Good Questions

I think Bill Richardson is asking good questions:

In the most recent debate, he asked the other major candidates a clear question: how many troops would you leave behind and for how long? We have yet to hear an answer.

All the major Democratic candidates say they are eager to end this war, and they all say they don’t believe there is a military solution in Iraq. Why, then, do they maintain that we must leave an indefinite number of troops behind for an indeterminate amount of time to work hopelessly towards a military solution everyone says doesn’t exist?

Richardson, as he points out, stands for a complete withdrawal from Iraq -- the only policy that can reasonably follow from the premises that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have all joined him in endorsing and the only one that lives up to the promises all three have made to end the war. I'm not sure many liberals have really grasped how absurd it is that we seem destined to witness a 2008 campaign in which both major party nominees support continuing the war. Nor do the Clinton/Obama/Edwards camps seem to have given serious consideration to the fact that their general election adversary will probably find it relatively easy to ridicule this "end the war, but keep fighting it" stance the Democrats have all adopted.

Comments

Well, the same stance worked for Nixon. And another Nixon is probably what we will elect.

Posted by fostert | August 30, 2007 9:58 PM

Depending on when the war on Iran starts, it may become a moot point.

Once that starts, based on some "terrorist incident" in the US or Iraq, or upon some major confrontation with Iran over its role in Iraq, what Democrat - including Richardson - is going to have the nerve to stand up to this new war and be labeled a "friend of terrorists" or "a friend of those who kill US troops"?

And make no mistake, once Iran is attacked, Iran WILL kill US troops in Iraq, even if they aren't doing it now. And Iran will be right to do so - and may even be right to do so now.

Iraq isn't even important any more, except to note that once Iran is attacked, the Iraq situation will become orders of magnitude worse as at least al-Sadr's Shia militia will be fighting on Iran's side, and probably one or more of the Dawa or SCIRI militias - covertly if not overtly.

Both Clinton and Obama are already on board with keeping a "military option on the table" with Iran, despite the utter lack of ANY evidence that Iran has or even wants a nuclear weapons program.

Read that again. Both leading Democratic candidates support the possibility of a military attack on Iran despite ZERO evidence of any reason for one and ZERO legal authorization for one either under US or international law, and despite a clear history of BS from the Bush administration both in regard to Iraq and Iran with regard to those nations ability to threaten anybody, let alone the US.

And you're surprised that the two leading Democratic candidates want to keep fighting the Iraq war for another decade or two?

THIS attitude is why some Administration bozo once said that people in the "reality-based community" are behind the times and always will be, while Bush and company continue to "lead from the front" in taking the US into new disasters that the liberals and Democrats can't stop.

It's because apparently NO ONE can simply BELIEVE how screwed up, corrupt and venal this government actually IS.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 30, 2007 10:11 PM

Why isn't the question: how many troops would you leave behind in the dozens of countries they're currently occupying, stationed, or assigned and for how long?

Iraq is not beside the point but the worldwide reach of the Pentagon makes it seem like Democrats are missing the point.

The Atlantic's own Robert D Kaplan (Linus buys his books and reads them too; I liked the Balkans one and the Anarchy essay especially) was on that Carlson fellow's program today (his remarks about the Craig affair remind you of Robertson and his leg curls) talking about American empire. If PBS calls it an empire is it an empire or do we have to wait for Fox? (I know CNN International won't do.)

Posted by Linus | August 30, 2007 10:25 PM

Does anyone know how I can get a "happy ending" at Tokyo Spa while wearing the GOP-Vitter diaper?

Posted by Al | August 30, 2007 10:32 PM

Richardson doesn't have a chance, so he can make those sorts of blanket promises that he will never have to cash.

The other three actually stand a chance and realize it is not a question they can reasonably answer right now. Too much will depend on what happens between now and when they take office and what assessment they make when they take office.

I am not sure why we should place much weight on half-assed promises that will be meaningless when a candidate actually takes office.

Posted by blah | August 30, 2007 10:40 PM

As long as Americans still think they have a chance of controlling the oil resources of Iraq and Iran, our soldiers will continue to die in the Mideast. Republicans, Democrats, and most Americans want that oil badly enough to send other people's kids to die for it.

The biggest joke on America is that the Mideast oil is going to run out within a generation, and by fighting for what is left, we are squandering the resources we need to survive after the oil is depleted. This is our greatest folly. A trillion dollars could have bought a lot of alternate energy R&D.

