After Departure

It certainly strikes me as likely, though not inevitable, that after we leave Iraq there will be an increase in the level of violence. So should we stay? No. On Memoir Day Weekend 2006 it was true that if we left Iraq there would likely be an increase in the level of violence. Memorial Day Weekend 2005? Same deal. 2004? Same. 2003? Same.

Trend lines matter. We've been in Iraq a long time now, and our presence keeps not improving the situation. The fact that the actual leaving may well be difficult is no reason to simply prolong the need to leave.

Comments

But it's possible that the trend line will eventually reverse. It's conceivable that if the U.S. stayed 5 more years before leaving, the violence would *not* increase when U.S. troops left. How do you resond to the possibility that the best possible outcome (in terms of total deaths/casualties U.S. and Iraqi) would be for continued U.S. presence for many years or decades? There is no doubt that from the American side of the casualties, longer = more, but who knows about overall when Iraqis are included.

Posted by Tim M | May 26, 2007 6:50 PM

Good point. However, leaving should be relative to reality. Since the Dems signally collapsed in trying to project a scenario for getting out of Iraq that had a long enough timeline and benchmarks to ensure that the getting out was, as much as possible, the result of planning and a good faith effort at mitigating violence, the reality is that we now have drift and an open ended non-plan. And here I think commentors like you, Matt, share some of the blame. The obvious thing to have been pointing out is that to get out, we should be creating the conditions for getting out. Instead of just mocking POTUS's deluded 'win win win' slogan, there should have been a concentrated effort by commenters on the left side of the dial to tie getting out with what was proposed in the congress. Like the teach-ins that sparked resistance to the Vietnamese war, the bloggers should have been making the timetable and the benchmarks concrete in the imaginations of readers: what will they mean, what will they do, how will a year long plan of withdrawal work, what is the worst that we can expect, is there anything American forces can do about that (for instance, can we drop the hostility to Sadr and use the nationalism to encourage intra-Iraqi negotiations? should we stop pressuring the Iraqi government to press an oil law that it evidently doesn't like? can we tie the drawdowns to thresholds?). Instead, the withdraw now stance, without any mechanism to realize it, is in perfect synch with the stay forever till we win, which also has no mechanism to realize it. I've noticed like zero self criticism on the punditosphere, or whatever Chait calls it, since the Thursday vote, like it was just another vote. It wasn't. September is now almost surely going to be a no show for Dem resistance. And on into the killing fields for another year - and it is all hunky dory, because now you can be right.

The tragedy for the children of the meritocracy is that, unlike a test, right doesn't really matter too much in life. There aren't any grades, and merit isn't what gets you higher in the system.

Posted by roger | May 26, 2007 6:56 PM

"We've been in Iraq a long time now, and our presence keeps not improving the situation..."

I like this argument! Why limit it to Iraq though? Think how many other problems could be solved this way. A couple of examples:

We've been trying to reduce car accidents for a long time now, and year after year the remain the largest cause of death. So let's stop.

We've been fighting cancer now for a long time -- at least since Nixon declared war on it. And yet, people keep dying of cancer every day. Time to stop putting good money after bad.

We've been practicing affirmative action a long time now, and our policy keeps not improving the ability of blacks to compete on their own merits, so let's stop. Sure, if we withdraw from this policy, it's going to be difficult...

Posted by Harry | May 26, 2007 7:35 PM

I like this argument! Why limit it to Iraq though? Think how many other problems could be solved this way.

Here's the difference: In each of the examples, the President (in fact, pretty much anyone in the federal government) is or should be perfectly willing to say, "This is a persistent problem that will take decades to address, but it's worth the cost. Stand with me and we'll succeed."

Now imagine Bush saying, "Over the past four years the war in Iraq has cost us $400 billion and the lives of over 3,000 American soldiers. It's worth the cost--in fact, even if it takes decades, trillions of dollars, and tens of thousands of American soldiers' deaths, it will still have been worthwhile if we succeed." Not a fucking chance.

The real Bush: "Go shopping."

