More Friedman Units to Come

Jonathan Singer throws some much-needed skepticism on the notion that September will really mark a meaningful turning point away from the endless "six more months" dodging of the basic point that American policy in Iraq has failed. He notes, among other things, that there are 35,000 soldies from ten brigades scheduled to deploy to Iraq in August, in order to make it possible to sustain the "surge" through into 2008.

It's absolutely vital to keep in mind that since at least early 2004, a commencement of troop reductions in Iraq has been widely and repeatedly reported to be imminently in the offing. It keeps not happening and the best assumption is that it won't happen. Instead, the general trend is for the number of US troops in Iraq to go up. Barring a real sea change in the congressional Republican Party -- not just grumbling, you'd need to see a genuine structural shift in the power-relations inside the caucus -- this isn't going to change until someone else is sitting in the White House.

Comments

Matt, there will surely be a period of even more horrific violence and bloodletting when we leave Iraq. In 2009 Republicans, still sore from losing the WH, won't be able to resist accusing Democrats of causing it all due to implementing a presumed pullout. The public (ever eager to gobble up the meme liberals are anti-military, limp wristed, dirty fucking hippy losers) will join in the blame game. Now we're looking at a Nam redux and another generation of citizens convinced only Republicans can be trusted with the keys to the military. What to do about that? I still say one spectacular terrorist event bumps Bush back to 55% approval. I think the disenchantment with him is a mile wide and an inch deep. America is primed and ready for a prolonged period of xenophobic fascism. It wouldn't take much for the requisite 51% to be mustered during an election and conservatives gaining Congressional majorities and the WH again.

Posted by steve duncan | May 9, 2007 10:14 AM

There are two positions: the 'do something about withdrawal now' camp, and the 'kick it down the road' camp. The difference between 'X more months' and Bush's 'not while I'm preznit' is negligible. It's time to call bullshit on the 'few more months' brigade, because they're just trying to run out the clock to 2009.

Will there be c. 150,000 US troops in Iraq by January 2009? Yes, there will. But by that time, the Dems need to have dumped responsibility squarely and unequivocally on Bush and the GOPpers in Congress.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 9, 2007 11:11 AM

Maybe now we'll have people claiming it'll just be 6 more months until pundits stop claiming we'll start withdrawing from Iraq in six more months...endlessly recursive Friedman units...

Posted by Mr. Noah | May 9, 2007 11:49 AM

Steve Duncan:

"Now we're looking at a Nam redux and another generation of citizens convinced only Republicans can be trusted with the keys to the military."

I don't understand why Democrats are so politically stupid and short-sided on this issue. By predicting failure for the surge before it began, and attempting to starve it of funds to ensure its failure, Dems have opened themselves up to the 'Nam redux' situation Steve Duncan describes if it fails. Dems could have handled this so much smarter.

Dems could have first emphasized the previous mismanagement of the war, acknowledged that Bush changed strategy, and taken credit for providing the political pressure that made Bush do so. Next they could have promptly passed the appropriation for the surge and publicly hoped for its success, while solemnly noting that this was the final chance to right the situation in Iraq.

Had the Dems done that, they would have had to deal with angry Daily Kosters for another year, but if the surge failed (and the odds were always against its success), the Dems could have voted early next year to start pulling troops out before the '08 elections, with no one able to accuse them of having wanted the surge to fail -- and no one able to plausibly blame them for its failure.

Had the Democrats done this, they would have had the political cover of Republicans like McCain when passing an Iraq withdrawal time-line in early '08, as he has already acknowledged that the surge is a last chance. Instead, by prematurely predicting failure and advocating a policy which guarantees it, Dems have put their finger prints all over that failure if it happens. Stupid and short-sided.

Posted by Fred | May 9, 2007 12:08 PM

1) Again, why can't we "anti-military, limp wristed, dirty fucking hippy losers" address the PRIMARY POINT?? And force the President to do the same.

Which is that our soldiers sign up to defend to the United States, not to seize oil wells. 3000 of them have died for no good reason chasing non-existent WMDS -- a false mirage cooked up by Big Oil, Big Defense, and the Israel Lobby. Roughly Another 10,000 have been crippled --some for life. And George Bush has had over 4 years to summon out those crowds of cheering Iraqis welcoming us as liberators.