Posted by HH | August 30, 2007 10:43 PM

"In the most recent debate, he asked the other major candidates a clear question: how many troops would you leave behind and for how long? We have yet to hear an answer."

Would there be a positive correlation between the number of troops each candidate would leave behind and the number of dollars in "campaign contributions" received from AIPAC?

Just asking.

Posted by kafka | August 30, 2007 10:46 PM

his campaign is going nowhere. Also he reads off his notes in debate, lumbers and is sooooo awkward on stage, and pissed off gay people. I think the fat lady's sung on his campaign.

Posted by Too Bad | August 30, 2007 10:55 PM

Somebody ask Bill how he will pull off an all out withdrawal, logistically. He doesn't know of course. I don't want to be hard on him because his question is good an basic. However all such questions are based on countless contingencies. Nobody knows what the situation will be like in the year and a half it will be until they sit in the White House and gather a team and work with the military. It's a prescription for a PR disaster to be too precise as an armchair general.(and I still think they are all watching their backs in anticipation of another terror attack here. Clinton was explicit on this the other day)

As much as I hate all the smoke and mirrors on war plans, the candidates are in an almost impossible position.

Another two hundred billion and another 500 lives or so is a small price to pay by the GOP to make the Dems feel uncomfortable, even if it won't give them a win.

---------------------

I was surprised tonight that there was no mention of the early morning story about poor troop morale which somone, even Gen P himself perhaps was quoted about, which I took as a signal to bring out the knife in the back meme. Maybe this weekend.

Posted by rapier | August 30, 2007 11:17 PM

Didn't Richardson come out for a constitutionally mandated balanced budget? People took that for crackpottery.

I think the refusal of the major candidates to endorse full withdrawal is a campaign choice, not a committment to policy. I imagine if one of them gets to be president that he or she will want all options available to deal with that fiasco.

But the plain fact is that staying isn't really an option, and a non-psychopathic president will have to withdraw. Since partial withdrawal doesn't make any sense, the implication is any sort of withdrawal quickly slides into full withdrawal.

Whoever is president in 2009 will face a collapsing army capability, a surging insurgency, growing civil war, and a desperate need for the U.S. to stop the hemorrhaging of troops, money, equipment and prestige that Iraq represents. The only realistic alternative to departure will be tax increases and a draft.

Posted by jimBOB | August 30, 2007 11:20 PM

The candidates who have a chance know that they can't realistically commit to a complete withdrawal this early on.

"Would there be a positive correlation between the number of troops each candidate would leave behind and the number of dollars in "campaign contributions" received from AIPAC?"

I'm fairly certain that Obama hasn't taken a dime from AIPAC. He currently supports residuals, so no I don't think there's a correlation there.

Posted by arment | August 30, 2007 11:38 PM

I don't see how we can leave troops in Iraq (outside of the Kurdish part) but I don't see how we can get 100% out either because that means abandoning the embassy and giving no political cover to our Sunni allies in the region who are I think already livid.

Posted by rilkefan | August 30, 2007 11:56 PM

You heard it here first. The Democratic nominee is going to lose to a Republican in 2008, just like in 2000 and 2004.

My prediction is not based on any reading of the horoscopes or the stars, but on the simple fact that the leading Democratic candidates' positions are wishy-washy, inconsistent, defensive, and incoherent, just as Matt intimates. It does not help that the Democratic Congress is impotent to do anything either about the fiasco in Iraq or about the illegal wieratpping or a million other things perpetrated against the Americans by the GOP.

Posted by gregor | August 31, 2007 12:44 AM

Isn't the standard story that Humphrey's campaign in '68 went nowhere because he refused to move to a simple "get out of Vietnam" stance, and that once he finally went the last mile in September of '68 and came out for withdrawal, he abruptly started making up ground against Nixon? But not enough?

Why doesn't THAT lesson get as much CW repetition as the so-called "lessons" of McGovern's campaign?

Posted by brooksfoe | August 31, 2007 1:00 AM

Richard Steven Haack is right. Some time soon the military situation in the region is likely to shift dramatically, after which calls for a withdrawal from Iraq will become politically untenable.

