Residuals: Continuing the Debate

I think it's a little unfortunate that Will Marshall's response to my critique of his case for residual forces in Iraq doesn't really grapple with the arguments I made. Instead, he accuses me of not addressing some other things. And fair enough, I'll try to address some of Marshall's concerns. But I would like to see what he has to say about the problems that I think exist with his argument:

And wouldn’t al Qaeda in Iraq be emboldened by a swift U.S. departure? Wouldn’t more foreign jihadists come to celebrate their victory in driving America out of Iraq? Wouldn’t Sunni shieks who have turned on al Qaeda switch back without us there to tip the scales? Yglesias doesn’t say.

Obviously, if US forces aren't in Iraq on Day X, al-Qaeda will use that fact for propaganda and recruiting purposes. By the same token, however, if US forces are in Iraq on Day X, al-Qaeda will use that fact for propaganda and recruiting purposes. There's not some course of action we can take such that al-Qaeda's response will be "fair enough" and then they shuffle off quietly into the sunset.

I really don't think, however, that "more foreign jihadists" would actually go to Iraq in order to "celebrate their victory." People interested in fighting infidels occupying Muslim lands are going to go somewhere (Kashmir, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Palestine, I dunno) where that's plausibly what's happening. The US military presence is what's attracting foreign fighters to Iraq, it's not a prophylactic against foreign fighters coming into the country. Would Sunni Sheikhs flip-flop and side with al-Qaeda? There are no guarantees, but I don't see why they would. The consistent Sunni Sheikh agenda in western Iraq has been to maximize the power of Sunni Sheikhs in western Iraq vis-a-vis American occupiers, al-Qaeda interlopers, and Shiites in Baghdad. That'll continue to be their agenda. If we stay, by contrast, we do take the risk that our tactical alliance with the local notables will outlive its usefulness and they'll turn around and start shooting at our troops again.

On Marshall's other points -- yes, as I said, preventing a wider regional war is desirable. I don't, however, see how a residual US military presence in Iraq helps accomplish that goal. On genocide, Marshall accuses me of being callous offering the old "Not our problem, apparently." Here's my point. Marshall says we need to "get U.S. troops out of the business of mediating Iraq’s sectarian conflicts." I agree. Marshall also wants us to prevent a hypothetical genocide in Iraq. Given the choice, obviously, I, too, would like to prevent this hypothetical genocide. There isn't, however, any way to prevent the possibility that Iraq's sectarian conflicts will result in genocide or ethnic cleansing other than to mediate Iraq's sectarian conflicts. If we're going to abandon the goal of mediating Iraq's sectarian conflicts, then we need to admit to ourselves that that means the sectarian conflicts might get really, really, really nasty and we're . . . not going to mediate them.

Comments

I really don't think, however, that "more foreign jihadists" would actually go to Iraq in order to "celebrate their victory."

I think The Looming Tower recounts that the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan did, in fact, attract a large number of jihadists to Afghanistan in order to harass the retreating Soviets. I don't have the book handy, but my recollection is that the jihadist presence increased by large margins after the Soviets announced their withdrawal.

Posted by Steve | July 30, 2007 2:07 PM

Maybe, Steve, for a short time, but the point is that after we leave, foreign fighters won't last. In Iraq, the outside fighters have very little support.

A peaceful Iraq needs security and a political solution. Our occupation doesn't seem to be achieving either goal.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 30, 2007 2:13 PM

One thing that's being ignored in these debates is that a much less costly alternative for helping the Iraqi people exists, namely, letting some of them emigrate here. At the very least, we should allow the ones who've collaborated with us to do so, since they are a group that obviously will be targeted once we leave. The fact that we're keeping these people out suggests to me that all the bleating about abandoning the poor Iraqi people is rank hypocrisy, and just a prop for continuing to support Bush' failed policies.

Posted by beckya57 | July 30, 2007 2:15 PM

At the very least, we should allow the ones who've collaborated with us to do so, since they are a group that obviously will be targeted once we leave.

I don't think there's any political will in this country for this. But there are probably steps short of that which would find support.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 30, 2007 2:21 PM

All good, fair points so far. A sign of hope, however small, on the front page of today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/middleeast/30iraq.html

"With Eyes Fixed on a Distant Soccer Field, Iraqis Leap at a Reason to Celebrate"
by STEPHEN FARRELL
"The bare statistics will record that in the 71st minute of a soccer tournament 5,000 miles from Iraq, a Kurd from Mosul kicked a ball onto the head of a Sunni from Kirkuk, who ricocheted it into the goal to secure a 1-0 victory for Iraq over Saudi Arabia on Sunday in the final of the 2007 Asian Cup."

I see why the U.S. is trying to buy everyone off to calm things down, but you can't help but have mixed feelings about this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/europe/30cnd-weapons.html?hp

"WASHINGTON, July 30 — The Bush administration said today that it will ask Congress to approve an arms sales package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that could eventually total $20 billion, at a time when the United States is leaning heavily on its Sunni Arab allies to play a more constructive role in Iraq.

