Punditry 101

The primary question facing America's pundit class today is how to avoid responsibility for the situation in Iraq, which is almost certain to get much worse over the next two or three years. As Jon Chait observes "Every self-respecting foreign policy analyst has his own plan for Iraq. The trouble is that these tracts are inevitably unconvincing, except when they argue why all the other plans would fail. It's all terribly grim." This is, I think, the best context in which to understand things like Frederick Kagan's argument that we can and should send many more troops to Iraq. I doubt that this would be possible, and I'm quite certain it wouldn't work. Its great virtue as a plan, however, is that we're entirely certain not to try it.

Anyone who defends Bush's strategy is going to wind up looking bad, because after continuing to fail for a while it will be abandonned in favor of withdrawal. Anyone who advocates withdrawal is going to wind up looking bad, because eventually it will be implemented and bad stuff will happen down the road. Consequently, what you need to go is suggest a pony hunt in some territory where you're sure the administration won't go looking (calls for a regional conference are the center-left version of this) that way when the stay-the-course-until-eventually-you-leave cycle plays out, you get to claim that if only they'd followed my advice the war would have been won. Meanwhile, blame for defeat will be located primarily not on George W. Bush, but on the stab-in-the-back crowd on the left who made it politically impossible for Bush to find the pony.

Comments

I think it's weird that advocates of withdrawal in Iraq don't talk more about Afghanistan. Withdwraw from Iraq, save Afghanistan! This strikes me as an obvious play. A no-brainer, Cheney might say. It provides defense against the you're-a-bunch-of-pussies charge, since Dems would be advocating an *increase* in troops in Afghanistan, and focuses attention both on Bush's failure in the real central front against terrorism and the fact that Iraq was a diversion from it. Plus, of course, it'd be nice if Afgahinstan didn't become a terrorist-haven narcostate.

Posted by davidmizner | November 27, 2006 12:27 PM

Yeah, McCain must be pretty pissed that Bush is going to add 20,000 troops, like he asked. Because then we get to see the McCain Plan fail right in front of our eyes.

Posted by grytpype | November 27, 2006 12:28 PM

It's an N+1 strategy: "I support adding N+1 troops, where N is the maximum number of troops we can"--for logistical or political reasons--"actually send." Credit where credit is due: it's pretty clever.

Posted by somecallmetim | November 27, 2006 12:29 PM

This assumes that the foreign policy types are ever worried about accountability. Hear about those mass layoffs at Brookings, AEI, and the Washington Post editorial page? What are the consequences if their plan is wrong?

Posted by akeers | November 27, 2006 12:43 PM

In January Dems should take a page from the GOP's playbook and hold a vote on a resolution calling for an increase of 20,000 troops. When Congress rejects it, Saint Neocon will be forced by his own "logic" to support withdrawal.

Posted by davidmizner | November 27, 2006 12:43 PM

Let them have their 20,000 more troops. I don't want to hear hawks like McCain say "if only we had been more aggressive, we wouldn't have lost Iraq." I say give the hawks everything they ask for. Shit, who knows, maybe they're right, maybe 20,000 more troops would turn this whole thing around. I don't think so, but let them stake their credibility on their Last Big Push. It will be the last straw, they will be totally discredited and no one will let them run anything anymore.

Posted by grytpype | November 27, 2006 12:48 PM

So what's an honest pundit to do? Admit that Iraq is a disaster and accept responsibility, sure, then say what?

Posted by otto | November 27, 2006 12:48 PM

Here's a good plan: the administration can put in as many more troops as it likes, but the troops will have to come from new volunteers or a draft. No stealth draft using the ready reserve or overusing the national guard.

Posted by akeers | November 27, 2006 12:54 PM

Thank you for stating the situation so eloquently.

It is a sad commentary, indeed, when the most important consideration, with relation to a situation where tens of thousands of lives and the economic stability of the world, are at stake, is forward media strategy.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | November 27, 2006 12:55 PM

Might there be a hybrid approach? Redeploy combat troops to Afghanistan and take a real stand there, while leaving (or even increasing) military trainers/advisors in or around Iraq to continue the effort to raise a viable security force for as long as there's a viable Iraqi government. If the government breaks apart, then the Iraqis will fight their civil war while we try to get Afghanistan right.