As I have tried to argue for many months now, the Iraq and Iran issues are inextricably linked.
Unfortunately, the main Democratic candidates all have ridiculously incoherent positions compounded out of conflicted interest group pandering and demagoguery. They are all trying to combine a base-pleasing Iraq war skepticism with an AIPAC-pleasing hard line on Iran, and the result is an intellectual mess.

If I truly believed that Iran was a dastardly threat, and that it was vital to stand up to Iran and take a hard line against them, and also keep our options open for a possible military attack on the country in the not-to-distant future - as our candidates profess to believe - then there is simply no way I would advocate withdrawing the main body of our troops in the region, the very troops sitting on the Iranian border. That's just absurd. It's like a Cold War leader saying we need to take a tough line against the Soviets in central Europe, and prepare for war with them, and to show them we mean business we should withdraw all of our troops from West Germany! This is a transparently ridiculous position, and yet it is not much more ridiculous than the position taken by a lot of Democrats.

If I was an Iran hardliner, I might redeploy the troops in Iraq, move them into more defensible positions, and prepare them to move to a new battlefield, but I wouldn't ship them home only to be, almost certainly, shipped back later. And I wouldn't encourage bold moves in Iraq by our supposedly dastardly Iranian enemy by removing the most competent and well-equipped military force in that country.

But if one really wanted to get the troops out, as I do, then one would be working on some rather comprehensive and systematic plans for stabilizing the region; and these plans would have to involve active, constructive engagement with all of the main regional players; diplomatic efforts aimed at resolving conflict, defusing rivalries and reducing tensions; and work toward the establishment of a new regional security framework into which all of those players, and interested external parties, could buy in.

Promoting a new cold war in the Middle East, thus guaranteeing Iraq will remain a war-torn battlefield in that war, and sharply raising the probability that existing tensions will ultimately result in future hot battles, in a region that everyone understands is absolutely vital to the world's economic security, and that most people understand is an arena for competition among a variety of militarily considerable outside powers ... promoting such a war is simply incompatible with any realistic plan for reducing the American presence in the region. If you want to decrease the US footprint in the Middle East, you need a strategic plan for dialing down the intensity of regional and external competition over the Middle East.

The US passed up an opportunity in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion to make an opening to Iran, and to pursue a new balance of power and stabilization strategy in the Middle East. When the Israelis and Saudis came running to Washington soon after the invasion, and said, "Oh my God, do you know the Shia are taking over in Iraq?! We must do something!", the US should have said in response, "Your concerns have been duly noted. By the way, have you met our new friend Iran?" But the Bush administration chose a different course, and the Democratic candidates have shown themselves to be unable to opt for any substantially different course.

I don't see a single candidate in this race, from either party, that has demonstrated that they are competent to be president at this critical juncture in world history. None of them appears to have a strategic vision of the world that at the same time coherent, aware and sane. The problem with the Democrats I have already described. And the Republicans are a bunch of paranoid lunatics, dwelling in a nightmare fantasy land populated by Evil Caliphates, Iranian Hegemonists, Global Islamofascist Revolutions, and Creeping Euro-islamification.

If your opponents are engaged in a massive propaganda campaign for public opinion, and you are not willing to fight back with a campaign of your own, but more or less accept the main thrust of that propaganda, but in a slightly more weasly and hedged form, then there is no way your position can prevail in the end. The Bush administration has been at it for months with its bullshit about Iranian IED's; about preposterous Iranian support for their Salafist al-Qaeda enemies; about nuclear weapons that are mere hours from completion; about Iranian salesmen and commercial negotiators elevated to the status of evil secret agents, etc. Where is the Democratic push-back and counter-story? Nowhere, except for a few intrepid blogs.

These Bush guys play for keeps. If they successfully provoke a wider war in the Middle East, most of the remaining antiwar voices will go the way of the America First movement following the Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor. But most Democratic office-holders and candidates refuse to grasp the stakes in the game that is being played.

By the way, I have heard Richardson in action on a few radio shows here in New Hampshire, and I have to say that he is one of the most inarticulate and muddled candidates I have ever heard.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 31, 2007 1:12 AM

You heard it here first. The Democratic nominee is going to lose to a Republican in 2008, just like in 2000 and 2004.

"First"? Doomsayers like you are a dime a dozen.

Posted by Steve | August 31, 2007 1:20 AM

If they successfully provoke a wider war in the Middle East, most of the remaining antiwar voices will go the way of the America First movement following the Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor.

