"Our Side"

Joe Lieberman says that "Whereas a year ago, Iraq's Sunni Arab community was largely allied with the insurgency, more and more Sunnis are coming over to our side, to fight against al Qaeda." I don't know if Lieberman is ignorant or being misleading here, but this is badly wrong.

There's not an "insurgency" that Iraq's Sunni Arabs have abandoned in favor of joining "our side." Rather, Iraq's Sunni Arabs are the insurgency -- a violent rebellion against the Shiite-dominated new political order in Baghdad. The US government spent years trying to suppress these insurgents before, eventually, we stopped doing that and started cooperating with the insurgency to fight al-Qaeda. The insurgents have not, however, given up the political ideals that have motivated the insurgency from the beginning -- namely hostility to foreign (be it al-Qaeda or American) domination of Iraq, and hostility to the Shiite ascendancy in Baghdad.

What happened is more like us switching sides than the Sunnis switching sides. We stopped trying to kill insurgent groups and started arming them instead. Today, that seems to be working well as a means of fighting AQI. Tomorrow those guns will probably be turned against the central government and maybe against us as well.

Comments

We stopped trying to kill insurgent groups and started arming them instead.

right. and these are the same people W has spent the last 4 years calling "terrorists".

Posted by cleek | August 23, 2007 11:16 AM

This is totally wrong Matt. We have always tried to reach out to Sunnis from the very beginning. We brought into the government ex and current terrorists like Khallaf al Ayan in 2004 and 2005. We hired senior Sunni ba'athists into the first security services under Allawi. Also Allawi legalized the ba'ath party under its new name, the party of return. The difference is that al Qaeda took over most of the Sunni insurgency in 2006 after we killed Zarqawi. At this point many of the Sunni sheikhs that had tolerated Qaeda began to worry when Qaeda formed the Islamic State of Iraq. Under the ISI, the old provincial justice system was challenged by new sharia courts. Also Qaeda ran the areas they took over like the Taliban, public executions, killing sprees, midevil torture etc.. What is different is that many tribal sheikhs have begun turning on al Qaeda. In many cases our new allies accept the "shiia dominated political order," provided the state allow for enhanced federalism. In March, Maliki traveled to Anbar and Sheikh Rishawi pledged allegiance to the government in Baghdad.

Posted by Eli Lake | August 23, 2007 11:18 AM

"...started cooperating with the insurgency to fight al-Qaeda." Shouldn't that be "started cooperating with the insurgency to fight the people the insurgents tell us are al-Qaeda"?

Posted by Jay C. Smith | August 23, 2007 11:20 AM

It's pretty obvious that neither you Jay C Smith or Yglesias has ever been to Iraq. Listen, the terrorists don't make any efforts to hide the fact that they are al Qaeda. They have a shadow state now. They put out lots of propaganda. And in some cases they actually run provinces and towns. They have parades and what not.

Posted by Eli Lake | August 23, 2007 11:26 AM

Of course Eli! Because they recently just turned on their allies shows they'll never ever betray us!

Posted by Rob | August 23, 2007 11:32 AM

Well, everyone loves a parade, Lake.

Obviously you've never been to my end of the woods or you would know the real problem is the Shriners. Islamic Army of Iraq puts up what, 50-60 people marching through some dusty town in Anbar? I'm talking hundreds here, right in the heartland, with Fez's and everything.

If they are most of the insurgency we should have this thing killed in a few hours, to hell with a Friedman unit. Victory is at hand!

Posted by Ed Marshall | August 23, 2007 11:37 AM

I think it's strange that Lieberman thinks progress is the US arming Sunnis who hate the central government and the US military.

Strengthening the Sunni Insurgency so we can weaken Al Quaeda in Iraq from its current free rein to "somewhat hamstrung, but still more powerful than before the US invaded"...I really don't see this as a sign that anything we're doing in this war is advancing America's strategic interests, or building a stable democratic Iraqi state.