The package, announced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just before she headed to the Middle East to meet with officials from Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States, also includes aid to Egypt, as well as a sweetener meant to head off potential Israeli objections to the deal.

“We will move soon to conclude a new ten-year military assistance agreement with Israel,” Ms. Rice said. “This agreement will provide a total of $30 billion to ensure Israel’s ability to defend itself.”

The $20 billion to the Saudis proves that the neocons have never been in control as anti-war folks have been asserting for years.

Posted by Peter K. | July 30, 2007 2:28 PM

SomeCallMeTim,

You've forgotten that war situations affect the way that Americans (particularly Republican conservative ones) normally approach issues. The same people who preach about the Brown immigrant menace emanating from Hispanic Mexico have no fear of such a menace from Hispanic Cuba. Moreover, since the Vietnam revisionists (who tend to be those same conservatives) constantly invoke the plight of Vietnamese and Cambodian "boat people" (i.e. the refugees from Communist tyranny in their countries) in order to damn our withdrawal from Vietnam and Cambodia, they will be honor-bound to help the Iraqi equivalent of those refugees.

No, the opposite will be true. The plight of Iraqi refugees will unite anti-war Liberals (who tend to be sympathetic to immigrants) with pro-war conservatives into a coalition that will pave the way for Iraqi refugees to be embraced by the US.

Posted by eltoro | July 30, 2007 2:49 PM

According to the Borgen Project, 78% of Americans agree that fighting Global Poverty is the best way to fight Terrorism. So what are we waiting for?

Posted by Erica | July 30, 2007 3:03 PM

Steve,
The difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is that in the Afghani case, the Pashtuns and the foreign jihadis shared an ideological project in common born of the Pakistani Madrassas: reactionary Wahabbi islam.
In Iraq that is not the case. The Iraqi sunni tribes are not pining for an islamic state, sharia law and blowing up statues of the Buddah. They are all about reasserting their power and priviledges. In fact one could argue that by remaining in Iraq, America increases sunni frustration and augments the probability that they will degenerate into an islamists outlook in order to reassert their power. However you have to recognize the institutional factors acting against this outcome. The regimes that will fund the sunni element in Iraq (Egypt, Saudi, Jordan and Syria) are establishmentarian in outlook. They don't want revolution. If the Iraqi sunnis radicalise too much they will lose their funds. The only possible exception I see to this is if there is a revolution in one of the 4 sunni countries first. Syria is run by allawites but it has a majority sunni population and supports sunni conservatism to maintian the status quo in Syria and abroad. All that Jihadi talk about a new caliphate in Damacus does not include the current syrian power elite, so they are inherently against it.

A residual force is no good for anyone. It muddles the issue and will prevent a stable equilibrium from emerging. As for concerns of genocide, they ring mighty hollow from a commentator that lustily promoted invasion in 2003 and backed the sanctions preceeding the conflict that hurt so many Iraqis. I don't see genuine concern, I see a convenient liberal argument for humanitarian intervention inverted to serve a conservative need for continued intervention and occupation in Iraw until this current administration is out of office.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 30, 2007 3:39 PM

Not only is there no political will in support of allowing large numbers of Iraqi refugees to resettle in the U.S., the Department of Homeland Secuirty is actively resisting the Levin amendment, which would open up the asylum process to certain Iraqi applicants, on the grounds that such Iraqis are too much of a threat to national security.

Posted by UN Plaza | July 30, 2007 5:28 PM

"According to the Borgen Project, 78% of Americans agree that fighting Global Poverty is the best way to fight Terrorism. So what are we waiting for?"

I'm waiting for 78% of Americans to smarten up. Osama bin Laden is the son of a billionaire. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were educated and middle class. The recent terrorist attacks in London were perpetrated by physicians. Meanwhile, the poorest places in the world -- e.g., Haiti -- aren't known for exporting terrorists.

So: if most terrorists aren't poor, and most poor people aren't terrorists, maybe fighting "Global Poverty" (perhaps by promoting Asian Tiger-style economic policies?) wouldn't seem to be the best way to fight terrorism.

Posted by Fred | July 30, 2007 5:47 PM

Wouldn’t more foreign jihadists come to celebrate their victory in driving America out of Iraq?

Like AQ is going to throw a street party or something? Most that will happen is that they'll post a boat load of videos on Youtube.

Re Iraqi refugees: All that cold, poor, hungry crap on the Statue of Liberty only applies to white people who don't talk too funny. There's no way the unwashed masses will be down for letting in a bunch of Iraqis. After all, a large number of Americans still think that Iraq caused 9/11.

Posted by daveNYC | July 30, 2007 6:24 PM

And wouldn’t al Qaeda in Iraq be emboldened by a swift U.S. departure?

Is there anything that won't embolden these people? They're just so emboldenable!

Posted by DivGuy | July 30, 2007 6:42 PM

"Now I’m not entirely certain a more gradual U.S. force reduction rather than a pell mell rush for the exits would produce a brilliant outcome in Iraq"

I think we can put Will Marshall down as a firm maybe.

