The Blame Game

Atrios nails the problem with a residual force with his customary pith: "What drives me nuts about this residual force stuff, aside from how arbitrary it is, is that there's never any thought to exactly what these 50,000 should do. Basically, as the violence rages around them they're supposed to sit there to ensure that... there isn't even more violence raging around them. But it isn't really enough people to actually intervene, especially given that not even close to that many would be combat troops."

Quite so. Unfortunately, in another customary attribute that I'm less enthusiastic about, the target of Atrios' ire is International Herald Tribune columnist Roher Cohen. Cohen is appropriately mocked as a "Very Serious Person." But while media criticism certainly has its place, the reality is that the prime advocates of a residual force in Iraq aren't Cohen or other "wankers" in the press, but Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and much of the Democratic congressional leadership. That we can be in the midst of a primary campaign during which the candidates are supposedly looking to "pander" to the dread damn dirty hippies of the base and yet none of the front-running candidates will make a clear promise to leave Iraq and attack his or her rivals for failing to do the same is rather astounding.

If a pollster called me tomorrow and asked who I was supporting, I would say "Bill Richardson" out of a hope that perhaps a smallish Richardson surge would convince someone else to adopt his position on Iraq -- we should leave.

Defense Department photo.

Comments

I'd like to see all the dirty fucking hippies finally come to accept we're never leaving Iraq. Force size issues will have to be sorted out keeping that in mind. What the hell are we going to do, cede control of the Iraqi oil fields to Iran? And once Iran has them watch them move on to other Middle East oil assets? Dennis Kucinich is one of the only politicians clamoring for a pullout that would satisfy many on the Left and he's considered nominally insane by about 75% of the electorate. WE'RE NOT LEAVING IRAQ. Agitating for it is pissing into the wind.

Posted by steve duncan | June 18, 2007 9:24 AM

Almost on-topic: I'm prepared to bet that when Gordon Brown becomes British Prime Minister in a few weeks' time, he announces a period of 'consultation', following which British forces stay in Basra for at least the lifetime of the Bush administration. When I said this on Crooked Timber there was a howl of disagreement, but I'll put my money where my mouth is: 100 dollars to charity, anyone?

Posted by Dan Hardie | June 18, 2007 9:29 AM

What the hell are we going to do, cede control of the Iraqi oil fields to Iran?

This sort of comment is always tossed off as if it's so obvious we can't do it, only a fool would question it. OK, I'll play the fool. Assuming that Iraq's Shiites would simply turn themselves into an Iranian client state -- and I think that's highly questionable -- so what if Iran gets control of the Iraqi oil fields? Here are some numbers: Total world oil production is approximately 80 MB/D, of which Iran currently produces 4, and Iraq 2. So Iran goes from producing 5% to 7.5%. Precisely what do you think is going to result from that that warrants keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq? You think Iran's going to shut down the Iraqi oil fields? What, then?

Posted by Glenn | June 18, 2007 9:37 AM

Matt, I think you're being a bit unfair lumping Edwards' position in with Clinton's and Obama's (whose position, frankly, I am less sure of). Here's Edwards' statement to Chris Bower's on the subject.

Just received this over email from the Edwards campaign: When we say complete withdrawal we mean it. No more war. No combat troops in the country. Period. But we're also being honest. If John Edwards is president, we're not going to leave the American Embassy in Iraq as the only undefended embassy in the world, for example. There will be Marine guards there, just like there are at our embassies in London , Riyadh , and Tokyo . And just the same, if American civilians are providing humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people, we're going to protect them. How in good conscience could we refuse to protect them and then allow humanitarian workers to be at risk for their lives or the work not to happen at all? Finally, it's also Senator Edwards' position that we will have troops in the region to prevent the sectarian violence in Iraq from spilling over into other countries, for counter-terrorism, or to prevent a genocide. But in the region means in the region - for example, existing bases like Kuwait , naval presence in the Persian Gulf , and so forth. I hope this helps explain Senator Edwards' position. Thanks for standing up for what we all believe in.