Also, has Uncle Joe stopped to wonder what this deal with the devil looks like in 6 months? When, if everything goes according to his plan and Al Quaeda is returned to its pre-war status as a non-player in Iraq? We'll still be left with 150,000 troops who are targets of several factions in the middle of a Civil War--some of which are even better armed and trained, thanks to our generous gifts. And that's the best case scenario!

Posted by anonymous | August 23, 2007 11:37 AM

Tomorrow those guns will probably be turned against the central government and maybe against us as well.

And the evidence for this is...? Apparently Matthew's imagination.

As Eli Lake points out above, the Anbar Salvation Council has pledged allegience to the central government.

One of the biggest problems regarding Iraq policy is that the Reality-Based Community is just so disconencted from reality.

Posted by Al | August 23, 2007 11:43 AM

"It's pretty obvious that neither you Jay C Smith or Yglesias has ever been to Iraq."

Classic Eli.

Personally, I've never been to Paris, but I totally believe that there is a big tower there. No really, even without being there. Photographs, videos and first-hand accounts have convinced me. I hear similar inventions are currently being used in Iraq as well.

Seriously, I'm sure, given his logic, Eli has no opinions whatsoever on any country he hasn't visited.

Posted by Andruw | August 23, 2007 11:44 AM

This is the best plan for America's interests.

There will be a civil war in Iraq when we leave, whether now or in twenty years. Most important is that the civil war be brief and result in a stable new regime. Only when all sides are well armed and no one faction can be easily crushed will a civil war result in a quick end and stable peace. When one faction is under armed resentments will linger and new balance will eventually have to be struck through further hostilities.

So the Bush plan of pouring extra armaments into the hands of America's enemies is for the best.

Posted by Adult | August 23, 2007 11:59 AM

Demographics, Matt. The Sunnis make up a minority of the population, and are centered in and around Baghdad. Without a strong outside Sunni supporter (i.e., Iran won't be one), they have nowhere to go.

Posted by James Robertson | August 23, 2007 12:13 PM

As Eli Lake points out above, the Anbar Salvation Council has pledged allegience to the central government.

My impression is that allegiances are fluid and tend to shift rather rapidly in places like Iraq. Maybe this one will stick; maybe it won't. But if I had to bet, I would guess that once the ASC has extracted sufficient funding and weaponry from the US, and dealt to its satisfaction with the jihadists, they will go back to fighting Shia militias and the Shia-led government in Baghdad - and Americans, if Americans still happen to be on the side of the Baghdad government by the time those changes come. Certainly that's one reason Baghdad is opposed to this assistance.

Of course, maybe that's what Lieberman really wants, since I imagine he has bought in pretty heavily to the newly trumpeted Israeli-Sunni regional "cold war" bloc against the "Shia crescent" or whatever we are calling it.

Anyway, Matt is right that the US has been flirting rather brazenly with switching sides in this war, an eventuality which, if it occurs, will represent a stab in the back of epic proportions.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 23, 2007 12:40 PM

When I read comments like Dan's and posts like Matt's, I really wonder whether those who proclaim their basis in reality are only doing so out of a deep empirical insecurity. This is nonsense:

"Anyway, Matt is right that the US has been flirting rather brazenly with switching sides in this war, an eventuality which, if it occurs, will represent a stab in the back of epic proportions."

Right now our soldiers are at the same time clearing Dialla of al Qaeda apparats and clearing Sadr city of Iranian backed Sadrists. Since supporting the elected government in Baghdad (over the objections of both the UN and the Kerry campaign), Bush has challenged at least diplomatically and through covert action Iran's nuclear program and more recently terror network in Iraq. It's pretty clear that the policy in Iraq is not to choose either Shiite or Sunni violent maximalists but to work (often ineffectively) to bring more moderate confessional parties into a loose federal government. Now it's true that the Americans supported the UIA government that included Sadr at first. But blessedly, Sadr has left that coalition for all intents and purposes, while ISCI and Dawa have stayed. And you would have to be a fool to argue that there is no difference between the Mahdi army and Ayatollah al Hakim or for that matter Sistani. The same is true on the Sunni side. We've tried to work with bad people who promised us things they did not deliver. But now we have an opportunity because many of the criminals in Tawafuq have boycotted the government and the salvation fronts in Anbar and other places will likely emerge as a more palatable Sunni alternative to many of those parties that just left the government.