Posted by Don Bacon | July 30, 2007 7:13 PM

"So: if most terrorists aren't poor, and most poor people aren't terrorists, maybe fighting "Global Poverty" (perhaps by promoting Asian Tiger-style economic policies?) wouldn't seem to be the best way to fight terrorism."

I never understand this argument. Couldn't the terrorists be acting on behalf of the poor people?
Fred said the quoted part above, but I would be interested in anyone explaining to me why my explanation is so far fetched.

Most people in general aren't terrorists, so it doesn't mean a lot to say that most poor people are n't terrorists.

Posted by Jeff | July 30, 2007 7:31 PM

Doesn't this all come down to the fact that people like Will Marshall have a self-definition that is tied into their hawkishness making them more sophisticated than the peaceniks at the base of the Democratic Party, and therefore there's simply no circumstances where they would admit that the peaceniks are actually right?

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 30, 2007 9:43 PM

"Now I’m not entirely certain a more gradual U.S. force reduction rather than a pell mell rush for the exits would produce a brilliant outcome in Iraq?

All the estimates I've seen say once a decision was made to draw out to the last man you would be looking at a year to carry it out. If that's the pell mell rush, what's slipping out the door gracefully?

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 30, 2007 10:32 PM

"Doesn't this all come down to the fact that people like Will Marshall have a self-definition that is tied into their hawkishness"--Dilan Esper

Yes. Will Marshall is president of the Progressive[sic] Policy Institute, the DLC think tank tied to the Clintons. These people have styled themselves as smart necons, although they don't quite put it that way.

Marshall: "Our national interests demand that we not leave until we are assured that Iraq will not become a threat to Americans' safety.[there might be WMDs!!] And our national honor demands that, having invaded their country, we not abandon the Iraqi people to chaos and sectarian violence. [heaven forbid!!]

"Instead, we should rally the American people for an extended and robust [$$$$] security and reconstruction presence, even as we push the administration to gradually transfer security responsibilities to the improving Iraqi forces [trained by Gen. Petreous!!], help to build truly national rather than sectarian institutions , and shore up regional as well as international backing for the Iraqi government [where there's a Will there's a way]."

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253881&kaid=124&subid=307

Posted by Don Bacon | July 31, 2007 12:15 AM

You realize these fuckers are going to win don't you? The one silver lining I thought I'd see from the Bush years was watching the liberal bomber wing of the democratic party go down with them, but I don't think it's going to happen.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 31, 2007 12:24 AM

I never understand this argument. Couldn't the terrorists be acting on behalf of the poor people?

Depends on your group.

Yeah, poverty is probably a red herring, but if you have more than a handful of people wanting to commit murderous political violence someone on the other side did someone really, really wrong and the solution is addressing that problem to some sort of satisfaction that leaves everyone but the sort that will find a cause to throw a bomb over out in the cold.

European monarchy in the early twentieth century isn't a bad example. It was mostly anarchists and revolutionary reds who kept trying to kill them, but (I'm sure it was totally a coincidence) they got the hell out of the way and once they did that sort of terrorism faded away.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 31, 2007 12:54 AM

"I'm waiting for 78% of Americans to smarten up. Osama bin Laden is the son of a billionaire. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were educated and middle class. The recent terrorist attacks in London were perpetrated by physicians. Meanwhile, the poorest places in the world -- e.g., Haiti -- aren't known for exporting terrorists.

So: if most terrorists aren't poor, and most poor people aren't terrorists, maybe fighting "Global Poverty" (perhaps by promoting Asian Tiger-style economic policies?) wouldn't seem to be the best way to fight terrorism. "

However, they come from relatively poor societies, either on the international scale or the local scale. In Britain, brown people from the ME and Asia are hated very much and there's no conception of a melting pot to allow them to be both, say, Arab and British like how Doug Flutie and the Sununus are Arab-Americans. Saudis, in part due to the oil curse and outside support of the corrupt House of Saud, are relatively poor compared to both the US and Israel. To a certain extent, AQ is an outgrowth of Lenin's idea of a revolutionary party led by a vanguard of elite, professional revolutionaries. Similarly, Latin America is the world's most economically unequal region in the world, which is a major reason why radical Leftism remains popular in LA. However, the leaders of such movements, while back by the poor, tend to be educated, such as Che (doctor), Castro (lawyer bastard son of a landowner) and Allende (pf a wealthy family line). On the more positive side, the leaders of young democracies in the 20th-century worked towards independence after being inspired to do so by the plight of their nations' poor. Nehru is a major example as such. When you grow up in such an environment and identify with the poor around you as part of your same identity (nation, religion, language group, etc.) that affects you, your worldview and your politics.

Posted by Reality Man | July 31, 2007 3:42 AM

In addition, having a stake in an existent society and system is likely a deterrent for most people to join terrorist and revolutionary groups. Most people in the US, Germany, Israel and Japan didn't join or have sympathy towards the goals and actions of McVeigh, Baader-Meinhoff, the JDL and the Japanese Red Army. When did more white Americans join the KKK, when their particular sector of white Americans felt their social position threatened or when they felt comfortable?

Posted by Reality Man | July 31, 2007 4:00 AM