the situation in its entirety and not focus exclusively on a single dimension of the problem.

In the case of Iraq, the Bush Administration's thinking was unbelievably one-dimensional and short sighted. They perceived that Iraq had one problem, namely that Saddam Hussein was in charge. They furthermore envisioned only one possible solution to that problem--large-scale invasion with conventional military forces. And that solution did indeed eliminate that particular problem. But by focusing monmaniacally on Saddam Hussein, the Administration was blind to all other dangers and potential problems inherent in an invasion of Iraq and thus did nothing to anticipate, prepare for, or prevent them. So even though Saddam Hussein is no longer a danger to anyone, Iraq is in chaos, the violence has the very real danger of destabilizing the entire region, our credibility is shot, and our military is stretched to the breaking point, thereby severely limiting our ability to take military action elsewhere should a genuine need arise.

If you want to reduce that to isolationism vs. interventionism, I daresay that interventionism has not worked out all that well in this case.

Chalabi is no Adenauer. Neither is al-Maliki, it seems.

like we did in SE Asia

Now Apo, TLL isn't making any historical analogies...

(TLL -- do me a favor and review the comments you have posted to this thread and let me know if you see any internal inconsistencies.)

67. You're right, no one is advocating that but me. I am a full blown neocon (except for the neo part) that believes in the remapping of the Middle East because I for one do not believe that Arabs can't do democracy. I despise the current administration for trying to do what is at least a ten year project in an afternoon, and thinking that they can get it done on the cheap.

69. Apo, we wimped out in SE Asia, and replaying that scenario in Iraq. War is not a part time gig, as both these adventures have shown.

If any of you could choose between continuing to fight the Iraq war or (a) the US pushing for a meaningful and final settlement/end of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory and (b) fighting the resurgent taliban in afganistan, which, from purely the cold perspective of "national interest," would you choose. And let's concede that the worst case scenario obtains in Iraq if we stop occupying it.

Only slightly off topic: Great Moments in Punditry

I'll extend the analogy just this bit more then leave it: we were warned endlessly about leaving Vietnam because it was just be one domino after another falling, and that was something we just couldn't allow. Now we're being told that withdrawing from Iraq will spark a larger war in a region that has been at war in one form or another for millenia, and that just can't be allowed.

We decide when and where we commit our troops, just like every other country on Earth. We are never under any obligation to do anything with them, aside from an attack on an ally with whom we have a protection treaty. Switzerland hasn't felt it necessary to intervene militarily in Middle Eastern politics and yet they've managed to survive just fine. We will do the same, even if we never set another boot in the region. The idea that we are remotely required to keep Middle East conflicts from destroying the world economy is typically American narcissism.

72. I'm sure there are, Clownae. But I am afraid I will not be able to find them now, nor defend them as I must go to a conference. Feel free to make fun of my ramblings in my absence. it won't be the first time, or the last.

that believes in the remapping of the Middle East because I for one do not believe that Arabs can't do democracy.

In TLL's defense, that strawman totally had it coming.

I pick b) 'cause it's much easier. Getting the Israelis and the Palestinians to agree and then keep an agreement will be impossible.

74: Your choices (a) and (b) are in no way mutually exclusive. We should do both.

And let's not concede that the worst case scenario obtains in Iraq if we stop occupying it. Instead, let's be creative and try to imagine (1) what the worst case scenario in Iraq really is, (2) what would cause that scenario to occur, (3) what can realistically be done to prevent that scenario from occurring, and (4) do it.

(1) what the worst case scenario in Iraq really is,

The present scenario.

(2) what would cause that scenario to occur,

Invading Iraq in 2003.

(3) what can realistically be done to prevent that scenario from occurring, and

Nothing.

(4) do it.

Already being done.

My point is that having chosen this course of action we must see it through, which will take alot more time and treasure and blood. My critique is that we do not have a defined mission, which makes accomplishing that mission difficult at best. You can argue that the mission can never be accomplished, but without defining that mission, how can you be sure?

Having chosen a course of action that by your own admission has not been defined, we must see it through? I'm sorry, that's just insane.

Hell, I went to the florist and the sporting goods store, I've got a shitload of flowers in the back seat and a bunch of guns in the trunk, and I'm by god driving across the country to see my ex. I'm not sure what I'm gonna do when I get there, but heck, I'm already into Nebraska, so I'm sure as hell not gonna turn back now, you pansies.

I think we ought to get out of Iraq because I, for one, don't believe that Arabs can't do democracy.

My point is that having chosen this course of action we must see it through

But what is "it"?

My critique is that we do not have a defined mission, which makes accomplishing that mission difficult at best.

