You Gotta Know When to Fold 'Em
It's Time to Leave Iraq
One evening in the last summer of the Clinton Administration (2000), Mrs. Eclectica and I were having a political conversation over a bottle of a nice Santa Barbara County Cabernet Franc. The world seemed to have the potential to be a more friendly place than it had been in the past. The Cold War was over. Communism was pretty thoroughly discredited. There was a peace agreement in Northern Ireland. We had (very slowly) intervened to stop an incipient genocide in Kosovo, though we'd failed to stop one in Rwanda. We'd experienced WTC1, Waco, OK City, Kenya, and the USS Cole. The question put to me was: what threats and challenges would we be facing in the next decade or two?
Iraq was one topic: Saddam was ruthless, violent, and paranoid, but less crazy than Kim Jong Il. I believed that he had nerve gas and maybe nukes. Nevertheless, at that time, Saddam was contained. I believed that even if he aided a terrorist group in an attack against us, we would be able to link him to it and act accordingly, and that he knew that we would do this. I considered him to be rational enough to be deterrable by the threat of total destruction. We had invaded his country once, and threatened his total destruction after uncovering the plot to assassinate Bush Sr. After that, he was basically rattling the bars of his cell.
There was a humanitarian argument for removing him militarily, but the cost would be high (if he used his (now known to have been nonexistent) WMD). Additionally, any humanitarian intervention would have to have broad international support, preferably UN, at least NATO. With France, Germany, Russia, and China opposed to even the existing containment regime, there was virtually no chance of this happening.
Now, in the summer of 2006, after three years of fighting in Iraq, where do we stand? I won't go over the lies, the arrogance, the incompetence, or the military decisions made for political reasons. That horse is skeletal by now. The questions we need to think about are: will it be better for us (the US) if we stay or if we go? Will it be better for the Iraqis? I have just about finished reading Cobra II , which paints a detailed and disturbing look at the run-up to, and prosecution of the war, and its immediate aftermath. One thing stands out: however duplicitous the Administration may have been in starting the war, we might be in a better position had they listened to the opinions of military and diplomatic profesionals about how the postwar Iraq should be administered. It is likely that even if enough troops had been sent to pacify the country and the Iraqi army was co-opted instead of disbanded, the Bushies would have screwed things up by trying to install Chalabi or some other puppet. After all, the only good democracy is one that elects people slavishly favorable to us, right?
Coulda, woulda, shoulda, didn't. We are now in the middle of an accelerating civil war. Our troops, who are trained to do one thing, kill, are doing exactly that. Is it that surprising that exhausted, anxious teenagers with automatic weapons might take out their frustrations on their surroundings? Since their training explicitly dehumanizes the enemy, those surroundings include the hapless Iraqi civilians that find themselves in Abu Ghraib or near an IED attack. The status quo is bad for everyone except the extremists. The Sunnis (Wahhabists and Baathists) massacre the Shias either for apostasy or fear of their rising political power. The Shias use their government positions to organize death squads to retaliate for the Sunni attacks; this activity is probably egged on by Iran. Al Qaeda and the Sunnis attack Americans. And Bush claims we're "taking the fight to the terrorists". More like bringing the targets to the terrorists.
The victims here are first and foremost the ordinary Iraqis. They're getting it from all sides. The extremists in their midst kill them for their beliefs, for their lack of beliefs, for their association with Americans, or merely because they are in the way of some other target. We kill them for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, for being in the way, and it seems just to blow off steam. Next, ordinary Americans who are now paying and will be paying for this fiasco in so many ways are victims. There is a huge financial cost, both overtly in the sense of what we are paying now, and in terms of opportunity cost: what else could we have done with the $300 billion (so far by one estimate). There is a more subtle and less quantifiable, but no less real cost as well, the loss of our international prestige and influence. Does anyone believe that the present Administration stands for anything or cares for anything other than power and money? It will take decades of changed behavior on our part to change attitudes around the world. Our troops, on an individual basis, are victims as well. I doubt most of them joined the military thinking that "stone cold killer" would look good on their resume. They joined to protect the country, their friends, and loved ones, against real threats. Instead they found themselves in an endless war of aggression for strategic position and resources.
Iraq is well and truly screwed. The wounds inflicted by one side on the other are too severe for them to come together in any strong government. The likely outcome is that the country will disintegrate into a semi-functioning state (Kurdistan), a lawless, failed rogue state (Sunnis), and an Iranian puppet state (Shias). I don't think we could prevent this even with more troops; Humpty Dumpty has fallen. We should get out now and let it happen faster rather than slower. The outcome will be the same, it will just cost us less in dollars and lives. Is there any way to save the Iraqi people that are going to suffer and die in this process? I don't see any good answers.