Posted by RSA | May 26, 2007 7:42 PM

If it's objectively true that "our presence keeps not improving the situation", and there's no prospect that it will, then it should be relatively easy to get the Iraqi government to officially ask us to leave. If the Iraqi government does that, and we leave in a manner respectful of their concerns (e.g., over a time line they agree with, after providing them with the military equipment their troops are lacking), then if things get worse after we go, Dems are off the hook.

Of course, the current Iraqi government recently sent officials to Washington asking Congress not to pull the plug, but there are ways around this. Dems could find an English speaker or two among the Iraqi political parties that are already demanding a time line, and get them on American news. Dems could use their political savvy to help the pro-time line parties in Iraq pass a bill in parliament demanding this. Maybe Bob Shrum and an insightful State Department Arabist or two who speak Arabic could be detailed to Iraq for this. Not the easiest task, to be sure, but it might be easier to herd cats in the Iraqi parliament than in the U.S. Congress.

Posted by Fred | May 26, 2007 7:51 PM

But it's possible that the trend line will eventually reverse.

Exactly. And it's also possible that the well-established trend line will not reverse.

Wow. This is hard work. What should we do?

Posted by ed | May 26, 2007 7:55 PM

"Of course, the current Iraqi government recently sent officials to Washington asking Congress not to pull the plug, but there are ways around this."

You keep describing the "current Iraqi government" as if it would have any legitimacy without US troops to back it up. With this in mind, it's not too surprising they don't want the troops to leave.

As I see it, the choices are two: leave now (after which Iraq will probably degenerate into factional chaos) or leave at some time in the future (after which Iraq will probably degenerate into factional chaos.) The Iraqi government simply doesn't have the ability to control the country, and there's no evidence that's any truer now than it's been since the elections were held.

As far as "reversing the trend line," what measurable quantity, exactly, are we using as a measure? Dead US troops? Dead Iraqi civilians? Number of Iraqis leaving Iraq? Please advise.

Posted by James Gary | May 26, 2007 8:11 PM

Fred, your wish is coming true:
If it's objectively true that "our presence keeps not improving the situation", and there's no prospect that it will, then it should be relatively easy to get the Iraqi government to officially ask us to leave." Much to the embarrassment of the MSM, the only elected part of the Iraqi government, the legislature, just passed around a petition for a timeline for the troops. Michael Gordon (Judy Miller's tag team buddy on the fake Saddam's dangerous aluminum tubing story in 2002)penned a NYT story about how the Iraqis are just beggin' us to stay, a favorite tune of his, but he did have to bury this troublesome data point at about the 15th or 16th paragraph:

"A bare majority of Iraq’s 275-member Parliament recently signed a petition promoted by Mr. Sadr that called for a timetable for American troops to depart. Even so, the petition said the Americans should not leave until Iraqi security forces were ready to take over the job."

Which readiness, of course, works with the timetable - they didn't say, oh, and be sure to leave our forces in a mess after disbanding them in 2003. We love chaos!

But every time the evidence crosses the atlantic, it gets reversed. A demand to leave becomes a demand to stay. Wow, I wonder how that works?

Posted by roger | May 26, 2007 8:29 PM

Roger:

"Much to the embarrassment of the MSM"

?

"the only elected part of the Iraqi government, the legislature"

What's the unelected part of the Iraqi government? It's a parliamentary system.

"just passed around a petition for a timeline for the troops..."

I'm aware of this petition, since news of it was published in the NY Times, the Washington Post, and elsewhere two weeks ago, although, as the Post reported, at least two of the Iraqi legislators who signed the petition have second thoughts about it, feeling they might have been deceived by Al-Sadr:

"There was also some disagreement over the terms of proposed timetable legislation. Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman told the Associated Press he had agreed to back the measure on the condition that it included an accompanying timeline for the buildup of Iraqi forces, but this was not included in the draft. Othman called the omission a "deception."

"Hassan al-Shimmari, a Shiite who leads the Fadhila Party in parliament, also signed the petition and had similar concerns.

"We can all see that it's not possible for the American troops to leave, and that withdrawing right now would lead to a disaster in Iraq, because the Iraqi security forces are still very weak, and they are still controlled by their sectarian and factional loyalties," he said."

