Democratic Plans

Jeff Zeleny and Marc Santora have a good article up in The New York Times about how "Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years." Specifically:

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the country to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

One way to look at this is to try to decide who has the least-bad plan here. A better way to look at it is that the situation on the ground is evolving, the candidates are all being vague, and it's more important to build the strength of certain ideas in hopes of shifting the entire debate further in the direction of complete withdrawal. The problem with all of these plans is simply that they won't work. It'll be untenable to keep small numbers of troops stationed in the country in the way the candidates' rhetoric seems to envision. What they're saying they'll do will either result in us going back to a big (80,000-100,000 or more) force or else down to essentially zero.

The correct answer is essentially zero. The candidates all realize that the status quo is untenable, but can't seem to bring themselves to see that the alternative to the status quo is to leave and let Iraq's fate be determined by the Iraqis.

Comments

If Dems were smart, they'd spend ALL their energies getting American forces out of Iraq while Bush is still in office. But that "if Dems were smart" qualifier may as well be, "if the sun was cool and dark". They'll likely get their prize -- the White House, the Congress, all of it; the Republicans have decided to go full-bore into lunatic carnival mode. But because they decided to behave in their customary spineless, brain-dead manner, the Dems will find that all they've won is a poison chalice.

Whatevah. They aren't worth voting for.

Posted by sglover | August 11, 2007 4:11 PM

I was pretty sure the Edwards plan involved having the only forces in-country be those to protect the embassy, and all other forces would be in places like Kuwait.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | August 11, 2007 4:12 PM

I think what they're trying to do is stake out a position that allows the U.S. to continue fighting AQ-Iraq and to guard against full-blown genocide. Is that wrongheaded? I'm serious in posing the question. It seems to me that, after having really screwed up in Iraq, we have a responsibility to prevent genocide (if possible) and an interest in preventing the state from turning into what it wasn't in 2003 but what it might be now because of our actions--a state sponsored sanctuary for AQ. Maybe I've been reading too much TNR, but the concerns sound real to me.

Posted by Unreal Veal | August 11, 2007 4:33 PM

Wow, another member of the Serious (TM) TNR crowd.

It'd be nice to hear an original argument sometime, as opposed to something plagiarized from the same geniuses who thought up this 'splendid little war' in the first place.

Here's a hint: AQ-Iraq has bigger problems than us: namely the 70+% of Iraqis who are Kurdish, Shi'a or just plain don't like them. Also, unlike us, those local actors know what the hell they're doing.

As for genocide, give me a break. When's the last time one of the militarized countries on earth had a genocide? It's really hard to exterminate a single group of people when no side's got the upper hand.

Nothing the US is doing in Iraq today has any remote relevance to either of these two goals anyway. The best way to prevent genocide in Iraq is to better arm the Sunni extremists, who are militarily the weakest contingent in the country. Of course, that might indirectly benefit AQ-Iraq, but what the heck, right...

As to Matt's original point, it's nice to know that there are essentially no good Democratic candidates when it comes to Iraq (incidentally, what the far left and right have been saying for years now). So why are we supposed to be so excited about our new liberal overlords again?

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Posted by faux facsimile | August 11, 2007 4:55 PM

"leave and let Iraq's fate be determined by the Iraqis."

If we leave it's likely Iraq's fate will be increasingly determined by non-Iraqis (e.g., Saudis, Iranians, Al Qaeda).

Posted by Fred | August 11, 2007 5:10 PM

Fred - sorry, but that's got to be the dumbest thing I've read online for a long time.

If we, the US (read non-Iraqis) leave Iraq, then the future of Iraq will be decided by non-Iraqis. That's opposed to the scenario where we stay, and the future of Iraq will be determined by, wait for it, non-Iraqis.

I get the spheres of influence argument, and it makes sense, but really the only reason for us to stick around is all that gooey black stuff under the sand. We could at least be honest about it.

Posted by justinb | August 11, 2007 5:16 PM

One of the things I loved about the article is the tone of it. There is one characteristic, above all others, that makes for seriousness, which is to imply, smugly, that the population at large has no choice in the matter, and that that is better. So, of course, instead of asking why there is this huge disconnect between the popular will and all of the viable candidates, the article shows that really, among the people who know - that incrowd of reliable think tankers and politicians - everybody is pretty much agreed and you have no choice. Silly peons. And you thought election was about choice? Really, it is about electing the Broder candidate, and what him fuck us up even more.

