Half A Friedman

Spencer Ackerman has plenty of substantive commentary on the first-ever press conference by the Baker-Hamilton Commission, chaired by GOP wise man James Baker and Democratic wise man Lee Hamilton and tasked with figuring out what the hell to do about Iraq. I prefer, however, to make jokes: "For reasons that he declined to elaborate upon, Hamilton said the next three months in Iraq will be 'critical,' particularly in the areas of securing Baghdad, national sectarian reconciliation and the provision of basic governmental services to Iraqis."

Thus, one Hamilton equals 0.5 Friedmans.

Jokes aside, though, I prefer not to get too thick in the weeds of exactly when we should leave Iraq. The main point, from where I sit, is that we not stay on this current track where we're going to be there essentially forever. So the question, to me, is always "well, if in 1 Friedman or 0.5 Friedmans or however many Friedmans you like, Baghdad still isn't secure, then can we leave or does this need to continue forever?"

Comments

""So the question, to me, is always "well, if in 1 Friedman or 0.5 Friedmans or however many Friedmans you like, Baghdad still isn't secure, then can we leave or does this need to continue forever?"

It's gonna continue until January 2009, no matter what anyone says or writes.

At that point, a Democratic President will wind it down in a Friedman or two, and a Republican President will have a very interesting political choice to make."

Posted by Petey | September 20, 2006 9:01 AM

And I finally got around to offering feedback on Chait/Yglesias.

Posted by Petey | September 20, 2006 9:03 AM

And finally, while the Moose's excursions into foreign policy approach Marty Peretz levels of insanity, he's smarter than the average mammal on issues of domestic politics.

Today, he's writing about the domestic politics of national security from a different angle than the general CW. It's worth reading, no matter what you're substantive views on foreign policy are. His political principle of "order" is functionally sound in the domestic political arena.

Posted by Petey | September 20, 2006 9:10 AM

I think you've provided atrios with another episode of simple answers to simple questions.

Posted by SP | September 20, 2006 9:12 AM

Atrios had this yesterday. http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_09_17_atrios_archive.html#115869231813295292

Eerie. Great minds and so forth, or just inescapable logic?

Posted by yave begnet | September 20, 2006 9:27 AM

Pretty interesting article in the NYT this morning, basically focusing on growing Bush administration discontent with Maliki. A little hard to tell what the point is - there's some complaining that Maliki is acting weak, just like his predecessor, but of course that's not because of his indecisive character, as the article suggests at one point, it's because he's in a series of impossible situations (e.g. he needs to confront Sadr and defang JAM, but he can't, since they're a major source of his support!), and surely the Bush administration must know that. But among other things, then, the story appears to be a warning from the Bush administration to Maliki: start acting like a ruthless strongman or we'll replace you with a ruthless strongman. Or maybe it's just priming the pump for such a move, so the public is not taken completely by surprise when we get rid of the head of the democratically elected government.

Posted by Jeff | September 20, 2006 10:15 AM

I don't see why anyone in the current Iraqi government would go out on a limb to achieve anything. If you establish order, we Americans will never leave. If you don't, you're likely to be the first one up against the wall when the Americans do leave. In the mean-time, you are a target for assassination. I suppose there is the opportunity for some short-term graft, but I don't think achieving something has any impact on that.

Posted by Njorl | September 20, 2006 10:20 AM

basically focusing on growing Bush administration discontent with Maliki. A little hard to tell what the point is - there's some complaining that Maliki is acting weak, just like his predecessor, but of course that's not because of his indecisive character

Jeebus. Shades of Vietnam.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 20, 2006 10:34 AM

Petey, I'd agree with Bull Moose that order is the defining issue of American politics at this point, and that Democrats have failed to realize this.

What Democrats need to emphasize is that war is the most disorderly thing of all, and that both neoconservatism and market libertarianism are inherently anti-order. The foreign policy of Bush has been about "creative destruction".