Without those two legislators on board, a bill based on the petition wouldn't have a majority in the Iraqi legislature. That's why I suggested that the Democrats might want to lend a hand to the Iraqis in getting a bill like this passed by the legislature. The Sadr petition is currently being worked into a draft bill, and hasn't been submitted for a vote yet in the Iraqi legislature.

Just like news of Sadr's petition made it across the Atlantic, I assure you, a bill passed by the Iraqi legislature calling for a time table for our withdrawal would make the news here as well. And President Bush has already said he would honor the Iraqi government's request if they were to ask us to leave. So, again, time for the Dems to send Shrum and an Arabist or two to Baghdad.

Posted by Fred | May 26, 2007 9:39 PM

James Gary:

"You keep describing the "current Iraqi government" as if it would have any legitimacy without US troops to back it up."

U.S. troops don't give the Iraqi government its legitimacy; that it was freely elected by the Iraqi people in UN-monitored elections with 80% turnout does. Whether or not the Iraqi government would survive after U.S. troops are withdrawn is another question.

Posted by Fred | May 26, 2007 9:44 PM

Fred,
The Shrum and an arabist is rather a bizarre suggestion. After all, the Dems could have their pick of educated Iraqi exiles - since Chalabi's time, there has been a veritable flood of them as the country has collapsed. Why not use Mohammed al-Daini, the Sunni legislator who was in Washington last week, asking for the Americans to leave. One of the rare instances of Sunni-Shiite is Sadr's desire, along with the National Dialogue Front, the sunni group, to get the American's out. So, there's some point men for you. Too violent? Oh, but President Bush doesn't really seem to have those qualms about the Badr brigade, whose leader he met with last year.

In fact, Maliki and the Americans are at the moment considering arresting all those Sunni legislators for being Al Qaeda enablers. And they probably do have some times to al Qaeda, or more likely the resistance. That's how occupations go.

And though reports that two legislators have backed out may or may not be true, it doesn't mean that the legislative petition is nullified. Otherwise, Kerry and others deciding they wished they hadn't signed onto the bills authorizing the war would cancel the authorization of the war. What politicians sign and what they say they signed, in Iraq as well as the U.S., is, as you should know, full of spin. Many are the Dems who claim to have won a decisive victory on the funding this week.

As for the elected part, the parliament had very little say in who was to be the prime minister, insofar as it was the Americans who were insisting that Jaafari wouldn't do. And when Maliki says he doesn't want something to happen - oh, like he wants the wall knocked down in Baghdad - they send out junior American officers to say that the wall stays, and Maliki has to swallow it. That is power, man.

However, Fred, it would be delightful if Bush fulfilled any pledge he made not to do something to Iraq - I remember at one time he was pledging to be workin' as hard as he could not to attack Saddam. I guess he just didn't work hard enough, although hard work and Bush have never been very good friends. But in the meantime, sending around soldiers to arrest various people in Sadr's party might be construed as a bit of a threat, eh? Of course, the deal is, being a free and democratic republic, that the parliament can vote the Americans out, but any campaign to kick the Americans out is seditious, so naturally those people have to go to jail and their media has to shut down. It is as democratic as East Germany used to be! Well, I guess not quite, what with the shari'a law in Basra, but it will someday proudly stand with East Germany as a model of democracy, I'm sure.

Posted by roger | May 26, 2007 10:11 PM

Just a reminder that the reason we invaded Iraq is that it is part of the "global hegemony" paradigm that has been in place for some time now, going back at least 100 years. It had absolutely nothing to do with "weapons of mass destruction, or 'ties to al-queada', or any connection to 9/11. Paul Wolfowitz let the cat out of the bag when he said that, "Weapons of mass destruction was what we could all agree on." (Meaning, of course, that the casus belli was totally fraudulent because they all had to agree on the most "salable" lie. No WMDs were ever found in Iraq.)

There are elements in the US and in the rest of the world that think that they should rule the entire planet. No, that is not hyperbole; that is a fact. Bush brayed about it at West Point with the speech that no country in the world should ever match the US militarily.