The tone reminds me of the American at the end of The Meaning of Life, who looks at death and says, in the most simpering, 'I'm smart and you are a loser tone', well, if we are all dead, what did we all die of?

Posted by roger | August 11, 2007 5:16 PM

Richardson is for withdrawing all troops. But I agree on the others. It's rather tepid that it should be decided over Iraqis' heads whether troops should be withdrawn.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | August 11, 2007 5:36 PM

Our presence in Iraq is part of the problem. Solution--get out.
We don't have enough troops to maintain a real occupation--get out.
Gen. Lute suggests we have a draft. No way--get out.
Talk with the neighbors about our getting out and make sure they understand we can weigh in if provoked--amd get out.

Posted by John Bennett | August 11, 2007 5:42 PM

Fred,

If the most advanced and potent military force on the planet with 150,000 plus troops (and almost that many contractors in tow), spending tens of billions of dollars a week can't control Iraq's fate, how the hell is Saudi Arabia gonna do it?

Saudi Arabia has a hard enough time controlling Saudi Arabia's fate.

Al Qaeda? Ridiculous. They can't even stay in Anbar. But if we leave, they're going to take over Anbar, then Kurdistan, then the Shiite south!!!!

With what Army? Also, see above re: US unable to do same.

In case you haven't noticed Fredro, the Iraqis don't seem to like foreign interlopers much. Unless the Iraqis are exploiting said interlopers. When the foreigners try to pull rank...boom.

Posted by Eric Martin | August 11, 2007 6:06 PM

Unreal Veal,

As FF pointed out, genocide is highly unlikely in a situation in which the various factions are evenly matched militarily speaking. The Shiites would have an impossible time trying to perpetrate genocide on the Sunni population because the Sunnis have so many patrons and potential footsoldiers in neighboring states, not to mention their own domestic soldiers, armaments, etc.

And the Sunnis won't be able to commit genocide on the Shiites due to similar factors - as well as numerical disparity.

The danger is not of genocide. The danger is more ethnic cleansing of mixed areas than we are seeing already (and we're seeing alot now, with 160,000 troops in theater, so we can't change that obviously) and an increase in the intensity of the civil wars. Those multiple civil wars will be fought eventually, though. Regardless of whether we stay (and try to keep them low intensity for decades) or leave (and potentially see them go high intensity for a few years).

The staying, on the other hand, is enormously costly, devastating to our military, crippling of our ability to manage other crises and just generally a drain in more ways than I could list.

Posted by Eric Martin | August 11, 2007 6:13 PM

Matt - The problem with all of these plans is simply that they won't work. It'll be untenable to keep small numbers of troops stationed in the country in the way the candidates' rhetoric seems to envision.

Why? Why is it untenable to have 4-5 strong bases with tons of firepower ready inside that only venture out in certain specific circumstances Prez Rodham specifies? That may be needed to deter mass ethnic cleansing, temptation of adjoining nations to come in and seize control of certain areas, instability that threatens Gulf oil.

What they're saying they'll do will either result in us going back to a big (80,000-100,000 or more) force or else down to essentially zero.

Why is it "either/or" mass huge army or zero troops - when we can go with a much smaller footprint in other countries like Afghanistan, Djibouti, S Korea for deterrence?

The candidates all realize that the status quo is untenable, but can't seem to bring themselves to see that the alternative to the status quo is to leave and let Iraq's fate be determined by the Iraqis.

That is an Iraq with no Air Force or Navy, an Iraq with an Army that couldn't stand up to Jordan's, let alone Irans.
Riven by factions, full of the wealth of ample water, fertile land, and oil.

It is an attractive - almost irresistable power vacuum if the US "flees in defeat and goes to zero".

1. KSA has to consider if it goes in to stabilze things or pays poorer Sunni proxies to do so, it adds to its claim to be the Leader of the 85% that are Sunnis.

2. Iran's interest in bringing Iraq into it's sphere of influence and furthering radical Islam - Shiite style - is obvious.

