Here's a Thought

Maybe if the Prime Minister of Iraq doesn't like our commanding general in Iraq and wants us to stop arming Sunni groups, but the US government thinks our commanding general is a smart guy and we want to intensify the arming of Sunni groups that we ought to step back, take a deep breath, and decide to leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

It would be ridiculous, after all, to sack an American general because Nouri al-Maliki wants us to. But it would also be ridiculous for an American general to be running around Iraq implementing policies contrary to those of the Iraqi government we're supposed to be supporting. The best solution is to shake hands and go our separate ways.

Comments

we ought to step back, take a deep breath, and decide to leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

Short of resigning, one wonders what Maliki would actually have to say or do to convince Bush of this.

Posted by ProfD | July 28, 2007 2:49 PM

While al-Maliki objects, seriously, to various policies and practices of the U.S. military, he has not stated that he or his "government" want them to leave any time soon. My guess is that he figures he'd last about a Friedman Unit after they leave.

Posted by James E. Powell | July 28, 2007 2:58 PM

While al-Maliki objects, seriously, to various policies and practices of the U.S. military, he has not stated that he or his "government" want them to leave any time soon. My guess is that he figures he'd last about a Friedman Unit after they leave.

Posted by James E. Powell | July 28, 2007 2:58 PM

While al-Maliki objects, seriously, to various policies and practices of the U.S. military, he has not stated that he or his "government" want them to leave any time soon. My guess is that he figures he'd last about a Friedman Unit after they leave.

Posted by James E. Powell | July 28, 2007 2:58 PM

James--YES, Maliki DID ask us to go--2 weeks ago, as a matter of fact. The Bushies' made him back off the following Monday.

Matt--why would you expect ANYTHING the Admin does concerning the Middle East to make ANY sense?
As I said below, this is an oxymoron:
BUSH ADMIN > SENSE

Posted by twit | July 28, 2007 3:05 PM

Well, that in and of itself doesn't dispose of the issue. Suppose that al-Maliki is basically a tool of the Shia militias, and that by arming the Sunni groups, we are helping them be strong enough to fight off a genocide. And that al Maliki and the Shia groups want to be able to commit genocide, and oppose our actions for that reason. In that scenario, al-Maliki's desire for us to stop doing what we're doing should not be heeded, and if our strategy would work OK, we would be advised to keep doing it. Not saying that scenario is true or even that it's not totally imaginary, but it is a set of facts which, if true, would run counter to Matt's conclusion.

In the world of horrible reality in which I'm forced to live, I'm pretty sure that the stuff we're doing is ineffective and counterproductive and that we should therefore get out. But I want with all my heart for us to be able to do something, or for something to be able to be done, to minimize the slaughter that may ensue upon our departure. I want with all my heart for us to be able to strengthen the weaker side so that any fight will be a stalemate and the Iraqis will be forced into a constructive reconciliation. Who knows, if Nancy Pelosi were president now, and had a good plan, it might make sense to stay for a time. Given the fact that the Bush administration, though, is just continuing to screw everything up, departure seems the least destructive option.

I'm not happy about it, though, and through the fire I can see goals which, if they could be achieved, would warrant our staying for a time. The fact that I can see these goals and know that they cannot be achieved makes me feel even more horrible.

Posted by Mike Toreno | July 28, 2007 3:06 PM

Undie Turd in his Grace and Resolve Our President Continues to stride, Chamber Pot of America's Hopes and Future tucked safely in his Soiled Hands, toward the Outhouse of Isolated Ridicule, for let no man stand between the Decider and The Loaf He's Destined To Pinch. Accordingly He assures us it is The Lord's Will. (and it says so in his dream ... so Take a Letter Alberto, ... send it To My Wife

Posted by One Step Beyond | July 28, 2007 3:09 PM

"It would be ridiculous, after all, to sack an American general because Nouri al-Maliki wants us to."

A duly elected leader of a country has the right to sack any foreign general for any reason. To think otherwise is to agree that the US is the unwanted invader, and if that's the case, Maliki should go to the UN and demand US forces to leave. That is, unless he's America's runaway puppet. The whole war makes no sense, and this fits right in.

Posted by mal | July 28, 2007 3:10 PM

I think I've seen this movie--

Maliki: Awfully decent of you to drop in today. Do you realize our army is facing disastrous defeat? What do you intend to do about it?
Petraeus: I've done it already.
Maliki: You've done what?
Petraeus: I've changed to the other side.
Maliki: So you're on the other side, eh? Well, what are you doing over here?
Petraeus: Well, the food is better over here.

Posted by calling all toasters | July 28, 2007 3:10 PM

Perhaps we should all read up on Joseph Stilwell and Chiang Kai-shek. That whole "America deciding the destiny of China" thing turned out real well, huh?