You can explain our current situation in one of two ways. One way is that George Bush deliberately lied us into this war. Two, George Bush is stupid and led us into a costly unnecessary war with no real evidence for doing so. Regardless of which you believe, it pretty clear that George Bush and Dick Cheney should no longer be allowed to make the decisions.

2) So why should George Bush/Dick Cheney be allowed to kill another 3000 in a futile attempt to set up a puppet government that will write favorable oil concessions for Houston??

3) Congress declares war and congress ends it.
The Democrats have been given control of Congress. The Democrats may not be able to impeach Bush but they damm well can force him into a public debate to justify his actions -- a debate that will destroy the Republicans in 2008.

The Democrats can certainly stop Bush from getting any more money.

4) But it takes courage and a willingness to sacrifice one's political career if need be rather than be complicit in the further slaughter of our children. It's that simple.

5) If they Democrats really believe their rhetoric, then how can they allow this to go on?
How can they not filibuster to death any spending bill that does not move to end the Iraq war immediately?

6) The Republicans already have the Democrats on record as voting to "cut and run" from Iraq--the bill that Bush just vetoed.

7) The only real question is whether the Democratic MAJORITY in Congress will cut and run from a war with Bush and the Republicans. Of whether they will allow another 1000 troops to die because they don't have the courage to stand up for what's right.

The American people can accept mistakes. They won't accept leaders who are two-faced -- who loudly proclaim ideals in the public forum and who then betray those ideals-- and their constituents -- at the drop of a hat when it's personally convenient to do so.

Posted by Don Williams | May 9, 2007 12:38 PM

Re Steve's comment "Now we're looking at a Nam redux and another generation of citizens convinced only Republicans can be trusted with the keys to the military. "
---------
The American people came to that conclusions about Democrats after Vietnam because it was two DEMOCRATIC presidents --John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson --who led us into that mess and kept us there for a decade.

Posted by Don Williams | May 9, 2007 12:41 PM

Don Williams:

"The American people came to that conclusions about Democrats after Vietnam because it was two DEMOCRATIC presidents --John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson --who led us into that mess and kept us there for a decade."

Uh, that's not why. The American people came to that conclusion because it was a DEMOCRATIC Congress who banned any U.S. military aid or support to South Vietnam after Watergate, and absent that support, South Vietnam was defeated by a conventional armored invasion in 1975 (an invasion similar to the one a few years earlier that was stopped by a combination of U.S. air power and U.S.-supported South Vietnamese ground troops).

That fecklessness in Vietnam contributed to an image of American weakness which came to its nadir in the invasion of our embassy in Tehran in 1979.

Posted by Fred | May 9, 2007 1:01 PM

"Instead, by prematurely predicting failure and advocating a policy "

The people have spoken. Loud and clear. GTFO! The poll numbers for occupation aren't gonna reverse fer crisake! It took a awhile but even redstaters have realized Bush's adventure has been a failure. Not even another 9/11 type attack will change that.

Posted by judson | May 9, 2007 1:40 PM

"The people have spoken. Loud and clear. GTFO! The poll numbers..."

There again the stupid short-term focus. Do you think the Vietnam War was especially popular in the early '70's? Nevertheless, the Dems in Congress who voted for South Vietnam's defeat sowed the seeds of the "weak-on-defense" complex that has haunted Dems ever since (and compelled many of them to vote to authorize the current Iraq War, to get the monkey off their backs).

Posted by Fred | May 9, 2007 2:00 PM

Do we have any responsibility to the people of Iraq? After trashing out their (loathsome) government, destroying their economy and allowing a collapse of security can we just walk away? I find the Democrat "Oops, my bad" approach to foreign policy to be immoral. Remember the Vietnamese boat people and the Cambodian killing fields? Does a super power have a responsibility to the people of an occupied country?

Not making light of the casualties we have suffered but we lost more soldiers (both sides) in one day at Antietam with a population roughly 10% of what we have now. We are at about D+3 losses for Operation Overlord with a similiar sized force. I do not see the losses as in vain. Iraq is the main theater of operations for Al Qaeda according to Al Qaeda. We are tying them down in a Muslim version of Vietnam. Iran and Saudi Arabia are spending their terrorism earmarked dollars in Iraq killing their fellow believers. Reform movements were energized throughout the Middle East until we lost our will. Now they are being put back in the box with perhaps the exception of Iran. There is a lot more going on in the Middle East that is not being reported in MSM.