3. Turkey would love to wipe out the emerging Kurdistan if the US turns tail. It also has ethnic Turkomen to protect inside Iraq and an eye on control of all the northern oil fields.

4. Outside the immediate neighbors, China and Russia - even India - would love to turn American cowardace in the face of light casualties into ending Western/Japanese strategic control of 60% of the world's oil and gas supplies. If the US turns chicken under the Democrats and flee to Okinawa, that leaves China - with allies - free to use proxies in establishing influence in not only Iraq, but prying away other US allies in the Gulf States.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 11, 2007 6:18 PM

A better way to look at it:

would be to recognize that the "plans" put forth by the Presidential candidates are rhetorical, and as such are shaped less as practical foreign policy initiatives than as
* bumperstickers that will say something to low-information voters
* armor against bumpersticker criticisms from both rivals and Republican critics

Posted by Bruce Wilder | August 11, 2007 6:23 PM

Eventually we will withdraw to one or two or three of the giant airbases. Which was one of the goals all along. A strategic airbase which can project American air power from Russia to China and all of South Asia. In addition it will be a supply depot and rallying point for ground operations in the entire Gulf region..

Will Iraq's government stand for it. Hahaha. That was a trick question, Of course not, which is why there is no Iraqi government worthy of the name or will there be one going forward.

The only tricky part is keeping the Green Zone and the Embassy intact, so that the illusions they project can continue. WIthdrawl from the streets and roads will be appluded by the voters. The fall of the Green Zone could make the Saigon Embassy episode look like a picnic. No President could survive such. Maybe the voters would understand but the armed right will not.

Posted by rapier | August 11, 2007 6:36 PM

Why? Why is it untenable to have 4-5 strong bases with tons of firepower ready inside that only venture out in certain specific circumstances Prez Rodham specifies? That may be needed to deter mass ethnic cleansing, temptation of adjoining nations to come in and seize control of certain areas, instability that threatens Gulf oil.

If 160,000 troops can't deter mass ethnic cleansing, how's 20,000 gonna do it?

As for foreigners seizing control of Iraq: Do you really think those rinky dink militaries could achieve what the US couldn't?

Also, you need force protection and resupply. Where do you resupply from and through?

Why is it "either/or" mass huge army or zero troops - when we can go with a much smaller footprint in other countries like Afghanistan, Djibouti, S Korea for deterrence?

South Korea and Djibouti are friendly states, with no problems in terms of resupply. Afghanistan's a bit trickier, but we don't face nearly the same obstacles from the locals. The redoubts are much more secure.

That is an Iraq with no Air Force or Navy, an Iraq with an Army that couldn't stand up to Jordan's, let alone Irans.
Riven by factions, full of the wealth of ample water, fertile land, and oil.

It is an attractive - almost irresistable power vacuum if the US "flees in defeat and goes to zero".

Jordan's Army? What Army?

Get this: Jordan's gonna take over and control Iraq at feasible costs, even though the US couldn't. Pause for laughter.

Come on Chris. That's not even in the ballpark.

Outside the immediate neighbors, China and Russia - even India - would love to turn American cowardace in the face of light casualties into ending Western/Japanese strategic control of 60% of the world's oil and gas supplies. If the US turns chicken under the Democrats and flee to Okinawa, that leaves China - with allies - free to use proxies in establishing influence in not only Iraq, but prying away other US allies in the Gulf States.

Uh, leaving Iraq doesn't necessitate our complete abstention from working with partners in the region across multiple fronts. Actually, it impairs such cooperation.

Keep in mind: We didn't have troops in Iraq until Bush invaded, and we seemed to be doing fine vis-a-vis China, Russia and India back then.

Removing them now is not going to end our ability to establish mutually beneficial arrangements with regimes in the region.

Money still talks.

Posted by Eric Martin | August 11, 2007 6:44 PM

All of this ridiculous talk about Saudi Arabia/Iran/Turkey (perhaps all three!) invading Iraq if we leave ignores one pretty important reference point: Gulf War I.

If Iran invaded Irag there were be UN resolutions galore and a *real* multi-national coalition bombing the hell out of the offending party within weeks.

No, if we leave, you'll just have an old-fashioned civil war. You know, in other words, the status quo.