Sorry, I don't see this. The administration is already fighting two disastrous wars, and is ignoring massive public sentiment for a withdrawal. Adding a third war isn't going to help them, especially if it goes badly. And airstrikes against Iran will provoke very bad consequences fairly quickly - troop losses in Iraq will probably skyrocket, and the world oil markets could see price spikes. Rather than rallying round this extremely unpopular president, military disaster and economic upheaval will make Bush politically weaker, not stronger.

The public has already checked out on Bush. He got his free "goodwill patriotic bump" in 2001, and he utterly squandered it. He's not going to get another. If he provokes another disastrous war, he'll be lucky to make it to the end of his term.

Posted by jimBOB | August 31, 2007 2:05 AM

Since we're discussing what to do about Iraq in the near future, it might be helpful to have some more insight into what's going on there now. This post by David Kilcullen at Small Wars Journal provides some insight: Anatomy of a Tribal Revolt. Kilcullen, who just finished a tour as a counterinsurgency adviser in Iraq, has an interesting background. I'd add a link here to his Wikipedia bio if it wouldn't violate the one-link rule.

!! Special bonus for Matt and other Ph.D. thesis aficionados: Wikipedia provides a link to Colonel Kilcullen's Ph.D. thesis, via the Australian Digital Thesis Program (Kilcullen is a retired Australian Army officer).

Posted by Fred | August 31, 2007 3:02 AM

Well, that Kilcullen piece was extremely interesting. It's the first borderline positive assessment of trends in Iraq I've ever read that actually felt like it was based on a meaningful, substantive read of complicated grassroots political developments.

On the other hand, to the extent that what he's saying is that the revolt of the tribes against Al-Qa'ida in Iraq is what has improved security over the past six-plus months, there's room to question whether the US plays any significant role in the change. If the US were to withdraw from Iraq tomorrow, wouldn't the tribes still be turning against AQI, for all the reasons he describes? Why do US troops need to stay in Iraq so that Iraqi tribes can turn against Iraqi terrorists?

Posted by brooksfoe | August 31, 2007 4:06 AM

jimBOB writes: "The administration is already fighting two disastrous wars, and is ignoring massive public sentiment for a withdrawal. Adding a third war isn't going to help them, especially if it goes badly.

Yes, and how could it not go badly? Despite all the bluster from D.C., the U.S. lacks the military resources to sustain anything more than a relatively brief aerial campaign against Iran. The Pentagon is seriously overextended--to the point that the surge has become self-limiting and will end next spring.

A residual U.S. force in Iraq would have several functions: to intervene in worst-case political scenarios, such as an aggressively anti-U.S. Shi'ite regime in Baghdad; to maintain hegemony over Iraq's oil reserves; to deter meddling in Iraq's internal affairs by its neighbors; and to exploit any opportunities that might appear later. The U.S. wants to retain a veto power over developments in Iraq, even if a continued occupation provokes endless violence. Besides, there seems to be a lingering feeling that a total withdrawal would be a waste of the U.S. investment of lives and dollars in Iraq. To avoid that result, we'll apparently have to squander still more lives and dollars.

Only one thing could change these political and military realities: another attack within the U.S., which could produce support for a draft, a general mobilization to a long-term war footing and a major escalation in the "clash of civilizations." Not to mention the final shredding of the Bill of Rights.

Posted by Geaghan | August 31, 2007 4:22 AM

There is at least some possibility that a huge spike in violence in the Iraq-Iran theater and a large number of US lives lost in a campaign the US public already views as illegitimate might be the Tet of this war, and might provide the impetus, finally, for withdrawal.

Posted by brooksfoe | August 31, 2007 4:31 AM

"Only one thing could change these political and military realities: another attack within the U.S., which could produce support for a draft, a general mobilization to a long-term war footing and a major escalation in the "clash of civilizations." Not to mention the final shredding of the Bill of Rights."

If the rumors are true, that's on the way.

Just rumors, but Juan Cole is saying he has intel that Cheney has issued orders to prepare for a major talk-up of war in Iran after Labor Day.

In other words, around September 11, they're going to get another nice push. And they're going to run with it all the way.

According to other sources, the FBI is looking for Israelis in the Western US. That's where the attack is likely to come. They're looking for Israelis because Israeli spies were tailing the 9/11 hijackers so the FBI figures if Israeli spies are operating in the US, Al Qaeda is, too.