Posted by Eli Lake | August 23, 2007 1:09 PM

"It's pretty obvious that neither you Jay C Smith or Yglesias has ever been to Iraq. Listen, the terrorists don't make any efforts to hide the fact that they are al Qaeda. They have a shadow state now. They put out lots of propaganda. And in some cases they actually run provinces and towns. They have parades and what not."

Haven't you spent a decent amount of time debating his roommate who has spent a lot of time in Iraq?

You're post reads as if you think that if you throw in enough names, it will confuse people into trusting you. There's a real "forest-for-the-trees" problem with you posts. There's a tension between our macro policy of fighting the Sunni insurgency and foreign AQ elements and our micro policy of supporting local councils in Anbar or certain politicians in Baghdad with little of a political base among the average Sunni. The macro truth is that the Sunnis don't want us there. The polling of Sunnis show they support attacks on American troops and want the US to leave.

Posted by Reality Man | August 23, 2007 2:26 PM

Reality Man,

What are you talking about? The fact that sheikhs who for the majority of the war sided essentially with al Qaeda are now turning on them would be evidence that there are Sunni leaders coming to support the us. This is called effective counterinsurgency. And I never understood why so many people sited polls from a war zone as if they proved anything. Do you think Iraqis living under al Qaeda's shadow state or the Mahdi Army's sharia state are free to give their opinions?

The macro truth is that we have an obligation to protect the civilians we briefly liberated in 2003 until those that seek to enslave them are ended. And that is the agenda of the terror insurgency, not simply an anti-imperialism. People who murder civilians on this scale reveal their agenda from their deeds.

Eli

Posted by Eli Lake | August 23, 2007 4:04 PM

"Do you think Iraqis living under al Qaeda's shadow state or the Mahdi Army's sharia state are free to give their opinions?"

And this is the successful Iraq you morons trot out ?

"The macro truth is that we have an obligation to protect the civilians we briefly liberated in 2003"

The macro truth is that you and your great leader lied us into a war on the basis of WMDs and AQ connections that did not exist, cost us half a trillion dollars, international prestige etc.

The macro truth is that the US has been badly hurt in blood and treasure by the Iraq mess. The macro truth is that people like you were warned about this from the begining, but you were so eager to put other people's lives on the line that you didn't care, you just wanted to bash someone.

You got us into this mess and you continue to lie and disparage anyone who dares to point out -- that yes, Iraq is a mess. If you had any sense of honor, well -- maybe a Samurai sword or a loaded revolver is what you need to do the honorable thing. Or give up all your worldly possessions (a very small down payment on that 500 B), go to iraaq and take a bullet that would otherwise have hit an innocent Iraqi or American soldier.

Fuck you, bastards.

Posted by Jon juzlak | August 23, 2007 4:25 PM

Thanks for your honesty and your bluntness, Jon juzlak. I agree with everything you said, especially the last line - but the war will end up costing us much more than half a trillion dollars.

I love your Samurai sword idea - but these morons deserve a rusty lawnmower blade instead. Samurai swords cost too much to waste them on such creatures.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 23, 2007 4:40 PM

"The fact that sheikhs who for the majority of the war sided essentially with al Qaeda are now turning on them would be evidence that there are Sunni leaders coming to support the us."

Matt's point is: for how long? Al Quida's overreach isn't a victory. It's a somewhat favorable turn of events that is likely to turn back on us.

We're trying to play all sides in a civil war. Show me a historical instance where that's worked well.