Posted by JP | November 27, 2006 1:13 PM

"Anyone who advocates withdrawal is going to wind up looking bad, because eventually it will be implemented and bad stuff will happen down the road"

Assumes there will be pundit class consequences for supporting failed policies. Which in our political environment will of course never happen, unless you are a liberal.

Posted by mickslam | November 27, 2006 1:25 PM

One thing that has never happened before to the pundit class is mass access to archives of predictions and statements and mass willingness to hold them up for mockery with YouTube or powerful world changing blog posts, er..., something. It will be interesting to see if the new media has any effect. You see the beginnings of this with Friedman's friedmans, although I believe that was old media, but that sort of thing could become much more prevalent, and, who knows, might cause a shift, hopefully toward an yglesiasesque approach.

Posted by theCoach | November 27, 2006 1:34 PM

I was born after Vietnam. The only empirical connection I have to Vietnam is Republicans beating Democrats over the head with it for decades.

We need a serious political discussion over how to pull off withdrawal without giving them the stab-in-the-back knife again. If it takes everyone advocating looking for ponies publicly as long as they are doing it purely to defang the GOP, then I am actually inclined to accept it.

Posted by MNPundit | November 27, 2006 1:50 PM

Though not a great one for domino theories, I'd say that if we leave the Green Zone like we left Saigon to the murder of our former collaborators there, it will not bolster the position of our collaborators in Afghanistan.

Posted by otto | November 27, 2006 1:53 PM

Send more troops to Afghanistan? No. That won't ever happen either because then the U.S. would have to confront Pakistan, which is not on the cards. The U.S. can't handle Pakistan: it's Pakistan's hostage, ever since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Every time Pakistan needs something it just has to make some noise about how valuable the country is in the 'war on terra' (as if they're so unequivocally against terror) or let loose a few guys ready to do their dirty work. The whole U.S. ruling classes ends up singing Pakistan's praises while shaking in its shoes. Tony Blair has recently agreed with Parez Mushareff that the 'war' will take a long time. So it has become an open-ended source of income for Pakistan. Good business if you can get it!

Posted by Quentin | November 27, 2006 2:30 PM

scmt wrote: "It's an N+1 strategy: "I support adding N+1 troops, where N is the maximum number of troops we can"--for logistical or political reasons--"actually send." Credit where credit is due: it's pretty clever."

And the '1' is Jonah Goldberg.

Posted by Jon H | November 27, 2006 2:32 PM

"The primary question facing America's pundit class today is how to avoid responsibility for the situation in Iraq"

Which YOU SUPPORTED, Matt.

Posted by frizzled | November 27, 2006 3:11 PM

"Send more troops to Afghanistan? No. That won't ever happen."

No, probably not, but we're talking rhetoric and politics, i.e. what the Dems should do as they try to get us out of Iraq. In a better world with better pols, Dems would simply call for immediate withdrawal, but that ain't gonna happen.

Posted by davidmizner | November 27, 2006 3:25 PM

"then say what?"

Do what actual neo-cons have been doing: deny that you ever had power.

Just lie. Boldly. Broadly. Extravagantly. It's not like they haven't had practice. These guys are like a case of the intellectual shingles. We'll never be rid of them and periodically they'll be back to irritate the hell out of us.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 27, 2006 3:25 PM

Those of us who have followed the neocons from disaster to disaster over the past 20 years already know the M.O. well -- things would have worked out just FINE with [Sharon's Lebanon Adventure, Iran-Contra, Greater Israel, the Iraq War, etc. etc.] if only OUR advice has been followed. I think at this point Richard Perle has the script written out on his shirt cuff for easy reference.

What makes this case a bit different is that this time they got the entire Beltway class to jump over the cliff with them -- in public. So now EVERYBODY is reciting the same script. Much hilarity ensues.