Or maybe they're one and the same. After all, if an Israeli double-agent within Al Qaeda suggests a plan, and Israeli agents follow the Al Qaeda operatives to make sure the plan works, who actually is to blame when it does?

An Israeli covert team was in place and filming the collapse of the towers on 9/11. Arrested on suspicion when they were spotted, their status was revealed and they were subsequently allowed to return to Israel.

Here's a link to the story:
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/02/09/911-what-did-the-israelis-know/

IF - I say again IF - the rumors are true, we're within ten days of another major "terrorist incident" here - followed by the "mother of all US military disasters." Supposedly Bush has plans to attack Iran which can be implemented within days, if not hours, of his order.

We could be at war with Iran within the next two or three weeks.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 31, 2007 5:20 AM

I'd agree that if there's a sufficiently large mass-casualty attack here in the U.S., all bets are off. But aside from some conspiracy theorizing, most of what I've seen discussed involves pre-emptive U.S. airstrikes against Iran, something which would be seen unambiguously as the administration starting a whole new conflict on its own initiative. Cheney can send out his minions to talk up Teh Iranian Threat, but their overall credibility is shot, so the main effect of this warmongering would be to impress on the sane 75% what a dangerous set of nutcases these guys are. In short, starting a war in Iran isn't going to help the administration politically or marginalize antiwar activists (quite the opposite).

Geaghan, I don't doubt that one could come up with a set of supposed missions for the residual force to do. My feeling is that a supportable-sized force wouldn't be able to accomplish them, and would instead spend all its energy fighting to survive in a deeply hostile foreign landscape where supply lines would be under constant attack. A non-insane U.S. administration would quickly be faced with this reality and have to withdraw the remaining forces.

Posted by jimBOB | August 31, 2007 6:47 AM

There is a consensus in Washington. The US will occupy Iraq indefinitely. That was the original plan. That was the only real reason for the invasion--the creation of a compliant client state in Iraq. When Cheney said in 2003 that the US expected to drawdown to 50,000 troops in a few months, he was implicitly saying that there would never be fewer than that many soldiers in Iraq. The bases to house that complement of 50,000 were budgeted and the funds appropriated. Everybody on the Hill, regardless of how they voted on those bills knows that the plan was and is for a permanent occupation of 50,000 soldiers.

This last weekend removed one more fig leaf, when it became clear that the right way to gain power in Iraq is with a PR blitz in the US, a blitz in which Democrats as well as Republicans made it clear that the US chooses the leadership in Iraq. The absence of sovereignty has long been apparent; the US Congress tells the Iraqi Parliament what laws to pass. But the Allawi push (from his digs in Amman) made it very clear that there is no sovereign government in Iraq. There is also no national defense force, no way to defend borders from incursion by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey.

So the reason the candidates do not speak out for withdrawal is that they are part of the Washington Consensus that withdrawal means a disastrous conflagration, and an utter failure to achieve the one true goal of the occupation--a pliant client state in the region.

The real problem, of course, is that the occupation is clearly making things worse in both regards. The intensity of the likely conflagration has increased as the US occupation has continued. And the likeilhood that the state that rises from the burning carcass that is now Iraq will be loyal to the US is more remote every day. Worse, at this point there is no military objective. Even Vietnam had military objectives--kill as many Vietnamese as possible, so they will give up. Destroy their transportation infrastructure. Make life miserable, so that they will give up. Iraq does not even have a mission that poorly defined.

The political problem for the Democrats is that they are about to buy ownership shares in this occupation. Nobody is speaking out loud about the Washington Consensus because it is so deeply and broadly unpopular with the electorate. Voters want out, and they are increasingly blaming the Democrats for not respecting the mandate they were given in 06. Open Left is identifying Bush Dogs. The Blue Dogs had best watch out for primary opponents, because that is the obvious next step for the Democratic wing of the party. In a shortsighted attempt to be sure they don't lose the general for being "weak" and "not supporing the troops" they risk losing a primary, for being "weak" in not standing up to the minority republicans and "not supporting the troops" by leaving them in a horrendous, pointless and already failed occupation.

It's time to look into this Washington Consensus of permanent occupation. Call out the presidential candidates on this issue. Make the Class II republican senators answer the question "Why do you favor a permanent occupation of Iraq?"

Because that was the plan in the beginning, it is still the plan, and pretty much everybody is on board. Except, of course, the voters.