Posted by AJ | June 18, 2007 9:41 AM

Ygelesias, you're not being much more more honest than the pols you blast.

No mainsteam pol--including Feingold and including Bill Richardson--is really advocating withdrawal from Iraq. Feingold's much praised withdrawal bill allows for continued ops in Iraq to combat AQ. Maybe he put this in to try to win support but such a provision could of course provide for a continued occupation. And Bill Richardson claims to be for withdrawal but wants troops stationed there to defend the everexpanding, embassy, which is, in fact, a military base.

To advocate true withdrawal, you need to call for the embassy to be dismantled. Otherwise you support a huge imperial presence in the heart of a country whose civil war we just caused. I'm not saying there's not a difference between troops protecting an embassy and combat troops, but if you're going to write about the views of the candidates regarding Iraq, you should explain the differences.

On one end are Gravel and Paul, who advocate true withdrawal. On the other end are Clinton and Obama, who openly advocate a large residual force. In the middle are Edwards, who wants a smaller number of troops there to protect the embassy and do humanitarian missions, and slightly to his left, Richardson, who wants troops at the embassy.

In any case, I don't think the "plans" of the candidates are all that important--what happens will be shaped by what happens. The important thing is to start leaving.

Posted by david mizner | June 18, 2007 9:54 AM

"If a pollster called me tomorrow and asked who I was supporting, I would say "Bill Richardson" out of a hope that perhaps a smallish Richardson surge would convince someone else to adopt his position on Iraq "
-----
Actually, I think Bill Richardson is the only candidate that has shown any ability at all in ..you know..governing. He was Secretary of Energy in Bill Clinton's administration and he has been governor of New Mexico since.

By contrast, Hillary has basically been a housewife for the past 20 years. Not that a housewife can't be President -- I just happen to think that we have 80 million of them who are better qualified than Hillary.

Anyone who let herself be a public doormat for Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and Wild Bill is not likely to stand up to donors like current sugar daddy Haim Saban.

Hillary is the Democratic version of George Bush -- someone who was a failure in mid-life, someone who looked to wealthy men to rescue him, to protect him and to give him self-esteem. Like George, Hillary will never have the courage to say "NO". That fight was lost decades ago.

Posted by Don Williams | June 18, 2007 9:56 AM

Don, I think you sell Hillary short as to her cojones. You need to take seriously anyone who can lure a man into a public park and shoot him dead in a cluster of trees. Yeah, a bit sneaky and underhanded but not entirely bad traits in a President having to deal with some pretty unsavory characters on the world stage.

Posted by steve duncan | June 18, 2007 10:15 AM

Dennis Kucinich,he's considered nominally insane by about 75% of the electorate.

While you steve duncan, are considered inane by everyone.

Posted by TJM | June 18, 2007 10:29 AM

AJ quotes the Edwards campaign: If John Edwards is president, we're not going to leave the American Embassy in Iraq as the only undefended embassy in the world, for example. here will be Marine guards there, just like there are at our embassies in London , Riyadh , and Tokyo . And just the same, if American civilians are providing humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people, we're going to protect them.

That's an embassy the size of Vatican City, in the middle of a civil war. There is no way you can protect that and the "humanitarian workers" (mercenaries I assume) without air support and permanent military bases. Ergo: a residual force.

Posted by ~~~~ | June 18, 2007 10:35 AM

The residual force, though, in a Richardsonian scenario, could just be a couple hundred Marines guarding the embassy compound. I don't think that makes it "untrue" withdrawal. There are Marine guards at the US Embassy in Ottawa.