Posted by PeterP | November 27, 2006 3:33 PM

We're always speculating about Iraq and another post-Vietnam head bashing. We're ignoring the possibility of another Vietnam parallel: that Rumsfeld and Bush's wage-it-on-the-cheap strategy might lead to a Dien Bien Phu type debacle. Our equipment over there is wearing out. Our men are tired. Bush is obviously searching for a way out that isn't a way out. And our enemies over there are growing bolder. There won't be a besieged garrison situation, but there could very easily be a series of Beirut style cockups that would crumble even the stoutest of supporters.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 27, 2006 3:33 PM

The failure of the invasion of Iraq can be squarely pinned on the Iraqis. They were failed to live up to the challenge, and gravely disappointed the American pundit class.

David Broder has a column along these lines last week.

Posted by Anon | November 27, 2006 3:53 PM

And soon, dark pundit minds around the world will search for the "humorous" label to pin on our Iraq pitfall, just like we laughed it up, real good, about "Russia's Vietnam."

Posted by ferd | November 27, 2006 4:12 PM

Look at the trajectory of the Iraq debate over the last year and project that into the next 12-18 months. Every day more people are convinced that it's time to start bringing our kids home, and if things continue, there will be no letup. I predict what will evolve as the 08 campaign gets revved up is that bringing 50% of the troops home will be made to look like a solution, not just an exit strategy. Getting out isn't 'cutting and running', getting out will actually make things better in the long term. There is ZERO evidence that more soldiers make a difference in violence levels, there is all kinds of evidence that the American presence undermines the Iraqi regime rather than supports it... Iraqis in greater numbers want American troops gone. The candidates who win their parties' nominations in 2008 will be the one with the plan to get the most troops home soonest.

McCain's absurd '20k more' plan is being seen by more people as the political ruse it is. First reaction: "that's an unusual and unlikely plan" turns to "why would he advocate something like that in the face of all evidence?" which turns to "ahhh...very clever Senator" as the dots are connected. McCain's not going to be able to get away with garbage like this for very long. The Baker Report isn't even out yet and already I get the sense that there is growing 'plan fatigue' out there. All the proposed partitions, and the regional conferences, and the changes to orders of battle are just a big blur to people that will eventually form the words "get the fuck out".

I don't worry as much about the stuff MNPundit does - 'how do we avoid this turning into another VietNAm where Dem political chances were poisoned for a generation'

Iraq is just WAY too different to make me all that afraid of a repeat. Right or wrong, Viet Nam was a single-theme war - stopping the spread of communism. That VN would fall to communism wasn't really in question - it was right there in front of everyone. It was a war seen as being started and sustained by both parties for the 'right reasons' - if there is such a thing.

Iraq is no such beast. The only justification that made the war acceptible to a majority of Americans was the WMD & terror issue, which -unlike communism in VN- evaporated almost immediately. And unlike Viet Nam whose responsibility can be spread between JFK, LBJ, RMN, Kissinger and others of BOTH parties, Iraq is 100% George Bush's war, this is a Republican fiasco from top to bottom. Dems may have been complicit in terms of votes, but these were Republican cabinet members/appointees and Republican congressional committees that built this house of cards. I simply do not buy that this stench will stick to Democrats when Republican hands are so dirty, and they have been so wrong about everything Iraqi.

Posted by ssdagger | November 27, 2006 6:03 PM

True true and true. The rightwing punditry is proposing the obviously unworkable schemes so they can blame us (another stab in the back) after we retreat in defeat. Don't forget, the Republicans cut and ran from Vietnam and they are still blaming us for losing that one. We can count on it happening again. We should just be ready to answer it is all.

Posted by syvanen | November 27, 2006 6:19 PM

So true Quentin about Pakistan... Forget Iran, the Pakistanis have 10 times the fundamentalists and already have nuclear weapons. But because they support the war on terror, we turn our backs on everything else (same as what's going in Sudan by the way)... also probably what will happen with Syria as the U.S. will sacrifice keeping Syria out of Lebanon for Iraq.

Posted by MH | November 27, 2006 6:42 PM

Hey Matt,

What about transparency? Let's start by getting the whole ugly ball of wax totally exposed. Let's get the raw naked truth on the evening news, if the public understood truly what a disaster we have created, and how much of that we intentionally created there would be far more options on the table to the left of withdrawal. Seriously.