Posted by Lynn | August 23, 2007 4:48 PM

Some these right wing nuts are still claiming the insurgency in Iraq is all Al Quaeda when even Petraeus says at most it's about 15%. The rest is a huge patchwork quilt of Sunni and Shiite factions, some working with each other and others independantly. This crowd we're bribing with guns and money is making a tactical move which is totally transparent to anyone who isn't desperate to find some tiny shred of evidence that we are achieving victory in Iraq. If only it were that simple. The bribing btw is somewhat similar to paying the mob protection money but let's not gon into that. The reality is we've put another 35,000 men and have been able to achieve some reduction in turmoil although it's actually hared to judge how much because despite the claims the military don't actually provide any hard numbers. As far as one can tell sectarian killings seem to be down but bombing deaths are about the same. US casualties over a six month period, or a three month period are the highest they have ever been. So some tactical improveement maybe, strategcially nothing has changed.

Posted by John | August 23, 2007 4:56 PM

It amazes me that those who so fervently argue that the United States needs to get out of Iraq consistently point out what a “mess” Iraq is. But who is responsible for creating that “mess”? Answer, the United States. We are morally responsible for cleaning up our “mess”. I don’t want to hear that it is not “our” mess, but that it is Bush’s mess, or Cheney’s mess, or Rumsfeld’s mess. As decision makers they indeed are “guilty” for creating the mess, but we as Americans are all “responsible”. We need to work together as a nation with the full understanding that we will not abandoned the people of Iraq until we have cleaned up “our” mess. Unfortunately there does not seem to be too much hope for this, for the reality is that most Americans do not care at all for the ordinary Iraqi people. They are more interested in using our “mess” to spin a narrative that will allow them to gain political power within the United States. We are the arrogant rich that self-righteously blunder into other peoples lives, and when our blundering becomes too inconvenient, we walk away blaming the poor because they didn’t act the way we wanted them to do, Oh, aren’t we so smug as we leave the poor to clean up the “mess” we created.

Posted by Richard Foster | August 23, 2007 5:20 PM

We are the arrogant rich that self-righteously blunder into other peoples lives, and when our blundering becomes too inconvenient, we walk away

Clearly, the only solution is to keep on blundering, since sooner or later we're bound to arrogantly, self-righteously blunder our way into unshitting the bed.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | August 23, 2007 5:28 PM

"They have a shadow state now. They put out lots of propaganda. And in some cases they actually run provinces and towns. They have parades and what not."

Sort of like the Republicans.

Posted by jim@ | August 23, 2007 5:32 PM

"It amazes me that those who so fervently argue that the United States needs to get out of Iraq consistently point out what a “mess” Iraq is. But who is responsible for creating that “mess”? Answer, the United States. We are morally responsible for cleaning up our “mess”. I don’t want to hear that it is not “our” mess, but that it is Bush’s mess, or Cheney’s mess, or Rumsfeld’s mess. As decision makers they indeed are “guilty” for creating the mess, but we as Americans are all “responsible”.

Nice try. Let me recap the last few years:

Anti-War Person 2002: We shouldn't go to war.
Pro-War Person 2002: Saddam is bad. He has WMD. He supports terrorists.

Anti-War Person 2003: We still shouldn't go to war.
Pro-War Person 2003: Aha. We have proof. Send in the troops.

Anti-War Person 2004: Where's the WMD?
Pro-War Person 2004: Saddam was bad. He supported terrorists.

Anti-War Person 2005: This is getting ugly.
Pro-War Person 2005: See. Look at all those terrorists!

Anti-War Person 2006: We should get out.
Pro-War Person 2006: We can't cut and run, coward.

Anti-War Person 2007: We should get out now.
Pro-War Person 2007: Whoa, wait a minute. You broke it, you bought it, pal.

Posted by jim@ | August 23, 2007 5:51 PM

And the evidence for this is...? Apparently Matthew's imagination.

How about this for evidence:

American commanders said that during the raid, against an Iraqi police position in eastern Baghdad, their forces had come under “heavy and accurate fire” from a nearby police checkpoint as well as surrounding rooftops and a church.

Or this:

A department of the Iraqi prime minister's office is playing a leading role in the arrest and removal of senior Iraqi army and national police officers, some of whom had apparently worked too aggressively to combat violent Shiite militias, according to U.S. military officials in Baghdad.