Posted by Andruw | August 11, 2007 7:17 PM

So gloomy.

Maybe if we leave, the Iraqis will cobble together a decent country for themselves.

Vietnam did.

Posted by alphie | August 11, 2007 7:30 PM

No one on either side of this argument can forecast in detail the consequences of our complete withdrawal. The only virtual certainty is this: More people will die faster if we withdraw entirely. Those who argue for a full withdrawal ignore this almost certain consequence; the lawlessness that will result will exceed anything you're seeing now. But those who counsel staying in some fashion ignore the fact that over time the consequences may be just as bad, with additional costs in American lives and treasure. I'm glad all of you are certain about what will happen. I see nothing but bad choices, and feel all-consuming anger at an administration that has brought us, and Iraq, to this pass.

Posted by Winston | August 11, 2007 7:42 PM

Why do you say that, Winston?

At least 70% of the violence in Iraq is insurgents shooting at Americans and Americans shoting at insurgents.

We withdraw completely, that violence ends.

For violence in Iraq to increase after we leave, the other kinds of violence would have to triple.

Very unlikely.

Posted by alphie | August 11, 2007 8:05 PM

Alphie, your stats are quite wrong: The main source of violence and death is civil-war related - an ongoing contest for power between majority Shiites and Sunnis

Posted by Winston | August 11, 2007 8:15 PM

The only virtual certainty is this: More people will die faster if we withdraw entirely.

If the country weren't already undergoing ethnic purges, assassinations and thousands dead monthly, I might agree with you.

Yours is the implicit assumption of most Americans and certainly those who believe we must stay. But virtually every action we've made in Iraq has inflamed the violence - including the disappearance of thousands of weapons in the country. I expect our arming of the Sunni tribes will come to bite us later too.

Posted by Jinchi | August 11, 2007 8:22 PM

Gen. Lute suggests we have a draft. No way--get out.

Lute said the present volunteer military is tapped. When we went to a volunteer military we always said that it was mainly to "hold the Fort" in a long, major conflict until the Draft could be resumed to get a larger military, fast.

No one ever promised the children of privilege or the Risk-avoiders" would be forever unburdened with sacrificing for the security of the nation in any circumstance.

As is, the Draft is currently not necessary. Another conflict arises, though, on top of Afghanistan and Iraq - it may need to be. Gen Lute is doing a good public service in reminding Americans that the Draft is not "unthinkable" - that it does bear thinking about.

**********************
Eric Martin ignores that the "rinky dink militaries" adjacent to Iraq can put far more boots on the ground than the US military can. Even rinky-dink Jordan, which has 200,000 active duty, national guard, reservists plus 3,000,000 Jordanians and 1 million Sunni Iraqi refugees they can conscript from. And no one is talking about adjacent powers conquering all of Iraq if the Democrats force America to completely flee.

Just the pieces they would be interested in. That would leave Jordan and Syria as good Saudi proxies for securing Sunni areas - giving KSA huge prestige among the world's Sunnis as their protector. The Turks and Iranians are not so rinky-dink. Iran can put 2 million boots on the ground - though it would need far less to dominate the Shiite areas. Turkey can wipe the Kurds with 10 Divisions.

None of them are hampered by ACLU.

********************
Andruw - If Iran invaded Irag there were be UN resolutions galore and a *real* multi-national coalition bombing the hell out of the offending party within weeks.

Right, the Left gets it's way and the US retreats. Then Iran invades. Then the Democrats will ask their "returning children" to turn around and do an opposed invasion like they did in the Gulf War when they supplied 93% of the fighting force - and also take the War into Iran.

Then - what? The Democrats will tell the "children" how much they "support" their War in Iraq and Iran and would never undercut them and force another retreat and defeat? Because - what? The Supreme Moral Authority of the UN sez so? What if France, Russia, and China cut separate deals with the Iranians and without their Absolute Moral Authority needed to trigger UN Supreme Moral Authority that "sanctions US soldiers to die with moral legitimacy"?

Yep, I can just see the motivational factors at work.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 11, 2007 8:42 PM

Winston,

The battle in Iraq is between our occupation forces and those who oppose it.

The flavor of their superstition is almost incidental.

Out troops are both fighting and arming Sunni terror groups and Shiite death squads.