There's a couple dots here Dems are failing to connect between Social Security privatization and the war in Iraq--the bold, untested initiatives of this administration are both unconservative and disruptive at a time when we can scarecely afford further disruption. Even the attempt to roll back the clock on social issues is inherently disruptive (reactionary and conservative are two different things). When Americans looked at those crazy Terri Schiavo protestors, was this the face of "order"? What about when Repulicans go on tirades about the judicial system? This is order?

That was actually a huge mistake with the Edsall piece Moose linked to--his argument would indicate that Americans would oppose "the party of risk" as he calls it. And, indeed, Americans seem to oppose the economic policies of Bush (Social Security) even if they accept his national security policies.

Posted by Consumatopia | September 20, 2006 11:17 AM

So the question, to me, is always "well, if in 1 Friedman or 0.5 Friedmans or however many Friedmans you like, Baghdad still isn't secure, then can we leave or does this need to continue forever?"

I have never understood the criticism of the repeated use of the word "critical" by Freidman. To say that the next [X time period] is critical for some condition doesn't mean that the only options at the end of [X time period] are complete success or complete failure.

Let's take a different example. A patient has surgery. The doctor then says that the next 24 hours are critical. Does that mean that after 24-hours, the only two choices for the patient are that he is all better or dead? I don't think so. And then let's say that after that 24 hours the patient is still alive, but the doctor needs to do another procedure, and after that second procedure, the doctor comes back and says again, the next 24 hours are critical. Would Matthew say the doctor is a fool, since he just said the same thing before the last procedure? I wouldn't.

Posted by Al | September 20, 2006 11:33 AM

It's difficult to confront Al's metaphor when it focuses on only one person. What if, after the "critical" 24 hours, our patient has killed a thousand other people?

Posted by Dan | September 20, 2006 11:47 AM

And then let's say that after that 24 hours the patient is still alive, but the doctor needs to do another procedure, and after that second procedure, the doctor comes back and says again, the next 24 hours are critical.

In that case, he should have said from the outset that the next 48 hours are critical. Otherwise, he's a quack doctor who should be barred for malpractice.

Posted by JP | September 20, 2006 11:49 AM

Al

I would have thought this was elementary, but evidently not. "Critical" means decisive for the direction that the condition will take subsequent to the critical period.

And your example is in fact telling. If the doctor knows that there is a good chance there will need to be a second procedure, it's incumbent on the doctor to make that clear when delcaring the first twenty-four hours after the first procedure critical for the patient's survival. But the more important point is that after the tenth procedure and the tenth time that the doctor says the first twenty-four hours after the procedure are critical, you know it's time to get another doctor.

Posted by Jeff | September 20, 2006 11:50 AM

Someone's being intentionally dense. Friedman gets mocked because his estimate of a critical turn of events is the ever-receding horizon of "6 months". "The next 6 months should be crucial." Why not just say "mañana" and get it over with? Well, then (he said, answering his own question) he wouldn't sound sagacious. No, he'd sound like he was making a joke. And The Times don't want jokers. Look at Judith Miller. No. Forget I said that.

Wouldn't it be interesting if those 6 months just didn't happen, though? Just up and disappeared. Talk about critical. Whew. Things would get more than critical. They'd get cranky.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 20, 2006 12:16 PM

On order: the Republicans are out of control -- of the budget, of their war effort, on and on it goes. They do however control Fox News.

Posted by MQ | September 20, 2006 1:09 PM

It seems to me that a key consideration ought to be trying to avoid the type of ending we had with the Viet Nam war; namely, a rushed withdrawal.

There were many factors that contributed to the rapid collapse of the South Vietnamese government and military after we left, but in my view the single most important factor was a lack of planning. The South Vietnamese simply weren't prepared mentally to stand on their own. The withdrawal of US troops was more rapid and absolute that anything they had expected. They were frozen by shock, undercutting the effectiveness of their government and military, compounding a rapidly growing crisis of confidence.

The only way to avoid this same result in Iraq, as I see it, is to give an early and certain notice to the Iraqis that we will be leaving; and to begin now to help the Iraqis come to grips with the fact that their new government and military will soon have to be self-reliant. There is a great deal of planning and preparation the Iraqis must do primarily on their own to build the essential skills and structure they will need to stand on their own. They're also going to need a level of mental toughness that can't be developed overnight.