I would have a lot more respect for war advocates if they'd step up in Congress and present a 5 or 10 year plan. Instead of talking about having turned the corner, last throes, and just one more friedman. It may be unfait to TLL to tag him with the dishonesty of most of his co-supporters, but then again, I'm not that broken up about it, because I figure 90% of the 30% fall into that category, making the wish to do the war right a 3% proposition, back of the envelope.

More people think we ought to be building defenses against flying saucers.

73: Well fine then, if we're just going to argue from a position of pretending that we have perfect control over the entire civilization, then I'm going to pop in here ad nauseaum with my argument in favor of a No-State Solution in the Levant, with Jews, Muslims, Christians, unbelievers and anyone else realizing that religion, capital and government have failed utterly in their stated aims and declaring an anarchist federation of autonomous communities which organizes production around permacultural principles, reforms the various religions in favor of a feminist, non-hierarchical conception of theology and provides sanctuary and assistance to revolutionaries from the rest of the world.

But I'm going to say right now, I don't think that scenario has significantly more chance of coming to pass in our lifetimes than yours does, TLL, even though there are probably more people who would agree with my idea than would agree with yours.

Must we always deal with straw men by burning them? Perhaps if this one had been nurtured, it would have turned out differently.

What do you have against building defenses against flyer saucers?!? We absolutely should be.

I just do not believe that staying is helping or preventing things from getting worse. We need to get out. If Rwanda-type genocide starts, we can go back in.

We are part of the problem.

As others have said, it is really difficult to build democracy from the top down.

I'm siding with 81, I think. And the fact that we "should" both bring the Iraq debacle to a successful conclusion and sort out two other major conflicts does not me we can.

I conceded the worst case scenario to imply that, even if it did come to pass, if Israel/Palestine and Afganistan could be dealt with, we would end net-positive. If the US cannot stop a civil war, that is unfortunate (since we caused it), but I would much rather focus on making sure there are no more planes being flow into high-rises.

If we'd just burn straw babies, we'd never have to deal with straw men. But we always wimp out when it comes to actually fixing something.

Maybe we need more video games involving the burning of straw babies.

84. OK Dennis, but I am King of the Britons, because the Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in white samite held aloft Excalibur...

We absolutely should be

The liberal scientists will live to regret having killed teh SDI.

85 - On the upside, maybe we'll get to see Britt Ekland dance around in the alltogether.

Maybe we need more video games involving the burning of straw babies.

Jack Thompson's going to sue your ass off.

As I understand it, the burning of strawmen is a good strategy for accomplishing seemingly irrational and impossible tasks, as long as there is a bunch of livestock and Edward Woodward inside.

Not if we make them Muslim straw babies.

On a related note, funding should be started for SDI that can also zap Global warming.

Must we always deal with straw men by burning them?

Hear, hear. Let us feed any remaining straw men to the ponies.

92: I'm down with that.

Rod Stewart's gonna sue your ass off, apostropher.

98: It was going to happen sooner or later. Ogged's been awfully quiet today.

"It was going to happen sooner or later. Ogged's been awfully quiet today."

Persians are only allowed one contact with lawyers per day now.

Do you think colloidal silver is responsible for the weird patterns on Rod and Britt's skin?

96 - See, that's how leftists have cost us the war. If they would stick to the production of straw men for the war effort, we have ponies aplenty to win the war in Iraq.

Nicaragua
Phillipines
Cuba
El Salvador
Guatemala
Colombia
Chile
Vietnam
Haiti
The Dominican Republic
Somalia
Iran

If someone opposed the imposition of US will in any of those cases does it mean that they think that Chileans or Haitians or Somalis "can't do democracy?" Of course not. But that list does suggest that we think twice about claims that the US can do democracy. (Also, come to think of it, referring to postwar Japanese politics as "democratic" really strains credulity.)

What do you get when you mix a straw man and a tar baby, and then toss them into a quagmire?

I think we'd be lucky, in a geopolitical sense, to see the restoration of the Caliphate.

104: Bog mummies.

Wow, 73(b) may be the stupidest thing I've read on Unfogged ever.

We should pay DaveB less money so he will be more motivated to improve his performance and read the archives.

Shorter TLL in 66: Because we have no coherent objective, we must stay the course.

no one else has the force projection capabilities to handle the job.

The Turkish army comes to mind. Lots of soldiers, tanks, etc.; conveniently short supply chain. Perhaps not enough helicopters to do it comfortably, but then it's not really a comfortable job. Perhaps if the Bundeswehr helped out ...

Smaller armies could also have made an impressive mess in Iraq. Ruthlessness helps if you're down on numbers.

Perhaps 'force projection' was not really what Iraq needed anyway.

I say we need to pick one set of straw men, and help them kill the others.

The Kurdish insurgency against the Turkish occupation would have been pretty scary, though.

This is just a modest proposal, but if the poorer strawmen would just sell their strawbabies to be eaten by the ponies of the wealthier strawmen...

104: The Bush Administration.