It's Time to Leave Iraq
One evening in the last summer of the Clinton Administration (2000), Mrs. Eclectica and I were having a political conversation over a bottle of a nice Santa Barbara County Cabernet Franc. The world seemed to have the potential to be a more friendly place than it had been in the past. The Cold War was over. Communism was pretty thoroughly discredited. There was a peace agreement in Northern Ireland. We had (very slowly) intervened to stop an incipient genocide in Kosovo, though we'd failed to stop one in Rwanda. We'd experienced WTC1, Waco, OK City, Kenya, and the USS Cole. The question put to me was: what threats and challenges would we be facing in the next decade or two?
Iraq was one topic: Saddam was ruthless, violent, and paranoid, but less crazy than Kim Jong Il. I believed that he had nerve gas and maybe nukes. Nevertheless, at that time, Saddam was contained. I believed that even if he aided a terrorist group in an attack against us, we would be able to link him to it and act accordingly, and that he knew that we would do this. I considered him to be rational enough to be deterrable by the threat of total destruction. We had invaded his country once, and threatened his total destruction after uncovering the plot to assassinate Bush Sr. After that, he was basically rattling the bars of his cell.
There was a humanitarian argument for removing him militarily, but the cost would be high (if he used his (now known to have been nonexistent) WMD). Additionally, any humanitarian intervention would have to have broad international support, preferably UN, at least NATO. With France, Germany, Russia, and China opposed to even the existing containment regime, there was virtually no chance of this happening.
Now, in the summer of 2006, after three years of fighting in Iraq, where do we stand? I won't go over the lies, the arrogance, the incompetence, or the military decisions made for political reasons. That horse is skeletal by now. The questions we need to think about are: will it be better for us (the US) if we stay or if we go? Will it be better for the Iraqis? I have just about finished reading Cobra II , which paints a detailed and disturbing look at the run-up to, and prosecution of the war, and its immediate aftermath. One thing stands out: however duplicitous the Administration may have been in starting the war, we might be in a better position had they listened to the opinions of military and diplomatic profesionals about how the postwar Iraq should be administered. It is likely that even if enough troops had been sent to pacify the country and the Iraqi army was co-opted instead of disbanded, the Bushies would have screwed things up by trying to install Chalabi or some other puppet. After all, the only good democracy is one that elects people slavishly favorable to us, right?
Coulda, woulda, shoulda, didn't. We are now in the middle of an accelerating civil war. Our troops, who are trained to do one thing, kill, are doing exactly that. Is it that surprising that exhausted, anxious teenagers with automatic weapons might take out their frustrations on their surroundings? Since their training explicitly dehumanizes the enemy, those surroundings include the hapless Iraqi civilians that find themselves in Abu Ghraib or near an IED attack. The status quo is bad for everyone except the extremists. The Sunnis (Wahhabists and Baathists) massacre the Shias either for apostasy or fear of their rising political power. The Shias use their government positions to organize death squads to retaliate for the Sunni attacks; this activity is probably egged on by Iran. Al Qaeda and the Sunnis attack Americans. And Bush claims we're "taking the fight to the terrorists". More like bringing the targets to the terrorists.
The victims here are first and foremost the ordinary Iraqis. They're getting it from all sides. The extremists in their midst kill them for their beliefs, for their lack of beliefs, for their association with Americans, or merely because they are in the way of some other target. We kill them for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, for being in the way, and it seems just to blow off steam. Next, ordinary Americans who are now paying and will be paying for this fiasco in so many ways are victims. There is a huge financial cost, both overtly in the sense of what we are paying now, and in terms of opportunity cost: what else could we have done with the $300 billion (so far by one estimate). There is a more subtle and less quantifiable, but no less real cost as well, the loss of our international prestige and influence. Does anyone believe that the present Administration stands for anything or cares for anything other than power and money? It will take decades of changed behavior on our part to change attitudes around the world. Our troops, on an individual basis, are victims as well. I doubt most of them joined the military thinking that "stone cold killer" would look good on their resume. They joined to protect the country, their friends, and loved ones, against real threats. Instead they found themselves in an endless war of aggression for strategic position and resources.
Iraq is well and truly screwed. The wounds inflicted by one side on the other are too severe for them to come together in any strong government. The likely outcome is that the country will disintegrate into a semi-functioning state (Kurdistan), a lawless, failed rogue state (Sunnis), and an Iranian puppet state (Shias). I don't think we could prevent this even with more troops; Humpty Dumpty has fallen. We should get out now and let it happen faster rather than slower. The outcome will be the same, it will just cost us less in dollars and lives. Is there any way to save the Iraqi people that are going to suffer and die in this process? I don't see any good answers.
posted by Stochastic Eclectica at
7:34 AM
|
0 comments