They are equal oppotunity death merchants.

Posted by alphie | August 11, 2007 8:48 PM

"Alphie, your stats are quite wrong: The main source of violence and death is civil-war related - an ongoing contest for power between majority Shiites and Sunnis"

80% of modern civil wars ended when one side was victorious. That means if you want the killing to end, you have to end up supporting a side to the hilt. However, if we end up siding with the Shi'ite majority, we end up pissing off the 1 billion or so Sunnis in the world and we could only succeed in such a venture by making Iran and possibly al-Sadr some sort of strategic partner in Iraq, which the VSP are dead-set against. If we end up siding with the Sunnis, we also ally with the former domestic insurgents, former Ba'athists and possibly the handful of AQ elements in Iraq against the Iraqi majority who hates the Sunnis with a passion. In Kosovo, we looked the other way while the KLA and company killed about 1,500 Serbians and forced another 100,000 from their homes. Are you really willing to choose a side and back them?

Posted by Reality Man | August 11, 2007 9:02 PM

Chris Ford: First off, I don't know why, in a comment directed at me, you are referring to our soldiers as "children", something I've certainly never said.

Not to be a jerk, but my dad served in Vietnam, and is blind and disabled because of it. I have quite a regard for the military.

I do not regard our troops as "children". Or chess board pieces. I hope you don't either.

On point, ya, France will support an Iranian invasion of Iraq--you're truly realtity-based. Evidently you didn't see the boat ride in Maine.

Tool.

Posted by Andruw | August 11, 2007 9:05 PM

Also, more importantly, I hope you're not the ex-Celts coach.

That would be depressing.

Posted by Andruw | August 11, 2007 9:07 PM

Chris, please explain how the ACLU has hampered the American effort in Iraq.

George Bush's strategy has been rubber stamped from the initial war declaration through the collapse of the Republican Congress and straight through the Democrat's capitulation over the emergency supplemental bill.

Do you have any helpful advice for the only person who's made any decisions in this conflict?

Posted by Jinchi | August 11, 2007 9:13 PM

RM - maybe I'm missing something, but is there another way for a civil war to end than with one side being victorious?

Posted by justinb | August 11, 2007 9:58 PM

The wishful thinking in this thread is really beyond belief. Take the fact that the insurgency
is native Iraqi from the Sunni tribes (Dulaimi,
Ubeidi, jibbur, Abu Nasr) They made up the bulk of
Saddam's muscle, from the regulat army to the Republican Guard, the Mukharabat, Amn As, and other security; despite the fact that they made
up an increasingly miniscule fraction of a
majority Shia and Kurd nations; they also increasingly stole the bulk of the nation's resources. Sadr City, formerly Saddam City; is a case study in this pattern ; as were the pre-war electricity distribution network. Baathism as it's earlier fascist analogue the Golden Square
movement of the 30s and 40s; drove the Shia out
of conventional political spaces, and first toward Communism then the elder Sadr's quietist
Islamism. Those two reasons are why progress on re-Baathification and the Oil Sharing Law is an increasing long slog. The tribesmen in Anbar, has reluctantly come to realize that Salafism and Wahhabism is a much more toxic pill than anything the Americans were offering. The Shia militia; is the flipside of this, we didn't kill Sadr; mostly because we didn't want to create the 3rd in a long multigenerational family line of martyrs ( the Badr group were dissident Shia, Sadr, are but a consequence of this;) just as the Iranian revolution had its roots in Najaf, and was propagated to Iran, from Paris. If we were to leave the power vacuum would drive Turkey & Syria
to take up against the Kurds, the Saudis to press
toward their common ground in Al Anbar; Dulaimi,
and the Iranian to annex the South.

Let's forget about Iraq for a minute, how did the
Taliban take power in Afghanistan; they weren't a
majority even among the majority Pashtun's. They
were the beneficiaries of the fraternal blood
letting between factions of the old Peshawar Seven group of Mujahadeen (mostly Massoud & Rabbani's more moderate vs. Hekmatyar & Rasul Sayyaf, the Saudi/ISI team with assistance from
Mullah Omar's mentor; Younis Khalis. After a four
year Civil War, they took power, and returned Afghanistan to the Dark Ages. Algeria and its
experience with the GIA/FIS terrorist don't offer mcuh more consolations.