The thing I don't get about the stay the course position is where we're supposed to get the fucking troops. The Army announced a month or so ago that all Iraq deployments were being extended to 15 months so that they could come up with enough bodies for the "surge" and still try to guarantee units a full year between Iraq deployments. IIRC, the Army deployment rotation at the beginning of this mess was supposed to be basically a three-year cycle, with one year of deployment, one year of recuperating, re-equipping, etc., and one year of training up for the next deployment, and that was already a ball-buster. The current schedule is just insane.

Oh, and a link for Bundeswehr uniforms so you can improve your military recognition skills. Here.

Talk about your insufficient body armor.

109: To be fair to TLL this isn't exactly correct. TLL isn't saying that the lack of a coherent objective is the reason we have to stay the course. We have to stay the course because we started something, and we need to finish it, even though we have no coherent objective.

This leads to the great question -- if you don't know what you are trying to do, how do you know when you're done?

Peep brings to mind Dave Barry's great philosophy that "if something is not worth doing, it is not worth doing well".

114: Those of us who said that the Iraq war would require a draft were correct. It's just taken longer to admit it than we feared.

What if the Democratic congress passed a bill mandating that the draft kick in if the Army was in dire need of fresh manpower? Would Bush back down rather than get blamed for that?

Bush's lawyers would make up custom definitions of "dire," "need," "fresh," and "manpower."

119: Except that if you watch governments for a while, it becomes clear that a fundamental mismatch between ends and means can exist for a painfully long time. And considering how badly the military is being shit on, there's been amazingly little pushback. Watching all this has finally convinced me that a draft just isn't going to happen ever again, absent alien invasion or something equally huge, existential, and unlikely.

What if they start saying that the only way to win is with a draft?

I don't think the public would stand for a draft unless the case that winning the war was existentially necessary were more obvious.

The Guardian article is very worthwhile. My only issue with it is that it theorizes that the various players think the US presence will delay the partition of Iraq. FWICT the partitioning is already happening, US presence or no.

117: It's basically a continuation of the pre-war argument that it was up to the White House's detractors to come up with their own "plan" for making war on Iraq. No, they didn't, and no, they don't. "We have to finish what we started" is asinine if what you started is wrong and pointless and destructive*. Demanding that advocates of withdrawal now excavate after the fact some kind of coherent goal from the whole mess is unreasonable and unworkable. (* The usual followup, "we can't betray our soldiers by admitting this is wrong and pointless" is just as asinine. Moreso. The soldiers were already betrayed when they were sent there.)

Of course there is a core of US opinion (27% of it, maybe?) that will probably never get this, just as they never got, or in the worst cases just didn't care, that US goals in SE Asia couldn't be accomplished short of genocide. The "stabbed in the back" meme -- "we would have won if the press and Congress hadn't turned on our boys" -- will be updated for Iraq with the added element "and also if all those critics had just come up with a plan for us instead of kvetching."

One of the interesting things about the TLL argument is that you typically see it aimed at liberals, even though the natural target would be the neocons themselves.

As in: Okay, Bush, you screwed up by not making the necessary commitment upfront for a decent outcome, but it's not too late. We can still salvage something out of this as long as we understand we need to be in Iraq, in larger numbers and at greater expense, for years.

The non-seriousness of this argument is apparent when you see that it is almost always aimed at doves. In that form, the argument goes: We are failing in Iraq because you doves have failed to take a more hawkish stance than the most hawkish politicians have been willing to commit to.

To continue in my attempt to be ruthlessly fair to TLL, I will concede that he seems to believe that we
should determine a coherent objective. While he doesn't precisely state what that objective should be, he nods in two directions. One, he emphasizes his commitment to the establishment of democracy in Iraq, scorning those who would opt for a dictatorship for the sake of stability. Two, he says we should choose a side in the Iraqi civil war and insure that the side we choose crushes the other side. Objective one is idealistic and democratic; objective two is realistic and genocidal.

However, to conclude my defence of the Tasselled Loafed Leach, I do not think his position is any more incoherent than our President's.

122: The point is that I can't imagine a set of circumstances in which more than a small handful of politicians would ever say that, other than as a reason why we can't win. I was a kid when the Vietnam draft ended, and a lot of folks here weren't even born yet. A draft--requiring Americans, on pain of imprisonment, to accept a job that may involve killing and dying--is a huge and fundamental invasion of personal liberties that we take so completely for granted that we don't even think much any more about what "draft" means. Try to impose one and that will change in a hell of a hurry. Non-crazy politicians just aren't going to go there.

117: Peep, I was the unintentionally anonymous writer of 109.

Read 66 again: The only way we can lose is to have a coherent objective. As TLL says: "You can argue that the mission can never be accomplished, but without defining that mission, how can you be sure?"

But I admit, given the elusive nature of TLL's point, your reading is a fair one also.