Posted by Alex | June 18, 2007 10:49 AM

But while media criticism certainly has its place, the reality is that the prime advocates of a residual force in Iraq aren't Cohen or other "wankers" in the press, but Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and much of the Democratic congressional leadership.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Elite opinion drives the views of politicians, not the other way around. To the extent presidential candidates favor a residual force, it's not the result of deep thinking, it's because any suggestion of a real withdrawal inspires gasps from the punditocracy.

Posted by Steve | June 18, 2007 10:51 AM

No combat troops in the country. Period. . . . And just the same, if American civilians are providing humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people, we're going to protect them. How in good conscience could we refuse to protect them and then allow humanitarian workers to be at risk for their lives or the work not to happen at all?

The humnanitarian workers will be protected by non-combat troops? How does that work? By calling in air? I don't think air power alone will be very effective for protecting groups of civilians.

I'm not feeling better about Edwards.

Posted by David Tomlin | June 18, 2007 11:08 AM

All this talk of a 50k "residual" force is just whanking - the US has never had less than 115k troops in Iraq since the occupation began, and the average number has shown a relentless increase since spring 2004 - at the end of this year during the force rotation period there will be up to 200k US troops in country.

What Roger Cohen et al fail to understand is that at somewhere between 50 and 100k the US military presence becomes insufficient to stave off a collapse of some description. For such a number to be in any way tenable requires the US to depend on Iraqi security forces being prepeared to die to defend them - something that is unlikely to happen any time soon, if ever.

If one considers that the 50k troop number covers the US military contingents based at Baghdad airport and a few other bases in Baghdad, the Green Zone and Tallil ( Nasariya ), then such a force level would require the wholesale abandonment of all parts North, East and West of Baghdad, and a massive vacuum to the South of Baghdad. This would entail an abandonment of Balad ( aka LSA Anaconda ) - the hub of US air operations in Iraq, plus more or less all bases in Anbar, including Al Assad airbase, Mosul, Diyala province, Kirkuk etc.

Posted by dan | June 18, 2007 11:09 AM

Dennis Kucinich is one of the only politicians clamoring for a pullout that would satisfy many on the Left and he's considered nominally insane

yes, poor crazy dennis.

what are the two things most americans want?

1. out of iraq, now.
2. universal not-for-profit healthcare

that crazy dennis, he actually wants to deliver those things! what a nut!

no serious candidate would support such lunacy.

Posted by dirk gently | June 18, 2007 11:24 AM

"If a pollster called me tomorrow and asked who I was supporting, I would say "Bill Richardson" out of a hope that perhaps a smallish Richardson surge would convince someone else to adopt his position on Iraq "
-----
"Actually, I think Bill Richardson is the only candidate that has shown any ability at all in ..you know..governing."
-----
Richardson IS 100% right on the war, and he's the ONLY candidate pushing for this.

De-authorize the war now, and get our troops out of there!!
http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/page/content/deauthorizenow/

Posted by Alison | June 18, 2007 11:30 AM

Don Williams:

"Actually, I think Bill Richardson is the only candidate that has shown any ability at all in ..you know..governing."

Excerpt from Richardson's Meet the Press appearance:

MR. RUSSERT: But let’s go through the resume a little bit. First, there’s governor of New Mexico. As you well know, they rank states in a whole variety of categories from one being the best, 50th being the worst. This is New Mexico’s scorecard, and you are the governor. Percent of people living below the poverty line, you’re 48. Percent of children below, 48. Median family income, 47. People without health insurance, 49. Children without health insurance, 46. Teen high school dropouts, 47. Death rate due to firearms, 48. Violent crime rate, 46. You’re the very bottom of all those statistics of all 50 states, and you’re the governor for five years.

Dirk Gently:

Why stop at "universal not-for-profit healthcare"? Why not universal not-for-profit grocery stores too? Why let greedy corporations make our food more expensive than it needs to be? Why not with housing for that matter? We could cut a lot of the inefficiencies out of the housing system with a single payer model and give everyone the shelter they are entitled to.