Or this:

The U.S. military is now so suspicious of Maliki that on Friday, when U.S. forces arrested Sadr's media director in Baghdad, Sheik Abdul Hadi Darraji, the prime minister's office wasn't even informed of the raid. Darraji has been linked to death-squad killings of Sunnis in Baghdad. Some Iraqi politicians who are also leery of Maliki say it was wise of the Americans to keep him out of the loop. "If Maliki had been told, [the arrest] wouldn't have happened," says Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of Parliament. "Maliki would not agree to this." Indeed Maliki has intervened several times in recent months to secure the release of Sadr supporters.

Posted by Jinchi | August 23, 2007 6:42 PM

Jim,

I am sorry, but you must have confused me with a pro-war person. It is always convenient to place someone in a category from which you can easily dismiss the argument.

I have always believed as an individual we should act non-violently. Yet, I realize that all too often violent situations get thrust upon us because we do not see well enough in advance the choices we should make to avoid the violence to come. The justification then becomes that we had no choice but to act violently. Being caught in this “order of necessity” means we no longer are capable of acting as a free person. I do not condemn myself or another person who finds themselves in such a situation. But it should awaken us to try to be more aware and alert so that we can act sooner to avoid being put in such situations.

It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where nations would not fight wars. The reality is that there is always warfare going on somewhere at any given time on our planet. This means nations have a necessity of maintaining armies at least for the purpose of self-defense. Most Americans would agree to use our military if we were attacked. But what about the oppression of other people? Is it ever right to act in the defense of others? Bosnia? Darfur? Iraq? Tibet? Clearly, we cannot intervene everywhere. But should we intervene somewhere? In a democratic Republic, this is a question for debate. And no matter my arguments for or against, the fact remains that the United States of America did indeed send its military into Iraq. We then proceeded to fail to provide the primary function of any government to its people – security. Rumsfeld in his hubris had this grand idea of his new army for the 21st Century that he would showcase to the world in Iraq. It did a wonderful job overthrowing Saddam, but the aftermath he envisioned was an illusion. We then blundered down the path we have taken that has created our present situation in Iraq. But this situation was created because the United States of America invaded Iraq. As a citizen of this country, I am not guilty for what has been done, but I am responsible. It was the arrogance and hubris of our leaders that has created the mess in Iraq, but we, the American people are responsible. Andrew Sullivan posted a picture of a little Iraqi girl. Her face bore the wounds of war. She said people in her family had been killed by Saddam, but if Saddam would appear before her now, she would kneel and kiss his feet. I am haunted by this. Saddam was brutal and cruel, and we Americans have created this, where a little girl would prefer to live under his dictatorship. I follow the arguments closely. The Iraqi talk is now caught up in American Presidential politics. It all about who will get power. It's a discussion among the rich and arrogant. No one is looking out for that little Iraqi girl! This isn’t political for me, Jim. It’s personal.

Posted by Richard Foster | August 23, 2007 7:26 PM

"Tomorrow those guns will probably be turned against the central government and maybe against us as well."

"And the evidence for this is...? Apparently Matthew's imagination."

The evidence is Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. We -- and by this I mean the United States government as operated by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney specifically -- we armed and trained Osama bin Laden because he was fighting our enemy, the USSR, in Afghanistan, and we armed and supported Saddam Hussein because he was fighting our enemy Iran. And then they turned on us.

Posted by August | August 23, 2007 8:04 PM

Eli,
You are incredibly naive to believe that the Anbar Salvation Front will now make peace with a Shi'ite-run government, now that the "Tuwafaq criminals" are out of power. Do you realize that the Iraq Accordance Front (Tuwafaq (sp?)) is much more pro-US, supportive of a multisectarian Iraq and moderate faction than the Anbar Salvation Council (or whatever name it goes by now after its leader made off with millions in cash). The Anbar anti-AQI forces hate outsiders: Iranians, Saudis and Americans. You are correct that they turned on AQI/ISI after Zarqawi's death and the excesses of Taliban-like rule. They used the Americans to help them in that process. But nowhere along the way did they turn TOWARD the central government. Surely, if they wanted to engage with the Maliki government they would have convinced their more moderate IAF friends to stay in the government and negotiate for new provincial elections (boycotts screwed the Sunnis last time).