This raises another interesting issue: As long as your argument is incoherent, can anyone really say that it's wrong?

66

"... My point is that having chosen this course of action we must see it through, ..."

Actually we don't have to see it through. What's more everyone knows we aren't going to see it through. The only question at this point is much more blood and treasure we are going to throw away for nothing before we quit.

128: You do have a point, but the sentence before TLL says, "My critique is that we do not have a defined mission, which makes accomplishing that mission difficult at best." This seems to me to be saying that it is not a good thing that we do not have a defined mission.

And yet your question is a good one, and certainly applies to TLL.

I would have a more reasonable attitude toward a conintued American presence in and near Iraq if about 20 Bush administration officials, starting at the top, were sentenced to spend the duration of our presence in a maximum security prison.

The war is inextricably tied to the Bush administration. That's the way the Bush team has played it since before it began, and that's the way the Democrats have to. While the Bush administration exists, the discussion of the issue will be distorted.

There are a lot of people manuevring to blame the Democrats. I'm not completely sure that TLL is one of them, but if he is, screw him.

When TLL says "choose a side and be done with it" I have no idea what that means except "let one faction take control, establish a dictatorship, and deal with the other factions". How that differs from what we're advocating that shocks him so much, I don't know.

There are a lot of people manuevring to blame the Democrats. I'm not completely sure that TLL is one of them, but if he is, screw him.

I really don't think he is.

How that differs from what we're advocating that shocks him so much, I don't know.

Excellent point.

103: perhaps the problem is more that the US can't do democracy....

Ok, sorry to miss out after poking the hornet's nest, but let me try to reassemble my strawman out of the pony poop.
1. We need to establish what the goal is. Degree of difficulty is not to be considered if the price of failure is catastrophic. We could walk away in SE Asia, at the cost of a few killing fields and boat people, but what the hey, our quality of life didn't suffer too much. I'm not sure the same can be said of GWOT, of which Iraq is just one theater of operations.
2. The Bush Administration, having set out on the course of remapping the ME in order to address the "root causes" has been guilty of criminal neglect of the mission. If you set out on a messianic mission, you had better have everyone behind you. I'm not worried about A.N.S.W.E.R's giant puppets, but when the entire country is ready to make a sacrifice and you tell them "go shopping" I think you are shortchanging the effort that will be required.
3. We have the troops, but rotation is stupid. Leave them in theater until the job is completed. A draft will not be necessary, but expansion of the services will be. Congress has finally authorized this.
4. Read the quotes in the article. If we pull out of Iraq, we will lose in Afganiostan also, etc. I think Apo is both right and wrong. We don't "have" to do anything. But having started it, for good or ill, we really don't have a choice about walking away.
5. As to choosing a side, it is my pet theory that KSA is our real enemy, not Iraq or Iran. But they are our "friends" and we had no casus belli, so there ya go.
6. It is tough to be both idealistic and realistic and be coherent. Sue me.

135

"... We could walk away in SE Asia, at the cost of a few killing fields and boat people, but what the hey, our quality of life didn't suffer too much. I'm not sure the same can be said of GWOT, of which Iraq is just one theater of operations."

Iraq is counterproductive to the GWOT. We can and should walk away.

We have the troops, but rotation is stupid. Leave them in theater until the job is completed.

You're going to tell the Army and Marines that they get to spend the next 5-10 years in Iraq (and Afghanistan?) full-time? What on earth makes you think this isn't completely insane?

136. It is not insane becaust the troops of all parties involved understand the need to accomplish the mission. Many of the comments I've heard have been frustration at leaving before finishing, and then having to relearn everything two years later.

It is not insane becaust the troops of all parties involved understand the need to accomplish the mission.

Except that keeping troops in the field for an extended period of time is a terrible idea. They need rest. And to, you know, see their families.

134: The thing about this "the consequences are so much worse than S.E. Asia" line, is that it's exactly what people were saying about S.E. Asia back in the day. I would argue that - from the middle of a war - it's always going to look like the consequences of not winning that war are terrible. I would further argue, if this war is some kind of poorly thought-out proxy conflict halfway around the world, those consequences are almost certainly not going to be existentially dreadful for America per se. Will it suck worse for Iraq if we leave? Hard to figure out for sure, but I'd say no. For America? Aside from feeling like idiots, and having completely failed to address the long-term issues in the middle east that do affect us, probably nothing will happen. Depending on our refugee policy, we might get an influx of quality Iraqi restaurants.

What you're saying, though, is exactly the kind of self-sophistry that lead otherwise intelligent people to support the Vietnam war long after it was apparent it was a fool's errand.

137: Who are you talking to? Everyone I know who's been over there comes back absolutely exhausted and, to varying degrees, wigged out, and that's mostly from relatively safe jobs. It's not about the will to succeed, it's about the limits of human endurance.