Unreconciling

And here's what you need to know about the surge. The point of the surge was to create conditions on the ground that might help boost political reconciliation. Instead, Iraqis are less reconciled than ever. But don't call it a failure of the surge, it's not that a better surge would have worked. The issue is that it was the whole wrong diagnosis. Political problems were -- and are -- driving military problems and not the other way 'round.

Mark Kleiman, meanwhile, has a good suggestion based on Ambassador Ryan Crocker's view that "We are buying time at a cost of the lives of our soldiers." Just ask how many soldiers Bush really wants to see die in order to buy more time for Iraqi politicians.

Comments

Is there any reason - or even a hint of a reason - to think that Bush cares more about the lives of our soldiers than he does about his next bike ride?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 1, 2007 2:41 PM

How many times has the Sunni bloc boycotted the parliament? Considering that the parliament's not even in session now, it seems like political posturing.

Although it's true there haven't been any grand reconciliation deals among Iraq's national parties, there has been political progress at the local level in the wake of successful local stabilization operations. At the national level, I wouldn't expect progress to happen on a gradual, linear time line. A more likely scenario would be months of seemingly no progress followed by a new coalition government which implements key legislation. Former PM Jafaari has been working on negotiating such a coalition.

Posted by Fred | August 1, 2007 3:04 PM

Every commercial endeavor has risk. Losses occur amidst the generation of profits. Cost of doing business. U.S. soldiers are like the brakes on a delivery truck. Wear them out and replace them.

Posted by steve duncan | August 1, 2007 3:06 PM

The real point of the surge wasn't "to create conditions on the ground that might help boost political reconciliation." Rather the point of claiming that " The point of the surge [is] to create conditions on the ground that might help boost political reconciliation" was to provide an apparently plausible foreign policy rationale for a move, viz. the surge, whose real point was to run the domestic (US) political clock out. It's perfectly fair to point out that the surge isn't fulfilling its stated purposes, but it leaves the underlying motives untouched, and it is no more likely (as I'm sure MY realizes) to influence our betters than any previous appeal to facts or reason has.

Posted by J | August 1, 2007 3:20 PM

"At the national level, I wouldn't expect progress to happen on a gradual, linear time line. A more likely scenario would be months of seemingly no progress followed by a new coalition government which implements key legislation. Former PM Jafaari has been working on negotiating such a coalition."

Yeah, Jafaari was such a big success the first time.

But really Fred, under your scenario we would have no obvious progress at all (for months? years?) and then it would appear suddenly. How would that be distinguishable from complete failure to make political progress prior to the miraculous appearance of reconciliation between parties who are constantly killing each other?

Posted by SteveH | August 1, 2007 3:24 PM

I see Fred has found a field of ponies.

Posted by steve duncan | August 1, 2007 3:35 PM

Re "Just ask how many soldiers Bush really wants to see die in order to buy more time for Iraqi politicians "
------
Especially when Iraqi politicians voted yesterday to use that time to declare a RECESS of Parliament until Sept.

So its more like " spending the lives of American soldiers in order to buy more VACATION time for Iraqi politicians."

Posted by Don Williams | August 1, 2007 3:41 PM

Of course, we know the profound reverence Bush has for Vacation time.

It's one thing to bomb the piss out of civilians buildings and cause 100,000 plus casualties.

But taking away Iraqis' vacation time would be inhumane. It would be ..well.. TORTURE. And we don't torture.

Posted by Don Williams | August 1, 2007 3:46 PM

Rather the point of claiming that " The point of the surge [is] to create conditions on the ground that might help boost political reconciliation" was to provide an apparently plausible foreign policy rationale for a move, viz. the surge, whose real point was to run the domestic (US) political clock out.

Exactly! This can't be stressed enough. Political pressure for a change of course in Iraq had grown too big to ignore, and the surge was introduced to give politicians, pundits and journalists a fig leaf to pretend that a change in policy had occurred when nothing of consequence had changed.