But the anti-ISI Sunnis don't want rapprochement with the Shi'ite government. They want to eliminate it as they have since 2005 (and 2003, when it became apparent the US was no longer going to enshrine Sunni power in Iraq). No two-bit shiek from Tikrit or Ramadi waving olive branches changes that fundamental dynamic.

And then there's the Shi'ite side. They do not trust the Petraeus plan one bit. Maliki rightly fears that the Sunni neighborhood militias set up by Petraeus operate outside of the central government and will almost certainly be used in the next phase of the civil war against the Shi'ites. The so-called "grassroots" building Bush talked about yesterday was nothing more than old-fashioned militia-building. There was nothing reconcilationist about it at all.

What's more, they've done nothing on their own side to marginalize Sadr. Sadr merely discovered that he doesn't need the government anymore. He can rig the electrical lines, smuggle the oil and terrorize his way on the streets of Basra with the Badr Corps in the Iraqi army. The shell of a government left is the ineffective Dawa, the pro-Iranian SIIC and Kurds. If this rump force believes in anything, it's federalism. You think the Sunnis (Anbar Salvation Front or not) want the South to make off with all the oil? Iraqi Sunni Arabs are militant nationalists. One of their biggest beefs with AQI was the Islamist rejection of the modern nation-state. Sunni ex-Ba'athist who comprise the bulk of he insurgency don't care about the Caliphate. They just want to keep Iran and it's Shi'ite supporters out of power and they want to re-take what they see as their rightful power that they've held for 500 years. We struck a marriage of convenience with them (mutual opposition to Iran and Al Qaeda), but when we start talking about multisectarian and democratic (and Shi'ite-run) Iraq, that's where the marriage ends.

You can grab at straws all you want, but the NIE makes it quite clear that Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds are farther apart than ever before. The central government is essentially useless, completely infiltrated by militias (often competing ones at that). The Sunnis have disengaged from the central regime and are preparing for a more united nationalist front to defend themselves against the Shia. They've jettisoned AQI/ISI for the most part and they've used Petraeus to buy time, arms and money for the next stage of the civil war.

Posted by Elrod | August 23, 2007 9:53 PM

Wasn't the point of the surge to give the central government in Baghdad time to create compromises and reconciliation? Didn't they take a summer-long vacation? Aren't elements of the US government talking openly about subverting that very same central government if they continue along their path of rejecting compromise with the Sunnis and cozying up to Iran? Last time I checked, tribal councils in Anbar aren't the office of the Iraqi PM. Just as European colonialists thought they could go to the Middle East with some sort of understanding of the Qur'an and thus understand the area fully based on Western theories of culture and society, Americans like Lake go to the ME with a rather uniquely naive American understanding of how local politics work in the rest of the world. Syria and Iraq used to allied under the solidarity of both being ruled by Ba'athist party-states, but that relationship turned sour. Alliances are shifting, fluid concepts in politics in much of the world. The primary goal is just to survive. In a political environment and culture where members of coalitions tend to not expect alliances to survive past the medium-term (with the exception of liked-minded ideological groups, such as various patchwork democracy movements in the Third Wave) everybody is looking out primarily for themselves and everybody knows their partners will eject them as soon as it is useful and necessary, so it is better to beat them to it.

Posted by Reality Man | August 23, 2007 11:07 PM

Is Lieberman the biggest AIPAC whore in Congress, or is he just #2 and has to try harder?

Posted by kafka | August 23, 2007 11:36 PM

Richard,

Platitudes aside, to recap your position: Iraq was a war of necessity. We screwed it up out of hubris. And, (pause for irony), we can fix it? How is shifting guns and allegiances from one faction to another going to help that girl?