Posted by patroclus | July 28, 2007 3:29 PM

Matt, if we do it your way, isn't that dhimmitude?

Posted by Jim Henley | July 28, 2007 3:34 PM

RE: Mike Toreno
you're motives seem genuine but it's important to understand that for the last century, europeans and other white people have been destroying iraq fairly consistently, staging coups, arming dictators, destroying institutions, BOMBING CIVILIANS (not to mention drawing the nation's untenable border in the first place). one needs to be extremely naive or extremely arrogant to think that, through an extended military campaign and an open-ended occupation, we will break that pattern of destruction and actually do good this time.

our consciences should be weighing very heavily on us for this war. the noble action for us is NOT to hand out a lot of guns to momentary allies (as if iraq were only a few thousand AK-47's away from stablizing). we've tried giving guns to lots of questionable people in the last forty years -- and it never seems to end well (see pinochet, bin laden, hussein). enough already! our weapons can simply do no GOOD in iraq. we had no right to go in, we have no right to be there today, and we will have no right to be there anytime in the forseeable future. no new plan of any sort can change that fact.

Posted by Utica | July 28, 2007 3:47 PM

They're ALL just TOOLS for the Neo-Con agenda.

Watch General Clark describe their agenda here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB3bJb4w3JY

Posted by nuQler ostrich | July 28, 2007 4:06 PM

after 4 years of mismanaged war, you want to "minimize the slaughter that may ensue upon our departure"?

isn't that like saying "i give my girlfriend a terminal disease, but i'm afraid to break up with her because of what might happen when i do that"?

Posted by cha cha cha | July 28, 2007 4:06 PM

It would be ridiculous, after all, to sack an American general because Nouri al-Maliki wants us to.

Republicans, including president Bush, have repeated many times that if the Iraqi's ask us to leave we'll leave. This despite claiming that Congress has no authority to dictate troop deployments.

In other words - we work for the Iraqi government.

Posted by Jinchi | July 28, 2007 4:36 PM

Utica - europeans and other white people have been destroying iraq fairly consistently.

Yeah, it's all whitey's fault that Iraq has been a shithole ever since the Mongols thumped them in 1253AD.

BOMBING CIVILIANS

Ooooooo! Bombing civilians!! If our intent was really to bomb and kill civilians, why was Iraq not made into a vitrified radioactive wasteland outside the Ooooiiiillll Fields if whitey was so evil? Why didn't we just carpet bomb Fallujah with B-52 and 155mm howitzer fire rather than "waste" troops lives trying to spare civilians.

we had no right to go in, we have no right to be there today, and we will have no right to be there anytime in the forseeable future.

Yeah, we did, the UN said we had a right to go in to enforce No-Fly zones, the UN said that we had a right to go in for Saddam's non-compliance with 17 UN Security Council Resolutions - the only debate was not about invasion, but giving him "more time!!" (the Frenchies and Russians), or "enough time has been given the intransigent asshole" (USA, UK)

Yeah, we have a right to be there today per UN consent and the dysfunctional national government's consent.

Yeah, and we have a right to intervene in the future in Iraq for our vital interests, national security imperatives, or to stop genocide.
Just as we reserve the right to intervene in Darfur, Zimbabwe if it totally collapses, as we did in Haiti and Kosovo to save lives.

***************
Democracy and rule of law, despite Bush's delusions, was never a good fit with Arabs. Non-Arab Muslim countries have made a better go of it, but it's never worked historically, in any Arab region dominated by undemocratic Arab culture, tribalism. Al-Malaki is a pathetic little puppet who knows he would last days at best if Petreaus withdrew US protection from the Neocon's creation. What Al-Malaki wants is largely irrelevant to Petraeus' military mission....all Petraeus was supposed to do on the military end was give Bush's "noble purple-fingered ones" time to settle all the stuff they failed to agree on before. So Malaki and Co took most of the summer off, instead.
Arming the Sunnis makes perfect sense after they have experienced just how bad Al Qaeda control of their villages was and shifted to wanting to avoid radical religious Shiite domination.

Posted by Chris Ford | July 28, 2007 5:04 PM

"Why didn't we just carpet bomb Fallujah with B-52 and 155mm howitzer fire rather than "waste" troops lives trying to spare civilians."..."we have a right to intervene in the future in Iraq...to stop genocide."

so, carpet bomb without regard for civilians first, then intervene to stop genocide. that's foreign policy gold, especially if you love irony.

Posted by cha cha cha | July 28, 2007 5:15 PM

We are not leaving Iraq.