Posted by danceswithgoats | May 9, 2007 3:25 PM

"Do we have any responsibility to the people of Iraq? After trashing out their (loathsome) government, destroying their economy and allowing a collapse of security can we just walk away? I find the Democrat "Oops, my bad" approach to foreign policy to be immoral."

It's a question of agency. We simply lack the tools to force the Iraqi government, especially the Shi'ite majority, to make the concessions necessary. The last tools left in the box are timetables and the threat of withdrawal and those threats don't mean anything if they think we won't follow through.

"Remember the Vietnamese boat people and the Cambodian killing fields? Does a super power have a responsibility to the people of an occupied country?"

The Cambodian killing fields were only connected to the Vietnam War in the sense that 1) Nixon helped install Lon Nol in a coup and 2) then proceeded to bomb the fuck out of Cambodia's infrastructure. It was the use of American military power - seeing every problem as a nail while holding a hammer - that brought about the killing fields. It was the very government the "Vietnames boat people" were fleeing that overthrew Pol Pot. It would have been nice if we worked with the Vietnamese government by providing air support or something, but our withdrawal from the Vietnam War was just facing the inevitable.

"Not making light of the casualties we have suffered but we lost more soldiers (both sides) in one day at Antietam with a population roughly 10% of what we have now. We are at about D+3 losses for Operation Overlord with a similiar sized force. I do not see the losses as in vain."

I agree that we have been luck with low casualties, but it is the lack of progress on the Iraqi government's part that is getting people most riled up, not casaulties. We also shouldn't fall for the "sunk cost" fallacy.

"Iraq is the main theater of operations for Al Qaeda according to Al Qaeda. We are tying them down in a Muslim version of Vietnam."

The gulf between AQ rhetoric and reality fluctuates. Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri on one hand and AQ in Iraq and al-Zarqawi on the other were not that close. Bin Laden considered him a punk who fucked things up by doing things like bombing Amman weddings and hotels and was mad that AQII was soaking up funds that could go to them in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The real AQ, to an extent, is a johnny-come-lately in Iraq rhetorically that is trying to take credit for someone else's successes.

"Iran and Saudi Arabia are spending their terrorism earmarked dollars in Iraq killing their fellow believers. Reform movements were energized throughout the Middle East until we lost our will."

Energized and lost our will exactly how? Lebanon's Cedar Revolution was largely inspired by watching the Orange Revolution on Al-Jazeera and the revolution ended with the Israel-Hezbollah war. We were never going to lean enough on Moubarek to actually see him succumb to reform movements because we fear that would bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power. When we backed off our rhetoric against Iran in the late 1990's, Iranian society liberalized a bit because the mullahs were less afraid of us and more confident. The Iraq War keeps the US and Iran in tension, thus hurting reform. Iran and Saudi Arabia, also, don't have to spend only X amount on terrorism each year and then not be able to spend past that. The great thing about controlling the treasury in an authoritarian state is that you get decide where the money goes.

"Now they are being put back in the box with perhaps the exception of Iran. There is a lot more going on in the Middle East that is not being reported in MSM."

Care to share? I've talked to people who know Iranian reformers and they don't exactly seem to find our presence in Iraq helpful.

Posted by danceswithgoats | May 9, 2007 3:25 PM

Posted by Reality Man | May 9, 2007 5:37 PM

Do we owe anything to the people of Iraq?

Well, yes, we owe them a great deal. Iraqis are poorer than in 2002, more of them have fled the country (almost 10% of the population), and more of them are dying. The Kurdish region, which was tolerably secure after 1991, is imperiled; and there may well another civil war over Kirkuk next year.

But what do we owe them? We owe them, for the first time in four years, not making things worse. At that point, there may be a civil war; if enough Iraqis prefer one, there will be one - our choice is whether to meddle in it or not.

There are reports that when Maliki fails, he will be replaced by a strongman; whether or not this is true, the next real government of Iraq will have motive, means, and opportunity to acquire nuclear weapons. At this point, we will have spent half a trillion for nothing.

Posted by Septentrionalis | May 9, 2007 11:35 PM