This would then give withdrawal, much like cutting the VC funding on a failed startup, the central positioning it would have in a better world. The pundit class needs to start reaching into the bottomless pit that unfiltered Iraq has become. They can project as far down as they like and still not hit bottom. This will give credibility to those that do it for having the stomach to deal with the mess. Pony chasing is the wimps way out. Robert Fisk and friends currently have all the credibility, for having been unflinchingly correct since before day one. You want it back you need to out-flank them on the left, call it the anti-Cheney move, or the Carter.

(Cut to current and former TAPPED staffers sitting around drinking beer culling through blog responses. Giant forehead smack! That's so crazy it just might work!)

Posted by patience | November 27, 2006 6:42 PM

We aren't going to find a pony there either.

From Wikipedia:

Between December 25th, 1979 and February 15th 1989 a total of 620,000 soldiers serviced with the forces in Afghanistan (though there were only 80,000-104,000 force at one time in Afghanistan). 525,000 in the Army, 90,000 with border troops and other KGB sub-units, 5,000 in independent formations of MVD Internal Troops and police. A further 21,000 personnel were with the Soviet troop contingent over the same period doing various white collar or manual jobs.

The total irrecoverable personnel losses of the Soviet Armed Forces, frontier and internal security troops came to 14,453. Soviet Army formations, units and HQ elements lost 13,833, KGB sub units lost 572, MVD formations lost 28 and other ministries and departments lost 20 men. During this period 417 servicemen were missing in action or taken prisoner; 119 of these were later freed, of whom 97 returned to the USSR and 22 went to other countries.

There were 469,685 sick and wounded, of whom 53,753 or 11.44%, were wounded, injured or sustained concussion and 415,932 (88.56%) fell sick. A high proportion of casualties were those who fell ill. This was because of local climatic and sanitary conditions, which were such that acute infections spread rapidly among the troops. There were 115,308 cases of infectious hepatitis, 31,080 of typhoid fever and 140,665 of other diseases. Of the 11,654 who were discharged from the army after being wounded, maimed or contracting serious diseases, 92%, or 10,751 men were left disabled.[5]
Remains of Soviet trucks in Kandahar, Afghanistan, 2002.
Enlarge
Remains of Soviet trucks in Kandahar, Afghanistan, 2002.

Material losses were as follows:

* 118 jet aircrafts
* 333 helicopters
* 147 main battle tanks
* 1,314 IFV/APCs
* 433 artillery and mortars
* 1,138 radio sets and command vehicles
* 510 engineering vehicles
* 11,369 trucks and petrol tankers

Posted by Please don't send them to Afghanistan | November 27, 2006 7:08 PM

Iraq is American's Chechnya.

--We are trying to prevent a dissolution because we fear a domino effect
--There is a long standing American-Iraqi conflict that was ongoing for the last 15 years (Gulf 1 and no-fly zones)
--There are groups with different goals in Iraq fighting the US
--Constant tension between elected officials seen as American puppets or our adversaries
--Mass economic instability and insecurity

Posted by MNPundit | November 27, 2006 7:17 PM

Iraq is not Vietnam because (a) 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), (b) no massive social unrest (or civil rights) to be blamed on hippies, (c) no splitting of the Democratic Party into two (North and South, ultimately)(d)no hippies (though would it kill the younger generation to shave?), and (e) the dangerous fantasists who behaved like hippies were all war hippies.

The only this kills the Dem Party is if the Vichy Dems shiv everyone else. I don't think they have the numbers; there wasn't much support for Carville when he tried to start it.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 27, 2006 11:17 PM

I say the Democrats do whatever the Bush League's Baker "Fig Leaf" Commission recommends - on a pay-as-you-go basis! Sure, you can have 20,000 more troops - that'll be $20 billion in new taxes, please. Stay the course? $80 billion/year - cash in advance...

Posted by RepubAnon | November 28, 2006 2:33 AM

Hell, there's sure to be a pony under all this horse shit somewhere.

Posted by Barry Freed | November 28, 2006 4:33 AM