Posted by narciso | August 11, 2007 9:58 PM

If you want us to stay in Iraq, in any capacity, then you may as well be a republican. That's really the end of the story at this point, isn't it?

Posted by soullite | August 12, 2007 12:04 AM

Eric Martin ignores that the "rinky dink militaries" adjacent to Iraq can put far more boots on the ground than the US military can. Even rinky-dink Jordan, which has 200,000 active duty, national guard, reservists plus 3,000,000 Jordanians and 1 million Sunni Iraqi refugees they can conscript from. And no one is talking about adjacent powers conquering all of Iraq if the Democrats force America to completely flee.

Chris Ford is ignoring how enormously expensive it would be for a country like Jordan to invade Iraq with 200,00-500,000 troops. Jordan is barely making ends meet as is (not much oil in Jordan dontcha know). They can't afford conquest. Few states can actually project force for prolonged periods of time, and Jordan ain't one of em.

Not to mention that this would actually entail deploying almost ALL of Jordan's active military and reservists - leaving them quite vulnerable to other nations' conquest (assuming the type of Risk style framework Ford is using).

Or, get this, Jordan would train, arm and deploy 1 million Iraqis they would conscript to...invade Iraq!!!

Brilliant man. Brilliant. Can't see anything that could go wrong with that one. Jeez.

Also, as mentioned up thread, Jordan would face the wrath of the US military. Air strikes are quite adept at hobbling an invading Army. See, ie, Gulf War I (and Saddam's was much bigger and better than Jordan's). Not to mention that Jordan is an ally, and thus would not likely make such a move.

Just the pieces they would be interested in. That would leave Jordan and Syria as good Saudi proxies for securing Sunni areas - giving KSA huge prestige among the world's Sunnis as their protector. The Turks and Iranians are not so rinky-dink. Iran can put 2 million boots on the ground - though it would need far less to dominate the Shiite areas. Turkey can wipe the Kurds with 10 Divisions.

Turkey is the only real threat there - and we're not going to stop them if they want to do it now anyway. We don't have troops up there, and wouldn't attack a NATO ally to defend the Kurds regardless.

Saudi Arabia is not in a position to engage in a war of conquest. Funding Sunni elements in a civil war is not annexation. If the Saudis tried to keep parts of Iraq, they'd face an insurgency and they would be bled to death. Ditto Jordan.

Iran would face the wrath of the US military, although the Iraqis would also deal them a serious blow. Iraqi Shiite leaders might be close to Iran, but not close enough that they would want to turn the country over - and get the Iraqi population to follow suit.

Iran, also, is actually struggling economically and could not afford such an enormously costly endeavor.

Few states are in the position that we are: such that we can borrow trillions of dollars to waste on foolish, counterproductive wars.

Chris Ford is ignoring the obvious.

None of them are hampered by ACLU.

What the heck is that supposed to mean? How hampered by the ACLU was Ethiopia in Somalia? USSR in Afghanistan? Iraq in Iran?

The US military in Iraq after all!!!!

Posted by Eric Martin | August 12, 2007 12:09 AM

Point being: It is much easier to repel an invading country than it is to conquer and hold territory in the repeled nation.

We can police Iraq. The threats alone, coupled with the hardships of conquest would deter would-be invaders (with the exception of Turkey).

Posted by Eric Martin | August 12, 2007 12:13 AM

"If the most advanced and potent military force on the planet with 150,000 plus troops (and almost that many contractors in tow), spending tens of billions of dollars a week can't control Iraq's fate, how the hell is Saudi Arabia gonna do it?"

There are other ways to influence events in Iraq than with a large conventional military force. In our absence, Iran and Saudi Arabia would accelerate their current meddling via local proxies. Al Qaeda would attempt reassert itself in Sunni areas that have recently turned against it because they had us backing them up. The point is that it's naive to assume that if we bail on Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Al Qaeda will leave Iraqis alone to determine the fate of Iraq on their own.

Posted by Fred | August 12, 2007 12:31 AM

Andruw - You don't read well. I said Democrats will patronize and call the troops "children", not you.
And the record is replete with Democrats referring to Marines and such as "our children", "duped youth", "poor youths lacking educations forced to join the military", "naive boys we sent to death", "Cindy's, and every mother's baby lost in Iraq."