A major problem during the Vietnam era was the war dragged on and on against a growing opposition at home that the Nixon Administration ignored. The Pentagon and the Administration kept adjusting military strategies believing that they could achieve or at least make headway toward a military victory, ("peace with honor" as Nixon called it), and thereby reverse the increasing opposition against the war.

But the war got bigger instead of better, and the opposition continued to grow. By the time Nixon and the Pentagon came to grips with the fact that they wouldn't be able to achieve their military goals in Vietnam, the opposition had reached overwhelming proportions. The time required for a well planned, phased withdrawal from Vietnam was no longer available. We withdrew all of our forces over a period of a few short months.

We've got to begin planning a withdrawal from Iraq now so that the Iraqis can prepare physically and mentally to succeed on their own. If we don't do that, we're going to find ourselves leaving Iraq with "shock and awe" to rival the opening campaign of the war.

Posted by Steve | September 20, 2006 2:12 PM

If we don't do that, we're going to find ourselves leaving Iraq with "shock and awe" to rival the opening campaign of the war.

One waggish accountant here has noted that the cost in terms of manpower and hardware of the initial invasion was less than that of current months so that we'd do better to simply reinvade and depose whatever gov't that we didn't like than to try and develop one we liked from the ground up.

What are the objections? Even if we reinvaded on a monthly basis, we'd lose fewer men and it would cost less, but surely, we'd let an emerging gov't try their sea legs for a couple of months at least. Fewer deaths. Cheaper. Sounds good to me. Well, better.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 20, 2006 3:47 PM

Vietnam's a bad analogy for many reasons. One is that it took place during the Cold War. Currently, the US is the world's sole hyperpower.

Ackerman's report leads one to believe that Republicans want to pull out for electoral/domestic reasons. I say the Iraqis should have a referendum on the the date of withdrawal, or have the parliament vote on it. Sistani forced Bush into allowing direct elections last year and the current Iraqi government is the result. Has it asked the Americans to leave? No.

If the Americans leave, no doubt the dictatorships of Syria and Saudi Arabia and the theocracy of Iran would fill the void. This is what the proponents of withdrawal are arguing for.

And no doubt these regional powers would like to end the Iraqi experiment in democracy. Two interesting stories in the news today. 1) Yemen, neighbor to Saudi Arabia and Somalia, is having a fairly democratic election, even though it emphasizes it is not succumbing to American pressure. Democracy is possible in the Middle East. (See Lebanon. Of course Juan Cole has nothing to say about Yemen at his blog.) 2) the son of Egypt's dictator says Sunni Egypt should pursue nuclear energy (weapons a la Shia Iran). He's positioning himself to be the next dictator and A) appealing to the masses nationalist sentiments B) pushing back against Bush's democratization efforts. I say pull America's $2 billion foreign aid to Egypt as quick as possible. India's a democracy, Iran and Egypt aren't. This will concentrate the Israelis' minds too.

Posted by Peter K. | September 20, 2006 4:32 PM

"Critical" means decisive for the direction that the condition will take subsequent to the critical period.

Is this right? I don't think necessarily so. "Critical" can mean decisive, but it doesn't necessarily mean decisive. It can also just mean important. As between a definition that makes the writers look foolish and a definition that makes them look OK, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by Al | September 20, 2006 5:32 PM

Al,
I would have been willing to give Friedman the benefit of the doubt, but as luck, or just plain happenstance would have it, I took a cab in Dubai by a Cab driver quoted by Friedman, and he told that in quotes attributed to him, his metaphor had been mixed beyond recognition, so, as you can imagine, I am less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by theCoach | September 20, 2006 9:07 PM

If the Americans leave, no doubt the dictatorships of Syria and Saudi Arabia and the theocracy of Iran would fill the void. This is what the proponents of withdrawal are arguing for.

Oh, nuts.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 21, 2006 10:24 AM