Posted by bob mcmanus | July 28, 2007 5:25 PM

There is certainly one benefit to leaving Iraq and not arming the Sunnis. At least, if we end up fighting them some time in the future, they won't be shooting at us with weapons we gave them.

Posted by ohreally | July 28, 2007 5:27 PM

We are not leaving Iraq.

Yeah, and the embassy in Saigon will never fall.

I suspect we leave Iraq when there comes a sudden military campaign that makes it strategically impossible for us to keep 150,000 troops in a place that does nothing to support our national security. Until then, you're probably right-- more mindless, useless bloodshed, billions (trillions?) of dollars lost, unnecessary killing of American soldiers, and a paternal American neo-government that prevents Iraqis from forming a viable political, military and police body that could begin to make Iraq into a functioning society. And all because of people like you and a political process that makes it impossible for us to withdraw from wars that all sense tells us are unwinnable, counterproductive and useless.

Posted by Freddie | July 28, 2007 5:40 PM

Yeah, and the embassy in Saigon will never fall

That's what I've always thought.

The Republicans refuse to leave Iraq until the jobs done. But what if we have no choice.

Posted by Jinchi | July 28, 2007 7:14 PM

"Yeah, and the embassy in Saigon will never fall."

Vietnam did not have 20% of the existing reserves of the most valuable resource in the history of the world, as the world starts to realize that resource is running out. Vietnam did not also have the one of the most powerful nations in the world sitting on its border, demanding that we stay in Iraq to keep Iran-Iraq from consolidating.

"The Republicans refuse to leave Iraq until the jobs done. But what if we have no choice."

What, an Iranian-supported Shia uprising kills a division or two and overruns the Green Zone, and the President, Congress, military and American people say:"We Surrender."? We'll nuke it first.

"And all because of people like you"

You have no idea who and what I am, or what I want. If you knew, you would not like me very much, but I am not to your right. Wherever you are, I am to the left of you. That may be I understand that we are not leaving Iraq. America is unmitigated irredeemable evil, with no plausible means of restraint, internal or external. We will probably kill the world.

But what I or you, or MY or Maliki want doesn't really matter very much.

Posted by bob mcmanus | July 28, 2007 7:37 PM

the UN said we had a right to go in to enforce No-Fly zones

People really believe stuff like this? Maybe you're one of the 40% who thinks Saddam helped plan 9/11.

Posted by Steve | July 28, 2007 8:49 PM

I just read the latest data from the coalition and they say the surge is such a success that they can pretty much withdraw from everywhere and hand things over to the Iraqis. They include cities where the resistance is undisputedly in power. This is either 100% nonsense or we are defining expectations down and preparing to accept handing over power to the insurgency and calling it a win.

The spice isn't flowing now, maybe they are hoping for anything to come to power that will get the pipelines running again.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 28, 2007 8:52 PM

re: James E. Powell

"My guess is that he figures he'd last about a Friedman Unit after they leave."

As a Friedman Unit is six months, I think al Maliki is more likely to think he'll last about .000022894 of an FU. Six minutes or so.

Posted by Howard C. Kveck | July 28, 2007 9:45 PM

So basically our policy is to arm the Sunnis to fight "Al Qaeda" hoping we can get out before they turn the guns on us? Yeah, that's gonna work out well.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | July 28, 2007 10:04 PM

But I want with all my heart for us to be able to do something, or for something to be able to be done, to minimize the slaughter that may ensue upon our departure.

The best thing we can do to minimize the slaughter that is ensuing right now, due to our presence, is get the fuck out of that country.

The best thing we can do to ensure that the slaughter continues unabated and indeed continues to escalate until everyone there is to be slaughtered has been slaughtered, is to remain in that country.

Me, I would prefer not to actively perpetuate and facilitate slaughter.

But I don't know, maybe if you just clap harder, then Tinkerbell will find the pony.

Posted by Dan | July 28, 2007 11:40 PM

"Well, that in and of itself doesn't dispose of the issue. Suppose that al-Maliki is basically a tool of the Shia militias, and that by arming the Sunni groups, we are helping them be strong enough to fight off a genocide. And that al Maliki and the Shia groups want to be able to commit genocide, and oppose our actions for that reason. In that scenario, al-Maliki's desire for us to stop doing what we're doing should not be heeded, and if our strategy would work OK, we would be advised to keep doing it. Not saying that scenario is true or even that it's not totally imaginary, but it is a set of facts which, if true, would run counter to Matt's conclusion."

This would only make sense if we weren't training the Iraqi military / Shia death squads. Basically our policy is slightly smarter than the idea of selling both Rwanda and Burundi nukes so that they can't fight.