We could get along with the rest of the world quite nicely without all this "hegemony" crap.

Unless these people actually try to engage in a global conflict--in which there will be only losers--they cannot possibly hope to expand their empire. For one thing, the populace, both here in the US and elsewhere, is on to them. In poll after poll, the US is seen as the major threat to the safety and security of the world.

We cannot win in Iraq. We have already lost, because the vast majority of the Iraqi's want us to leave. When we leave--and we will leave--the Iraqi's will engage in a brief period of conflict, after which they will realize that they are only killing themselves. Then they will stop. There have been thousands upon thousands of Iraqi's killed already, and they will not perpetuate the slaughter. Al-Queada will be driven from Iraq by Iraqi's if we leave, for there will be no reason for it to be there anymore.

***********

About a hundred years ago, a man named Teddy Roosevelt sprang onto the political stage. He wanted to conquer the world. Ever since then, with two periods of relative quiet (1920-1939 & 1975-1980),the foreign policy of the United States has been world domination.

The next president of the US should be a person who is an anti-Teddy Roosevelt. He should be a person who will want to work with the world to make it a better place, while making America a better place. He would advocate bringing home all the troops from all over the world--from Germany, from Japan and Korea, from everywhere American troops are stationed. We should leave only the US Marine guards at US embassies abroad as our "foreign military presence." Bring 'em all home.

We would spend the billions upon billions that we now spend on the military to build a high-speed electrified rail network in the US, like Ike built the Interstate Highway System. That would create some *real* security for America, instead of blowing up billions of dollars overseas.

James Hogan

Posted by James Hogan | May 27, 2007 12:56 AM

Correction from above

"Ever since then, with two periods of relative quiet (1920-1939"...

That should read 1929-1939. Fat-fingered the 9. Sorry about that

Posted by James Hogan | May 27, 2007 1:11 AM

It's like ripping a bandaid off. You can do it quickly and accept the pain, or you can do it slowly and draw the pain out, or you can wait till the bandaid's infected but there's a new president on hand to take the blame for not staying the course.

Posted by aleks | May 27, 2007 1:22 AM

Or...

Since the puppet govt can't exist without the US military, it will fall and the insurgents will gain control, and the violence will stop.

Posted by Horatio Parker | May 27, 2007 1:39 AM

"Since the puppet govt can't exist without the US military, it will fall and the insurgents will gain control..."

When the US leaves, the various factions in Iraq are going to fight it out. The question is how long the US will keep spending $200 billion (and ~1,000 soliders) a year to maintain the present situation, i.e, keeping it from degenerating completely.

Regarding the legitimacy of the Iraqi government--if 80% of Iraqis are so gung-ho behind it, why is the situation in Iraq it is? I mean, if it's got such solid popular support, we should be seeing everyday Iraqis ratting out their insurgent neighbors for the cause of a unified Iraq, Sunni-Shiite solidarity rallies, and corruption-free police and armed forces composed of civic-mided Iraqis who put country above party.

Posted by James Gary | May 27, 2007 8:24 AM

The difference between keeping our military in Iraq and sustaining an effort over the long haul over seemingly implacable problem like curing cancer is that the effort to find a cure for cancer doesn't itself appear to be the cause of cancer.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 27, 2007 8:56 AM

"Regarding the legitimacy of the Iraqi government--if 80% of Iraqis are so gung-ho behind it, why is the situation in Iraq it is?"

Because the insurgency in Iraq is being supported by Iran and Syria, of course. Us pulling out doesn't result in an Iraq free of foreign meddling, it just assures that that meddling will be one sided.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 27, 2007 9:11 AM

Not only Iran and Syria, but more importantly the green martians are meddling in there, preventing 80% of Iraqis from expressing their love for their democratically elected government. These green martians have an agenda. They want to harm us. They will follow us home.

Posted by abb1 | May 27, 2007 9:20 AM

"Because the insurgency in Iraq is being supported by Iran and Syria, of course."

So...the insurgency is composed primarily of Iranian and Syrian agents (oh, and al-Qaeda too), who somehow manage to keep the entire country off-balance despite the opposition of 80% of the Iraqi people? Or are Iran and Syria bribing 80% of Iraqis to look the other way?