At least you are smart enough to realize how condescending and patronizing remarks by the likes of Pelosi, Boxer, Schumer, Kuchinich made about the troops are.

As for Sarkozy rallying France to step in the breach to rally the people of France to step up and fight in a major war without a fleeing US on his side? Slim to none. Same with the odds of China and Russia voting to support the US at Security Council to safeguard the US strategic position in the Gulf from it going to Iranian dominance.

******************
Jinchi - The ACLU leads or joins other Leftist "Human Rights NGOs" in demanding investigation of every American "atrocity" the enemy reports, as well as being on the vanguard of trying to expand "precious terrorists civil rights" against being imprisoned without a stateside civilian trial or interrogated without a lawyer and a right to the 5th.

The other countries that could come in lack such an impediment to their troops safety or mission victory. It is doubful that IEDs will be used against Turks because they might kill the whole village where the IED was planted that failed to warn the Turks. Iran might spare the women and children of the village under Sharia law, but make them watch as all males over 13 were hanged as collectively responsible for the IED.

And, of course, the Turks, Iranians, Saudis, Jordanians would get info very quickly from captured opposition and need few prisons for those captured out of uniform...

Posted by Chris Ford | August 12, 2007 12:44 AM

The point is that it's naive to assume that if we bail on Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Al Qaeda will leave Iraqis alone to determine the fate of Iraq on their own.

Actually, they're meddling now. And so are we. It's naive to act as if our interference is somehow neutral and non-impactful.

Nevertheless, for the most part, the Iraqis are deciding their fate. They are using their patrons as much as the patrons think they are using their proxies.

What does Saudi Arabia really get out of it after all? Are the Saudis now - or would they in the future - decide that Iraq should have a Sunni insurgency? Really?

As for Iran, the most important thing for them is having a friendly neighbor and close business ties with the Shiite south. But they have that now don't they. Their main proxies (SCIRI, Dawa) are our proxies. Think about that one. We're helping Iran in Iraq right now. If we leave, Iran will have to start investing more to pick up the considerable slack.

al-Qaeda in Iraq would have a much harder time drawing recruits to Iraq without the US to serve as the rallying point. Most of the people coming into Iraq that get enlisted as suicide bombers for AQ in Iraq have no prior affiliation with AQ, are not jihadists and are only going to Iraq to attack Americans.

Without us giving them their recruits, their position will be less tenable.

Posted by Eric Martin | August 12, 2007 12:48 AM

The ACLU is very circumspect about putting out a position without sufficient evidence. The ACLU does not in general comment on foreign affairs except in so far as they involve the constitution. Treaties which have been signed by the united states and thus ratified by the senate are binding law. To say that the United States is hampered by the ACLU's insistence the the United States abide by settled law is somehow hurting the war effort is in effect to say that the law of the United States hurts the war effort. In which case I can only conclude that you believe that we should live in a dictatorship. Since without laws there is nothing else.

Posted by Parmenides | August 12, 2007 1:37 AM

I guess the real question is whether or not the status quo is really "untenable". Yes, the base and the public will want to hear about a pull-out, but if they get in and turn around and say "the Bush administration was lying to us, things are worse than we thought, but we can't leave or these bad things will boomerang back on us", how badly will they actually fare?

After all, as Gleen Greenwald pointed out, the foreign policy community is unlikely to be willing to support "zero", even if it is the right answer.

Posted by Demosthenes | August 12, 2007 1:42 AM

Luckily for those worried about Iraq being invaded, I think Iraq has a pretty good friend in Iran. So does Iran - here's the latest news from the Independent: "Iran and Iraq are to sign a deal within days to build a pipeline that will transfer crude oil to refineries in Iran from southern Iraqi oilfields, according to Iranian officials. The announcement came during a two-day visit to Tehran by the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, to discuss security and bilateral relations between the former enemies." And it looks pretty unlikely that any Sunni force will be taking over Iraq. So with Iran and its ally Syria happy with the government of Iraq, I don't think there's anything to worry about in terms of defending Iraq's borders. The withdrawal will be followed, naturally, by the strengthening of a Shiite bloc, and that will be the new reality in the Middle East. The Saudis, of course, buy tons of weapons but are, by all accounts, afraid to put those weapons in the hands of a real Saudi army - since the House of Saud has a pretty good idea of who a real Saudi army would target.