Posted by Fred | June 18, 2007 11:39 AM

File this under the "Importance of Prepositional Phrases"- My copy of the Edwards statement above says that IF Americans are performing humanitarian assistance they will be protected. This is one of those hypothetical contingency things that, perhaps, Presidential candidates would be better to obfuscate on alla Richardson in the second debate on his response to a hypothetical Iraqi genocide.

That said, conflating Edwards position on residual force with Hillary's or Obama's,which plan 50,000 troops for training, "Al Qaeda" pursuit, and Iranian watching, requires a bit of both fuzzy math and logic.

Posted by AJ | June 18, 2007 12:18 PM

Isn't the problem that the Pundits of the Corporate Right-wing Media have the power to de-legitimize a Democratic candidate? And, the dirty friggin' hippies don't have any power to fight back?

The leading Democratic candidate all calculate that they protect their reputation for "seriousness" by adopting this residual force position.

There are no liberals on TV. There are no liberal newspapers -- the N.Y. Times is as ready as ever to gin up a Whitewater.

We all know what happened to Howard Dean when he declared that capturing Saddam Hussein made us no safer. And, when he screamed, they took him out.

The pundits have power, and power corrupts. This means you, Matthew.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | June 18, 2007 12:28 PM

Fred, you continue to make the worst of bad-faith arguments.

If I was to deal with you in a similar fashion, I would accuse you of wanting no publically-funded and managed police forces and no publically-funded and managed armed services.

You (AFAIK) have advocated for no such thing, but if I was to adopt your style of argument, it would be entirely consistent for me to accuse you of advocating for these things.

Knock it off. It's utterly dishonest and really fucking annoying.

Posted by Captain Goto | June 18, 2007 12:39 PM

Look, I don't know where everybody else got their "residual force" ideas from, but I got mine from Fred Kaplan over at Slate, who cannot be regarded as a "Very Serious Person" in the sarcastic sense, or a "wanker." He's also made it pretty clear in more than one article why he supports just such an approach, and how it's a step to eventual withdrawal. If nobody knows this, then it's because they're reading the wrong people, which is not the fault of Kaplan.

Posted by Xanthippas | June 18, 2007 1:36 PM

Captain Goto:

"If I was to deal with you in a similar fashion, I would accuse you..."

If you were to "accuse" me of something, you wouldn't be dealing with me in "a similar fashion".

Posted by Fred | June 18, 2007 2:18 PM

Don't be a weasel, Fred. I quote:

"Why stop at "universal not-for-profit healthcare"? Why not universal not-for-profit grocery stores too? "

To pretend that this is not an 'accusation' is just more dishonesty.

Posted by Captain Goto | June 18, 2007 2:20 PM

Captain Goto:

Here's a little homework for you before you respond to this post:

1) Look up what "accuse" means.

2) Look up what "ad hominem" means.

3) Figure out the difference between asking questions to prompt someone to flesh out his argument and accusing him of something.

Posted by Fred | June 18, 2007 2:24 PM

Re Steve's comment "Elite opinion drives the views of politicians, not the other way around."
-----
Bullshit. MONEY drives the views of politicians -- like that $1 Million that Haim Saban has raised for Hillary this year. Because he thinks she "will be good for Israel".

Posted by Don Williams | June 18, 2007 2:31 PM

"Figure out the difference between asking questions to prompt someone to flesh out his argument and accusing him of something."

More bad faith.

The cited quote was a classic example of a strawman argument, thinly disguised as a request to 'flesh out an argument'. A strawman argument is an inherent accusation that one's opponent sides with an obviously untenable and only-barely-related position, typically in an effort to stall, obfuscate, or change the subject.

Keep telling yourself that you argue honestly, Fred. You're not fooling anyone, except perhaps yourself.

Posted by Captain Goto | June 18, 2007 2:34 PM

Why stop at "universal not-for-profit healthcare"? Why not universal not-for-profit grocery stores too?