After four years, the "few bad apples" theory is starting to look pretty weak.

Posted by James Gary | May 27, 2007 10:10 AM

"o...the insurgency is composed primarily of Iranian and Syrian agents "

Who said that? I said they were supported by outside forces, not composed of them. And, yeah, if properly supplied with munitions, it doesn't take all that large a fraction of the populace, certainly a lot less than 80%, to make a country ungovernable.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 27, 2007 10:38 AM

We can't leave, because if we do, we won't be able to stop Iran from destabilizing the pro-Iranian regime. Is that what you're saying, Brett?

Tell me, do you think it's more likely that the Iranian role in Iraq, whatever it may be, has more to do with (1) trying to overthrow a pro-Iranian regime in Baghdad, or (2) Iran's distaste for a US presence in Iraq? Tell me, if Iran supports the insurgency, why does the duly elected government of Iraq keep negotiating with Iran for help with security?

Posted by Steve | May 27, 2007 11:02 AM

"Is that what you're saying, Brett?"

Usually, what I actually say is the best guide to what I'm saying.

"Tell me, if Iran supports the insurgency, why does the duly elected government of Iraq keep negotiating with Iran for help with security?"

Who's in a better position to help you with security than the people causing you the security problems? People negociate with their foes all the time.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 27, 2007 11:13 AM

I always find the Syria and Iran story funny, since Iran was the sponsor for thirty years of the very party - Maliki's party - that is now the "democratically" elected government. Iran is in fact friendly with every faction that the U.S. is supposedly allied with - for instance, the President Talabani's party. The Kurds nearly attacked the Americans when the Americans kidnapped the Iranian diplomats back there in January. The leadership of Iraq goes frequently to Iran - much more frequently than they go to the U.S. - and has consistently proclaimed Iran a friend and ally.

But they don't consistently go to the U.S.'s big ally in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia. Of course, without Saudi money, the insurgency really would suffer from major difficulties. But since the U.S. policy in the Middle East is made up of pretending that things just aren't so, the U.S. is going to do nothing about that. I mean, of the three nations that really had strong ties to the 9/11 hijackers, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan benefited immediately from an annual tribute that the Bushies decided they better pay, and the Saudis were given the usual special treatment after the attack and have benefited enormously from the run up in oil prices that is due, in no small part, to the incompetent de-stabilizing of the Middle East directed by the Bush administration.

However, although the claim that the Iraq government is a democratic, popular entity is easy to mock, it is also the only national forum for political reconciliation that I can see. The parliament's recent petition is a good sign; Allawi's return to Iraq, and his open declaration that he has been meeting with Sunni insurgents is a good sign; Sadr's recent comments about reconciliation are good signs. The American presence, and Bush's apparent intent, is to destroy any such good movement, as it contradicts the U.S. policy of making Iraq into a "U.S. ally". Envisioning a realistic withdrawal policy seems to me to entail: not playing let's pretend in the Middle East; encouraging talk of reconciliation, and getting out of the way of it; recognizing the huge problem posed by the number of refugees, and offering to help pay for them in Jordan and Syria (that's right, offering Syria - devil country! - money); examining current military strategies that encourage sectarianism, and stopping them; stopping the surge; lining up the logistics for withdrawal; etc., etc.

Posted by roger | May 27, 2007 11:48 AM

James Hogan --

Only since TR? Don't forget manifest destiny...

Posted by greebsnarf | May 27, 2007 12:01 PM

If we deem American soldiers should die to protect "aliens," a better case can be made to redeploy to Darfur. That's not a civil war, that's genocide.

Posted by mal | May 27, 2007 5:28 PM

Darfur doesn't contain huge amounts of oil. Oh God would they be fucked then.

Posted by aleks | May 27, 2007 11:49 PM

Darfur doesn't contain huge amounts of oil. Oh God would they be fucked then.

That's not true, they do have oil reserves. Possibly very, very rich ones. West Africa is in play and the U.S. got outbid by China is pretty much what happened.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 28, 2007 12:16 AM