From Anbar to Nowhere

There's a striking paragraph near the top of Fred Kaplan's latest column that I've seen quoted on a bunch of progressive blogs, but his more important point comes deeper into the piece explaining the problem with the idea that success in working with locals in Anbar Province against al-Qaeda is a promising stepping-stone to nationwide stability:

But in these alliances, we're dealing with tribesmen who are cooperating with us for a common goal. It is not at all clear on what basis these various local Sunni factions can be stitched together into some seamless security quilt—or why, because they've agreed to help us kill jihadists, they might suddenly agree to stop killing Shiites, compromise their larger ambitions, redirect their passions into peaceful politics, and settle into a minority party's status within a unified government.

Alliances of convenience rarely outlive their immediate aims. Josef Stalin formed an alliance with the United States and Britain for the purpose of defeating Nazi Germany. But once the war was over, he had no interest in integrating the Soviet Union into the Western economic system.

Kaplan notes that this idea appears to have come to the administration via Steven Biddle, a very sharp analyst, who thinks his own plan has "maybe one in 10" chance of generating "something like stability and security in Iraq." You'd have to be out of your mind, really, to adopt a military strategy whose author thinks the odds of failure are overwhelming unless the alternative was something like national extinction. In many ways, I feel like the requirement of "serious prospects of success" is the most unfortunately overlooked aspect of just war doctrine. Unfortunately for us, the country has George W. Bush on hand so a strategy that you'd have to be out of your mind to adopt is precisely what we're going to get

Comments

Unfortunately, Bush and his coterie of psychophants never considered this bit of common sense: never start a pre-emptive war if the consequences of losing are worse than the consequences of not starting it in the first place.

Posted by bluestatedon | July 26, 2007 10:24 AM

You know that feeling you have when you've survived a seemingly doomed plane ride? Heavy turbulence, lightning, rain, fog, delays, hydraulic problems, circling and waiting for landing clearance. You emerge through the exit doors longing for solid ground to throw yourself down on and kiss. The end of Bush's presidency will certainly bring about similar feelings in millions of citizens.

Posted by steve duncan | July 26, 2007 10:31 AM

You'd have to be out of your mind, really, to adopt a military strategy whose author thinks the odds of failure are overwhelming unless the alternative was something like national extinction.

Unless your only real aim was running out the clock so you could blame your successor for the ultimate failure of America's Iraq policy.

None of the current strategies for dealing with Iraq make any sense except when "protecting George Bush's ego" is seen as the true objective.

Posted by Jinchi | July 26, 2007 11:04 AM

And can we define success? As I look at the reported casualties daily Anbar keeps popping up. Marines are still dying in Anbar at what seems to be about the same rate.

Plus it seems difficult to draw a line between 'success in Anbar' and 'surrender to the insurgency in Anbar'. We are arming an anti-government Sunni militia in exchange for them not tolerating foreign suicide bombers. Well this would have been the first logical step for the Iraqi Sunnis if we had simply abandoned Fallujah and Ramadi to start with, the usefulness of those bombers being in proportion to the size of the American occupation. No Americans, no need for suicide bombers.

Posted by Bruce Webb | July 26, 2007 12:49 PM

Just curious: When will the liberal blogosphere start taking a chisel to Ryan Crocker's credibility? I imagine sometime before he and Petraeus report to Congress in September. When do we get the first post about how Crocker is deluded/a Bush toady/etc.?

Posted by Fred | July 26, 2007 12:55 PM

Killing al-Qaeda is an end unto itself.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 26, 2007 2:07 PM

"Killing al-Qaeda is an end unto itself.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 26, 2007 2:07 PM "

Which Al-Qaida? Al-Qaida in Iraq? That's not the same AQ as bin Laden's. This is living-in-a-vacuum speak. "An end unto itself" can be followed if all things are equal, but that's not true in this case. If a strategy to follow "an end unto itself" requires us taking a musical chairs approach to choosing allies, it's probably not a good policy.

Posted by Reality Man | July 27, 2007 3:22 AM