Posted by Reality Man | July 29, 2007 3:05 AM

Like it or not, we are not in Iraq because of Iraq. We are there because of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel - at the very least. Let's see if Petraeus is indeed, as someone said, Bush's Ulysses Grant. He had better hurry, the clock is a ticking and a tocking.

Posted by Belle | July 29, 2007 6:02 AM

Look, there is no "Iraqi government." There are only factions competing for power, and Maliki works for one of the factions. The "Iraqi government" is a fiction created by Bush to justify his war.

Posted by grytpype | July 29, 2007 7:23 AM

Maliki was also against the surge, initially.

Posted by grytpype | July 29, 2007 7:25 AM

the UN said we had a right to go in to enforce No-Fly zones

Well Iraq sure as shit can't fly in those zones anymore.

Posted by grytpype | July 29, 2007 7:27 AM

We should definitely arm the Sunnis so that they can defend themselves against both Al Quaida in Iraq and the pro Iranian Shiites.

Posted by CaptainVideo | July 29, 2007 9:27 AM

Chris Ford has the best line of the thread so far:

"Yeah, it's all whitey's fault that Iraq has been a shithole ever since the Mongols thumped them in 1253AD."

Posted by Fred | July 29, 2007 2:40 PM

it would also be ridiculous for an American general to be running around Iraq implementing policies contrary to those of the Iraqi government we're supposed to be supporting.

The Japanese didn't seem to find it ridiculous when they ran around their puppet state of Manchukuo doing the same thing. Neither did the Chinese.

Posted by Peter Principle | July 29, 2007 3:28 PM

Posted by Jinchi | July 28, 2007 4:36 PM:"Republicans, including president Bush, have repeated many times that if the Iraqi's ask us to leave we'll leave. This despite claiming that Congress has no authority to dictate troop deployments. In other words - we work for the Iraqi government."

Well no. Those soldiers work for the American public. What the Iraqis get is whatever the US wants to give them. They can take or leave it on an all or nothing basis. No one is making keep US forces there. No one is forcing them to accept American aid either. But as long as they want American men and money, how those are used are a matter for the American government. Just as there is no reason to tolerate Iraqi Ministers putting American aid money in their own bank accounts, there is no reason to tolerate them placing US soldiers as guards outside their homes. If they want American aid, it comes with strings. If they don't like the strings, reject the entire package.

Posted by Utica | July 28, 2007 3:47 PM :"our consciences should be weighing very heavily on us for this war. .... we've tried giving guns to lots of questionable people in the last forty years -- and it never seems to end well (see pinochet, bin laden, hussein). enough already!"

The only thing that ought to be weighing on your conscience is what looks like lies - and lies that will incite more terrorism. America has never ever given guns to Bin Laden or to Hussein (I assume you mean Saddam and not the King of Jordan). As for Pinochet, well, America did not give him guns either, but on the whole it is hard to claim that Chile has not worked out well given the alternatives on hand at the time. However that is a different argument. America's handing out of the guns is usually a stablizing factor and those guns usually only go to sensible responsible people. Getting guns from America is usually an excellent indicator of no mass murder about to take place. Unlike, say, Russian guns.

Posted by Freddie | July 28, 2007 5:40 PM:"Until then, you're probably right-- more mindless, useless bloodshed, billions (trillions?) of dollars lost, unnecessary killing of American soldiers, and a paternal American neo-government that prevents Iraqis from forming a viable political, military and police body that could begin to make Iraq into a functioning society. And all because of people like you and a political process that makes it impossible for us to withdraw from wars that all sense tells us are unwinnable, counterproductive and useless."

When "viable political, military and police body" consists of Islamist mass murdering death squads, I say that is an excellent idea. America's withdrawal from Cambodia also allowed the Cambodians to form viable police bodies, but that was not a step forward. Functioning in what sense? Afghanistan before 9-11 functioned. Sort of. The question is what price are you willing for the people of Iraq to pay? Any number of possible alternatives are worse than this civil war.

Nor of course is America preventing anything. Their sectarian hatreds are preventing that. Which suggests that when America goes they will not suddenly learn to compromise. They will just slaughter each other and victory will go to the strongest. So I have a simple question - if America could find a relatively moderate mass murderer and torturer, an Iraqi Pinochet, would you support placing him in power so that he could murder and torture Iraq into peace? If not, why? What is so special about an anti-American mass murderer?

The Iraq war may be many things. It may be useless. It may be counter productive although I doubt it. It is not unwinnable. Indeed it is not possible for America to lose this war unless it does so in a political sense at home. In other words if people like you undermine the public's will to support the war. As long as America remains in Iraq, taking very few casualties, no combination of forces could possible emerge that could drive America out. So why call it what it is not?

Posted by HeiGou | July 30, 2007 6:49 AM