Re: Richardson, I think you'll find that his "no residual force" line depends on negotiating security arrangement in the region. This is a non-trivial dependency.

Posted by JayAckroyd | August 31, 2007 7:44 AM

JimBob

There are only two things that will change the plans for permanent occupation.

1) Anti-war candidates winning in the 08 election This means primaries in seats currenly held by democrats

2) A successful series of attacks on the Green Zone.

Steve Gilliard regarded (2) as inevitable--a matter of time--if the US continues the occupation.

the likelihood of 1) will, I think, depend on whether the Democrats fund the 50 billion dollar escalation supplemental. None of their excuses about veto-proof majorities holds. The House leadership can simply refuse to introduce the funding legislation.

Posted by jayackroyd | August 31, 2007 7:53 AM

Sorry, I don't see this. The administration is already fighting two disastrous wars, and is ignoring massive public sentiment for a withdrawal. Adding a third war isn't going to help them, especially if it goes badly. And airstrikes against Iran will provoke very bad consequences fairly quickly - troop losses in Iraq will probably skyrocket, and the world oil markets could see price spikes. Rather than rallying round this extremely unpopular president, military disaster and economic upheaval will make Bush politically weaker, not stronger.

It's not a question of whether Bush becomes more or less popular; it's how successful he can be in forcing the hands of others, even those who despise him. Suppose in retaliation for an attack on Iran, Iran and its allies in Iraq begin attacking and killing actual US soldiers in significant numbers. And suppose Iran attacks Saudi installations or shipping, or Shia in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province revolt. Suppose, as you say, oil prices skyrocket as a result of all this. Suppose one of the forms of Iranian retaliation comes in the form of a Hizbollah attack on Israel of some kind. And suppose in response to that Israel once again invades Lebanon, and in this case also either invades Syria or at least launches air strikes deep into Syria. Suppose the Syrians respond with a broad counterattack on Israel.

And of course we can imagine things happening is various other parts of the world, seemingly remote from Iraq, as countries use the window created by the chaos and tunnel-vision US absorption in the Middle East to initiate long-planned but deferred military operations.

What do you think is going to happen in that situation? Do you think the US public and Congressional response to all this will just be to say "Bad Bush! Very, very bad Bush!"? It won't matter what they think of Bush, or whose fault they think it is. It will be too late for that. And let us recall that Congress has been busy passing resolutions and issuing statements that essentially support the Bush narrative on Iran. So they will hardly be in a position to blame the hostilities on Bush.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 31, 2007 8:04 AM

Re Richard Steven Hack

I see that Mr. Hack is back with his fantasy conspiracy theories.

1. There is, of course, not a shred of evidence that Mossad agents were trailing the 19 hijackers around prior to 9/11. This is a story made up out of whole cloth and distributed on right wing web sites like stormfront and left wing sites like counterpunch.

2. There is, of course, not a shred of evidence that FBI agents are trailing alleged Mossad agents around in the western states. This is yet another story made up out of whole cloth and distributed by the usual suspects.

You know Mr. Hack, by repeating this kind of crap which nobody on this blog takes seriously, not even Don Williams, your only accomplishment is to discredit the antizionist position. The only thing that one can conclude from your ravings is that either you are a Mossad agent attempting to discredit the zntizionist position by spreading crap like this or you are a certified whackjob who is not taking his daily doses of lithium.

Posted by SLC | August 31, 2007 8:19 AM

LMAO, to those who apparently think that there's no difference between not wanting to pull troops out of Iraq, and those who don't want to pull troops out of Iraq; just stop. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but people don't care. People want out of Iraq.

The problem with this washington concensus about Iraq is that it exists in spite of the fact that the public is now nearly universally in support of withdrawal. If the Democrats are elected (and they likely will be) in 2008 on the basis of the public wanting to end the warm, and they do not do so when they enter office, we're likely looking at the political end times for the Democratic party come 2010, 2012. 10 more years of war would likely kill both political parties, and I don't think the elite in this country have realized that by insisting on getting their way on this issue they are undermining the duopoly that allows them to get their way on every issue.

Posted by soullite | August 31, 2007 8:38 AM

Chris Bowers kinda whined about this same issue on open left, but the people who are complaining about it strike me as lacking any depth in their thinking here.

How large a residual force? For how long? In what roles?

A: IT DEPENDS, YOU DOOF.