By the way, its not political for me either.

Posted by jim@ | August 23, 2007 11:39 PM

Elrod,

Your version of Sunni politics and the relationship between the IAF and the ASF is just wrong. People like Khallaf al Ayan have spent most of the last year in exile working with the Islamic Army of Iraq. The culture minister who ordered the murder of Mithal alusi's sons was a member of Tawafuq. The salvation front in Anbar on the other hand has accepted nominal positions with Maliki, but has never enjoyed a close relationship with the Sunni islamist parties. I have no idea why you think that they would be close, but they are not. The Sunni islamist parties for the most part don't really represent anyone. They will never negotiate a political compact with anyone and at least half of them are dangerous terrorists. The anbar salvation front, or rather its leader Sheikh Abdul Sattar has been marked for death by al qaeda and seen much of his family murdered by al qaeda. The fact that he is a blood enemy of our enemies is a great advantage. On top of this, he has pledged his loyalty to maliki--maliki visited him in March.

As for your point about Sadr, again I think you have your facts wrong. Sadr's organization appears now to be splitting, though its perilous to predict exactly how this is going. He has lost a lot of his nationalist credentials because he was forced to flee to Iran and he goes back and forth between Iraq and Iran. For what it's worth, Maliki now allows American operations into Sadrist strongholds like Sadr City, whereas if you remember in December he did not. I think Maliki in the end won't necessarily agree to power sharing either. But it's obviously worth continuing the surge at least until the next national elections and seeing if we get a better government than just abandoning the country now like this.

Posted by Eli Lake | August 24, 2007 12:28 AM

Hey Lake and the rest of you,

I just want to make this little caveat. At the end of the day, the voting public will decide whether we stay or leave, not the pundits or the policy makers. One criterion the public will NOT take into consideration is what help our harm of staying or leaving with cause the Iraqis. In fact, if the choice was between saving a million Iraqi babies who will otherwise be eaten alive by wolves or saving two cents per gallon on gas, the public will take the discounted gas.

Okay, go back to your terribly important debate.

Posted by bramble | August 24, 2007 11:17 AM

NO!
One criterion the public will NOT take into consideration is what help our harm of staying or leaving with cause the Iraqis.
YES!
One criterion the public will NOT take into consideration is whether it will help or harm the Iraqis if we leave.

Posted by bramble | August 24, 2007 11:20 AM

What I worry about, Eli, is this constant kicking the can down the road. We need to keep the surge in place until the next elections. What if the elections produce another weak, divided government? Will there be a new rationale for staying? As jim makes clear, the goalposts move every time a rationale proves false. It seems that you're grasping at straws, and every hopeful development gives a reason to stay. This type of thinking will keep the U.S. there indefinitely.

Posted by Gus | August 24, 2007 11:53 AM

Spoken like a useful tool Mr. Lake.

"The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims while incidentally capturing their markets, to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples while blundering accidentally into their oil wells." John T Flynn

"As a general rule for understanding public policies, I insist that there are no persistent "failed" policies. Policies that do not achieve their desired outcomes for the actual powers-that-be are quickly changed. If you want to know why the U.S. policies have been what they have been for the past sixty years, you need only comply with that invaluable rule of inquiry in politics: follow the money.

When you do so, I believe you will find U.S. policies in the Middle East to have been wildly successful, so successful that the gains they have produced for the movers and shakers in the petrochemical, financial, and weapons industries (which is approximately to say, for those who have the greatest influence in determining U.S. foreign policies) must surely be counted in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

So U.S. soldiers get killed, so Palestinians get insulted, robbed, and confined to a set of squalid concentration areas, so the "peace process" never gets far from square one, etc., etc. – none of this makes the policies failures; these things are all surface froth, costs not borne by the policy makers themselves but by the cannon-fodder masses, the bovine taxpayers at large, and foreigners who count for nothing."
Robert Higgs

Posted by goldhorder | August 24, 2007 12:33 PM

Bramble,

I think most voters will decide whether we should stay in Iraq based on whether there is a good chance we destroy our enemies there and make Iraq more stable and free. If they think it's hopeless, then they will support candidates who favor withdrawal. If they think we can win, they probably will support staying and fighting.