Whatever public discussion we'll have in September (or next January, or next April) we should have had back in January of this year. This has been nothing more than a stalling tactic, and a shameful one considering the lives lost because of it, and no one should be allowed to forget that.

Don't play into their kabuki.

Posted by Royko | August 1, 2007 3:55 PM

SteveH,

Incremental progress would be great, but the likelihood is that the various parties will want an agreement in principle on key issues as a pre-condition for joining a new governing coalition. So it wouldn't be "miraculous" if a new governing coalition passed key legislation; it would be the result of agreements made in forming that coalition.

In any case, these grand national compromises aren't a necessary precondition for improving conditions locally, as recent examples have shown. If that trend continues, and a measure of stability spreads to more areas, that would represent significant and worthwhile progress independent of national political reconciliation.

Much of this is distorted by the lens of U.S. politics. On a purely political level, bailing on Iraq now and consigning the effort to failure would be victory for Dems and a defeat for Republicans; on the other hand, if a Dem president is elected next year, bailing on Iraq in '09 or later would be a political defeat for Dems. Democrats realize this, which is why they are desperate to declare Iraq hopeless now, whatever the facts on the ground. The opposite is true of most (but not all) Republicans. Facts are stubborn things though, and "hopeless" is a pretty high bar: if the facts say that conditions, however dire, are improving significantly, the "hopeless" meme becomes harder to sustain.

If the "hopeless" meme becomes unsustainable, it will become apparent to mainstream Democrats that it is in their interests for us to succeed in Iraq. It will be interesting to see the resulting frisson in the lefty blogosphere.

Posted by Fred | August 1, 2007 4:00 PM

You may remember Butch Cassidy complaining, "If he'd just pay me what he's spending to make me stop robbing him, I'd stop robbing him."

Perhaps that's the key to solving Iraq. The War is costing us, roughly, DOUBLE the GDP of Iraq. Let's just say to all Iraqis: "Hey, we'll pay you double what you make right now if you just stop killing each other." Maybe they'd take us up on it. It wouldn't cost us any more, and we'd save the lives of our soldiers.

Posted by dogfacegeorge | August 1, 2007 4:08 PM

"Hey, we'll pay you double what you make right now if you just stop killing each other."

Posted by dogfacegeorge
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've thought of the same incentives for NASCAR drivers. Somebody PLEASE just pay these guys to go away! Double their purses for not competing, it's an offer they can't refuse. I'm sure though they'd continue to drive at the lower renumeration just because for them it's so much fun. Same goes for all the murderous thugs in Iraq. Raising their pay won't stop them. They're having too much fun.

Posted by steve duncan | August 1, 2007 4:32 PM

As the maestro of realpolitik James Baker said about Bosnia, we don't have a dog in that fight.

Fred, I'm counting the days. Nothing quite like a good frisson.

Posted by Peter K. | August 1, 2007 4:34 PM

The same question could have been asked of Nixon about Vietnam. The answer was over 20,000.

Posted by Gary | August 1, 2007 6:50 PM

I guess sarcasm is lost on some people. Fred, apparently the lack of any signs of progress is not evidence of no progress occuring. And, signs of progress would be proof that progress is occuring. So, no matter what, you can safely assume that things are going well in Iraq no matter what, right?

Posted by SteveH | August 1, 2007 7:19 PM

Fred--please, please give us a date for when this magical "Democrats bail ship because we're winning in Iraq!" thing is going to happen. I want Matt to have something funny to bring up in late 2008, when we're annoyed over the media's constant sliming of President Obama.

And, I'm assuming that "things improving locally" means "we're doing their civil war and settling grudges for them".

Posted by Nobody Important | August 1, 2007 8:05 PM

"Just ask how many soldiers Bush really wants to see die in order to buy more time for Iraqi politicians."

Shouldn't that read "in order to buy more time for himself"?