So, in essence, the U.S. has done a good job of securing a better Middle East for Iran. Hopefully, this is what the warmongers have been aiming at - otherwise, they've shown massive and laughable incompetence, and that can't be right. So many of them are experts on the turning capacity of a Bradley. Many of them have read the collected works of Tom Clancy twice.

With the ability to borrow money freely now suddenly drying up, it is going to be interesting to see whether the U.S. taxpayers are still going to calmly let 12 billion per week slip through to finance a war supported by the lobotomized 27 percenters, the Red State deadenders. This was, after all, an adjustable rate war - Americans thought it was zero interest, no money down, and all that oil for free, and it turned out that Iraq was more than a fixer upper - it was a meatgrinder. The war will be in the news every day for the next year and a half. Most of the news will be bad. That's a pretty simple prediction. The only way the news ever looks good from Iraq from the American point of view is by omitting large chunks of it. The Dumocrats and Republican candidates can wave the flag if they want to, but my feeling is that the insane idea of trying to keep a completely worthless residual force in Iraq where they can be shelled like the British were in Basra (and supplied at a cost of what, a mere 10 billion per month?) - is going to become more and more unpopular.

Posted by roger | August 12, 2007 2:06 AM

Eric Martin,

Did you just skip over the part where I wrote "In our absence, Iran and Saudi Arabia would accelerate their current meddling"

Why else would you write, "Actually, they're meddling now"?

Posted by Fred | August 12, 2007 3:55 AM

"Iran and Iraq are to sign a deal within days to build a pipeline that will transfer crude oil to refineries in Iran from southern Iraqi oilfields..."

Sounds like great news for both countries, though I wonder how much Iraqi oil Iran will be refining since Iran has so little refining capacity that it has to import most of its gasoline.

Posted by Fred | August 12, 2007 3:58 AM

"RM - maybe I'm missing something, but is there another way for a civil war to end than with one side being victorious?

Posted by justinb | August 11, 2007 9:58 PM"

Once in a while you have a negotiated settlement. Many of these are broken by at least one side (UNITA in Angola, for example), but sometimes it does hold. Basically the Republicans are holding out for a de facto negotiated settlement among the major Sunni and Shi'ite party leaders over oil revenues, etc. (assuming that they are not just more interested in oil, glory and bases), despite the fact conservatives often laugh at negotiated settlements as naive.

"Did you just skip over the part where I wrote "In our absence, Iran and Saudi Arabia would accelerate their current meddling"

Why else would you write, "Actually, they're meddling now"?"

Well, you skipped over the fact that their meddling through our own proxies. What are we supposed to yell at them then about, "stop supporting the government we propped up?" You keep on ignoring this central fact because it is inconvenient for you.

Also, as many above have pointed out, Saudi Arabia has less than useful military. A big reason the UN went into Kuwait was to contain and roll back Saddam Hussein because Riyadh started peeing its pants because they knew they couldn't beat back the Republican Guard. You expect them to take hold of major areas of Iraq? If they do, then that's suicide. They would be smarter to secure their own border with Iraq to prevent more violence from spilling over.

Posted by Reality Man | August 12, 2007 5:29 AM

Reality Man - A big reason the UN went into Kuwait was to contain and roll back Saddam Hussein because Riyadh started peeing its pants because they knew they couldn't beat back the Republican Guard.

I must have missed those fabled blue-helmeted warriors. I do remember, being there at the time, a bunch of Americans (90% of combat force) Brits(3%) French (2%), Australian Special Ops (1%) and a motley mix of 30 other nations.

And Japan paid for 40% of the cost, KSA and Kuwait, about 35%.

I guess you mean the "special" moral authority that only comes from Ecuadorans and Gaboonians telling the US and the usual 4-5 other nations to sacrifice one more time for the good 'ol UN Team.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 12, 2007 7:08 AM

So will ME be supporting Ralph Nader when he runs calling for US out of Iraq, now?

Posted by Gaius Gracchus | August 12, 2007 10:43 AM