I mean, c'mon. Who the F**K knows what the situation is going to be like in a year and a half? Maybe the Mahdi Army and the Badr brigade end the internecine Shi'a conflict and come to a truce. Without a major Shi'a civil war, the conflict ceases.

Maybe, in addition to that, the majority of the country politically coalesces around the idea that AQI is really really bad and should leave the country.

But intra-Kurdish conflict and conflict between Sunnis and Shi'a continues.

Maybe we only have 10,000 refugees to deal with.

Or MAYBE

The government falls apart, the armistice between the Mahdi Army and the Dawa/SIIC falls apart, everyone continues to fight everyone else, some citizens start running to AQI for cover from ethnic cleansing militias, we have a massive (100s of thousands) refugee problem.

Now, those two very different situations. That will call for different responsibilities by us as we withdraw our troops. And different troops levels, as such, and a different rate of withdrawal.

To borrow a phrase from James Joyner (used to trash Rudy's FP piece), anyone who's committing to a given number of troops by a given stretch of time right now for a situation that's yet to occur is either a simpleton or a charlatan.

Interestingly enough, with Richardson, I really can't tell which. He could be smart but disingenuous. But, judging by his inability to memorize talking points, adequately prepare for debates, or think on his feet...he could simply be an idiot.

Posted by mopper | August 31, 2007 9:12 AM

Maybe we only have 10,000 refugees to deal with.

Given that there are currently two to three million Iraqi refugees in surrounding countries, this 10,000 figure is impossible. If you're trying to say "almost no refugees", then you mean "one or two hundred thousand", as that would entail the return of almost all the refugees to their homes. If you're trying to say "an even worse refugee problem", then you mean "another several million refugees".

Posted by brooksfoe | August 31, 2007 9:32 AM

Oh, don't get me wrong, I know there are millions of refugees, I'm thinking more along the lines of how many we actually commit to helping. Unfortunately, I'm very skeptical that either side wants to deal with millions or even hundreds of thousands of refugees, and only utter civil war and near-genocide could get us to the point where we'd say, "yeah, maybe 100,000 is OK"

I read something about Ted Kennedy proposing a bill for 5,000 visas for Iraqis that have worked with the US...and a bill in the house for, I think, 15,000 visas.

And some figures like the US has moved, I think, 70 refugees out of Iraq in 2007, as of last month.

Shameful.

Posted by mopper | August 31, 2007 10:37 AM

...basically, meant more as the numbers we'd be willing to take responsibility for, than the actual number of displaced people. Since there seems to be a sharp disconnect between the two, as far as I can tell (though I admit maybe I'm totally missing something here, where we're talking responsibility for the logistics of many more Iraqis than I currently believe we are, by several orders of magnitude)

Posted by mopper | August 31, 2007 10:43 AM

At heart, I am an Obama supporter but until I hear him call for full withdrawal (no residual troops, whatever that means), then I will support Richardson.

(I'm afraid of Gravel and Kucinich is too bizarre... I saw him once give a speech with his eyes closed most of the time. I felt like I was at a spiritual revival or something).

Posted by Mike | August 31, 2007 10:48 AM

Who the F**K knows what the situation is going to be like in a year and a half? Maybe the Mahdi Army and the Badr brigade end the internecine Shi'a conflict and come to a truce. Without a major Shi'a civil war, the conflict ceases.

I do. It will be worse in a year's time. That's been the steady trend line. This will not end until the civil war ends decisively.

The US presence is making things worse. From objective measures,all the numbers you would like to see falling are rising, and all the numnbers you'd like to see rise are falling.

The new idea--that the US is helping by switching sides again--supporting the Sunnis and trashing Maliki--demonstrates how incoherent and hopeless this is.

The American armed forces have no mission. None. You can't engage in an occupation without knowing on whose behalf you are engaged in the occupation.

Posted by jayackroyd | August 31, 2007 11:21 AM

We do NOT know what will happen. There is NO good plan for Iraq. So we need leadership. Leadership is a combination of smarts, cunning, toughness and charm. Richardson has none of these qualities except maybe some bit of street smarts aka cunning because He's gotten to where he is by schmoozing. I love this piece on him called "He Schmoozes, He Loses" http://www.slate.com/id/84864/

So let's get serious. We don't need a law professor or a corporate lawyer right now. Maybe in a more peaceful time those are the job skills needed to make deals or argue points. No, right now we need a good trial lawyer. The trial lawyer skills are what's needed to build a narrative and convince the world that perpetual war is a really stupid idea for the 21st Century. And we need someone who takes risks and can face down an opponent and not blink.

