Quote of the Day

Via Eric Martin, James D. Fearon's article on "Iraq's Civil War" in a comparative context:

In fact, there is a civil war in progress in Iraq, one comparable in important respects to other civil wars that have occurred in postcolonial states with weak political institutions. Those cases suggest that the Bush administration's political objective in Iraq -- creating a stable, peaceful, somewhat democratic regime that can survive the departure of U.S. troops -- is unrealistic. Given this unrealistic political objective, military strategy of any sort is doomed to fail almost regardless of whether the administration goes with the "surge" option, as President George W. Bush has proposed, or shifts toward a pure training mission, as advised by the Iraq Study Group.

Well said. You can't do the impossible, even with a really smart general and his smart field manual.

Comments

I wish Petraeus would publicly acknowledge this manifest fact. The country, not to mention our troops who are dying needlessly, would be much better off.

Posted by Rich | June 2, 2007 1:27 PM

Actually, I think they'd like the stable, peaceful, somewhat democratic part without the US troops leaving. I don't think that's much, if any, more likely, though.

Posted by Doug T | June 2, 2007 2:54 PM

Couldn't it be said of El Salvador that it was a "postcolonial states with weak political institutions"? And yet it is now a fairly stable democracy.

Don't get me wrong: I am pessimistic about the prospects for (non-Kurdish) Iraq, but the history of democracy taking root in places like El Salvador suggests that it is possible for "postcolonial states with weak political institutions" to become democracies, even after civil wars. It may be that Arabs are less capable of establishing democracies than Central Americans or East Asians. That would certainly be a convenient truth from the perspective of Arab autocrats.

The best bet for Arabs in the near term may be if more Arab states move in the direction of the Hong Kong/capitalist autocracy model that Dubai seems to be evolving toward.

Posted by Fred | June 2, 2007 4:31 PM

You can't do the impossible, even with a really smart general and his smart field manual.

But I thought your position was that not just Bush's expansive goals, but all objectives in Iraq were impossible, that there is literally nothing we can do that will in any meaningful way affect what occurs in Iraq.

Because if that's not your position, the Fearon point, which is extremely well taken, leaves open another option, which is in fact the option I take it everyone outside the White House is counseling, encouraging and doing whatever they can to pursue: change the objectives from the impossible ones to possible ones. That is, everyone else is converging on a much more minimal set of objectives, in essence, 1)no safe haven for AQ in Iraq; 2)no regional war; 3)no genocidal killing; and trying to figure out how to accomplish or approximate them. But I take it your dogmatic opposition to any training mission whatsoever (and insulting motive-attribution to those who might try to figure out how to do a training and advising effort better than we're doing it now)) precludes the possibility that any larger effort of which training might be a part might aim at these much more minimal objectives.

Posted by Jeff | June 2, 2007 4:35 PM

While it might be impossible to stop a civil war completely it is possible to limit its extent to some degree. The writer touches on Lebanon, but surely that's an example of an Arab country torn apart by a sectarian civil war that's come out the other side? The peace is imperfect, but it's lightyears from the place it was 20 years ago and lightyears from Iraq today.

Posted by Renwick | June 2, 2007 11:14 PM

Which is also why Yugoslavia is now a stable, peaceful, somewhat democratic regime.

When a combustible situation with multiple ethnicities or multiple confessionals has been kept under the thumb of a brutal, repressive dictator and his police state, the outcome, when the lid comes off, ain't pretty.

I'm no FP professional. How come no neocon FP professional realized this? Does their knowledge of history, their ability to fashion metaphors, begin and, more importantly, end with Chamberlain and Munich?

Posted by wendell | June 3, 2007 12:42 AM

which is why US needs to install a brutal, repressive dictator, this time a pro-US dictator.

Posted by Jewbacca | June 3, 2007 2:57 AM

hqstoua kahvbqgxs oveksfw mibstdjh invpj fgnru wlkyr

Posted by xuizdw etsrflon | June 7, 2007 11:53 AM

esoinxkhc sxrofqaiu ukmxtobc mwkxy fysmoz jmbhi hwfzcbtnx http://www.zciha.aczm.com

Posted by kqye gzxnwhl | June 7, 2007 11:54 AM