DING DING DING! Congratulations for your 1000th post presenting an inane, absurdly hysterical strawman excuse of an "argument". As your award, here's a quote from Homer Simpson that you can effectively substitute for EVERY FUCKING THING you've posted here:

"Oh, look at me! I'm making people happy! I'm the Magical Man from Happy-Land, in a gumdrop house on Lollipop Lane! .... Oh, by the way, I was being sarcastic."

Posted by a1 | June 18, 2007 2:37 PM

Just b/c this time is a little more inane than usual:

If you don't understand the difference in motivation between not-for-profit healthcare and not-for-profit grocery stores, then YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION!

Or you're a fucking idiot. Or you're just dishonest. I'd go with the latter. But if you want to argue one of the other two options, be my guest.

Posted by mpowell | June 18, 2007 3:42 PM

"... there's never any thought to exactly what these 50,000 should do."

I think there is thought about it, just never any intelligent discussion of those thoughts.

The residual force for which I've heard arguments would be disentangled from Iraqi population, and be designed to do what American armies do best - blow the hell out of other conventional militaries.

What I have heard, is that a residual force would have two uses. It would not hunt terrorists, or even support the government against its domestic enemies. It would deter military incursions of Iraq. More importantly, it would deter the use of massed military might by one Iraqi sect against the civilian population of another. As bad as things are, they could get much worse. Bombings and death squads are bad, but unrestricted use of military units against unarmed civilians is much worse. When we leave, the piece-meal attempts at ethnic cleansing will probably give way to civil war fought by larger, more conventional, paramilitary forces. If there is a danger that a civilian massacre will be met by an attack from the Americans, it might make massacres less common. While guerrillas and terrorists might think little of our ability to find them and hurt them, our capacity to affect conventional militaries is well respected.

This latter reason might have some logic behind it, but it amounts to refereeing a civil war. I find it hard to imagine that it would go well. I think both sides would "work the refs". All in all, I think that a residual force that is anything more than a prolonged rear guard (lasting months, not years)is a bad idea.

Posted by Njorl | June 18, 2007 4:27 PM

Give Fred a Break....he was a bit smartass and what not but I do agree with non profit healthcare/universal healthcare.

look at canada
even the french tried but canada stayed the course and it caused healthcare to crash and burn right along with gov controlled healthcare.
Whynot try ruing healthcare like taxes, grants, etc...and screw the crud out of working middle some more.

Posted by blakpwr | June 18, 2007 4:42 PM

blakpwr...

If you would care to contribute by citing actual *facts*, rather than stuff either
(1) pulled out of your ass, or
(2) pulled out of some rightwing blowhard's ass, feel free to join in.

Otherwise, stop being boring. Health care in both Canada and France is doing perfectly fine (at least compared to the sorry excuse for same that we have here)...and if you think Sarkozy expects to make the French healthcare system look *anything* like ours, you obviously haven't a *clue* about Euro-politics.

Posted by Captain Goto | June 18, 2007 5:24 PM

Cap,
I am very far away from right. I am liberal living in rural mississippi. but i do not believe in universal healthcare. I am lucky I have job that pays healthcare...salary not dat much but whaver.

no don't believe Sarkozy wants to copy....I just dont want to copy them.

and am sorry right now dont have proof....but have seen many articles concerning the problems from unvrsal helthcr.

aye aye Capt.
you dont sound to be even a Capt. Crunch.

Posted by blakpwr | June 18, 2007 5:48 PM

Cap,
I am very far away from right. I am liberal living in rural mississippi. but i do not believe in universal healthcare. I am lucky I have job that pays healthcare...salary not dat much but whaver.

no don't believe Sarkozy wants to copy....I just dont want to copy them.

and am sorry right now dont have proof....but have seen many articles concerning the problems from unvrsal helthcr.

aye aye Capt.
you dont sound to be even a Capt. Crunch.

Posted by blakpwr | June 18, 2007 5:49 PM