I usually am an "issues" person. What do the candidates have to offer policy wise? I am looking for an overall vision of a world where we lead by our strong sense of commitment to democracy over empire. But with the current foreign policy debacle with no EASY button for success, I also need to look at skills for that vision. I want a president to have a sure hand and a quick and agile mind and be wicked wicked smart.

Posted by MontanaMaven | August 31, 2007 11:40 AM

What do you think is going to happen in that situation? Do you think the US public and Congressional response to all this will just be to say "Bad Bush! Very, very bad Bush!"?

Well, yes!

The position I began this by arguing against was one saying that by simply attacking Iran, Bush would upend all his opponents, instantly rebuild support for himself, and that all antiwar voices would be silenced. Ridiculous, but that's what some were saying upthread.

If the entire ME situation goes more seriously down the toilet, what will Bush do? I imagine what he did on 9/11 and during Katrina: freeze up and do nothing. (This especially since the rest of the Texas mafia that charted administration policy course has already departed.) What will congress do? Dunno, but this isn't the sort of thing congress is supposed to handle; congress is about legislation, not crisis management. What will the average low-information swing voter do? Well, most of them don't know or care that much about whatever they see happening to furreners on the teevee, but what they WILL care about will be the suddenly slumping economy and skyrocketing pump prices. For which they will, yes, blame Bush.

In short, an attack against Iran will likely do as much damage to Bush himself as it will to U.S. interests as a whole, which is to say, a lot. This especially if the attack happens a whole year out from the election, with time for the bad consequences to play out.

Posted by jimBOB | August 31, 2007 11:52 AM

jimBOB notes that a residual force in Iraq would "spend all its energy fighting to survive in a deeply hostile foreign landscape where supply lines would be under constant attack."

Unfortunately, this is indeed the prospect facing a small residual force of 50,000. At some point one or more factions could develop the military capability to overrun the Green Zone and, finally, one or more of the remaining U.S. bases. These bases could be resupplied by air, as they are now, but not indefinitely. A long-term occupation isn't tenable without a vastly larger U.S. commitment of forces, and that would politically and morally unacceptable.

The logistical complexities that would allegedly slow down a withdrawal are just another pretext for delay. Much larger armies, with more primitive transport, have been able to move decisively in very short periods of time. Consider the German army in the Soviet Union in 1941 or Patton's rapid drive into Czechoslovakia four years later.

Posted by Geaghan | August 31, 2007 12:49 PM

"In short, starting a war in Iran isn't going to help the administration politically or marginalize antiwar activists."

Don't assume that's the intention. The neocons have much bigger goals than those. And they were advocating attacking Iran long before they got in trouble over Iraq.

According to the new spin, so was Israel. Allegedly Israel was advocating attacking Iran INSTEAD OF Iraq - despite the fact that Israeli generals were frequenting the Pentagon in the months leading up to the war in Iraq.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 31, 2007 4:37 PM

With regard to redeployment (i.e., leaving) a recent study indicated that the US could easily leave with little threat to the troops and without the need to abandon much equipment, over the course of a year, if they start now.

The study also said that if the situation turned into a major civil war, it would be a lot harder to leave without abandoning major equipment and without a lot more casualties.

But clearly there is no push in Congress for the US to leave. It just isn't going to happen no matter who gets elected. And on the odd chance that it will, Bush and Cheney are going to up the ante in Iran anyway, for other reasons than merely salvaging Bush's "historical relevance."

Iran's recent enhanced compliance with the IAEA isn't even going to matter now that the "casus belli" has become Iran's "meddling" in Iraq and "supporting terrorism" - including a possible incident in the US.

There's literally nothing now that can stop Bush and Cheney from doing anything they want - anything at all short of nuking New York themselves or starting a war with Russia or China. They've determined that they can rig elections, crush or even simply ignore Congressional opposition, and totally control the US MSM. They have a solid thirty percent of the electorate supporting whatever they do, no matter how insane. According to Juan Cole's report, Cheney thinks that as long as they can get "30% to 40%" support for an attack on Iran, that's plenty!

By the way, Fox News covered the Israeli spy rings operating in the US. Must be tough for SLC...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 31, 2007 4:54 PM