Gus,

I think you have a point about the goalposts changing. The truth is that Bush sold the 2005 elections as a great victory and evidence of progress. But the people elected, or rather the parties elected, proved in many cases to be uninterested in reconciliation. Like everything it's complicated. I think Sistani for example, who is not a politician, wants an Iraq whole and free. The gamble was that criminals like al Ayan and Sadr would mature or moderate as a result of a political process. Well we now know the answer to that question. That said, I think the developments in Anbar and other places with the salvation fronts present the best shot we've ever had in turning Iraq around. But in order to do this, we must come to terms with the fact that every one of Iraq's neighbors has an interest in destroying Iraq.

Posted by Eli Lake | August 24, 2007 2:00 PM

Mr. Lake, the problem is that every time the voters choose, you redefine it to mean that they support Bush's agenda of American defeat. (You and Bush want us to be stuck in Iraq forever; that means you want America to be defeated and humiliated, whereas those of us who want withdrawal are trying to avoid defeat.) The 2006 results were re-interpreted to mean that Americans wanted a "surge" even though what they said they wanted was withdrawal. And you'll say exactly the same thing in 2009. As Bush's Vietnam comparisons make clear, the pro-defeat conservatives will never think it's the right time to leave; we must stay forever in Vietnam, or Iraq, or wherever because you desire America's defeat.

Secondly, could you offer some proof that the Anbar situation offers "the best shot we've ever had in turning Iraq around?" The fact that Iraqis in a Sunni area don't like Al-Qaeda has very little to do with Iraq as a whole, given that Al Qaeda is a minor factor in Iraq and that the problem is, and always has been, Sunni vs. Shia? If you could define "victory" in Iraq without making up fantasies about what's going on there (e.g. hilariously exaggerating the importance of AQ or AQI), I might believe you want to "win"; as it is, I assume you know we can't "win" and are simply trying to keep us there for an agenda of a) American defeat and humiliation and b) An attack on Iran.

Incidentally, it is not true that Iraq's neighbors want to "destroy Iraq." After all, Iran is backing the same side we're backing in Iraq.

Posted by M.A. | August 24, 2007 2:21 PM

Jim,

I do not believe Iraq was a war of necessity. We went to war in Iraq because our leaders chose to go to war. There were other options available. This is why we are responsible. If it had been out of necessity, we would have had no choice but to go to war.

As for how we “screwed it up”; hubris, naivete, ineptitude, arrogance certainly go into the mix.

“We can fix it?” Is your irony in implying that I also exhibit hubris by believing we can fix the mess we have created in Iraq? The truth is that I don’t know if we can fix it. I am not that smart. But, we would have a much better chance of doing so if we as a nation were united in accepting our responsibility and we were focused on not leaving until we have fixed it. There are a lot of smart people in this country. It is amazing what we can do when we are united in our resolve.

Corporations are held accountable in a court of law when their negligence creates a harmful environment to a community. If the Iraqi people brought the United States before a court of law, do you think they would win a judgement against us? Corporations are held responsible for cleaning up the mess they have created. Why should we also not be held responsible? We brought insecurity to the Iraqi people. We need to do whatever we can do to bring security to these people until they can provide security for themselves, on their time schedule, not ours.

At least the strategy being implemented under Petraeus has the goal of securing the populace in mind. According to Dave Kilcullen, senior counter-insurgency adviser Multi-National Force - Iraq, this has been the main shift in our present strategy. Rather than chase the insurgents, we drive them out, and then we secure the populations. Is the present strategy open to criticism? I should hope so. If the criticisms were done in the spirit of discovering weaknesses in order to adapt our strategy to further our goal, then we may have a chance to succeed. Unfortunately, most of the criticisms I hear are from people who only seem interested in tearing down rather than building up.

Posted by Richard Foster | August 24, 2007 7:12 PM