Bush is just prolonging the war until he can leave it to his successor, whom he'll blame for the inevitable end. The cost in lives (and debts passed on to our children) mean nothing to Bush.

Posted by kafka | August 2, 2007 12:13 AM

the other hand, if a Dem president is elected next year, bailing on Iraq in '09 or later would be a political defeat for Dems.

So, doing something supported by the majority of the US population would be a political defeat?
Tell me more about this fabulous world, Professor!

Posted by ajay | August 2, 2007 4:52 AM

Posted by dogfacegeorge | August 1, 2007 4:08 PM:"Perhaps that's the key to solving Iraq. The War is costing us, roughly, DOUBLE the GDP of Iraq. Let's just say to all Iraqis: "Hey, we'll pay you double what you make right now if you just stop killing each other." Maybe they'd take us up on it. It wouldn't cost us any more, and we'd save the lives of our soldiers."

Perhaps you might like to expand this a little. Perhaps pay thugs what they would have got had they mugged you in order for them not to mug you. Sure you'd have a vast expansion of muggers, but that is a small price to pay. Some people need to be locked up. They do not need to be reward for criminal actions. Remember that thing about Danegeld.

Posted by ajay | August 2, 2007 4:52 AM:"So, doing something supported by the majority of the US population would be a political defeat?"

The brutal reality is that the American public may want out of Iraq, but they are unlikely to want out at any price. They seem to want the utterly unrealistic - to fight terrorism and get out of Iraq. When America does there will be a blood bath, an oppressive regime will emerge and the Islamists will be crowing about their great victory for the next 50 years. The American public does not, I expect, want this. When it happens, the blame will not come back to the Republicans, but to the Democrats. Remember how brilliantly withdrawing from Vietnam worked out for the Democrats even though they did not actually do it. As long as the Democrats work to undermine the war, every bad thing that follows will be sheeted home to the Left. So even if the majority want a withdrawal, Iraq is going to end up costing them. The Republicans, I assume, will just reject the Neo-Cons and go into Buchanan style Isolationism.

Posted by HeiGou | August 2, 2007 6:16 AM

Re "As long as the Democrats work to undermine the war, every bad thing that follows will be sheeted home to the Left. "
==========
Yes, we all remember those 16 years of the Richard Nixon -Gerald Ford Administrations when Democratic politicians wandered in the political wilderness due to their (LATE-developing) opposition to the Vietnam war.

Actually, what I remember in 1972 is my hawkish Republican Congressman --who had been in Congress for decades --deciding not to run because his constituents were starting to ask him why he had wasted their sons lives in a stupid endeavor.

But, hey, we all remember how the Nazi Party won waves of elections in the 1950s after Adolf Hitler rebuked the German people for not being sufficiently patriotic in supporting the war effort.

Posted by Don Williams | August 2, 2007 8:50 AM

Posted by Don Williams | August 2, 2007 8:50 AM:"Yes, we all remember those 16 years of the Richard Nixon -Gerald Ford Administrations when Democratic politicians wandered in the political wilderness due to their (LATE-developing) opposition to the Vietnam war."

Assuming there is a rational basis to this comment, you will notice I said that the Democrats got the blame for what happened *after* the War. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Presidency go, after Nixon, Ford (R 3 years), Carter (D 4 years), Reagan (R 8 years), George Bush Senior (R 4 years)? So the Democrats got four years in the White House after the wind down in Vietnam under a supposedly conservative and Southern President. Before they got another 8 years under another conservative and Southern President. How you can possible argue that the legacy of Vietnam did not play a huge role in this is beyond me.

Posted by Don Williams | August 2, 2007 8:50 AM:"Actually, what I remember in 1972 is my hawkish Republican Congressman --who had been in Congress for decades --deciding not to run because his constituents were starting to ask him why he had wasted their sons lives in a stupid endeavor."

How interesting. In 1972. Before the War was over.

The fact is the Vietnam War ended the long long domination of America by East Coast liberals from the Democratic Party and it broke the coalition that Roosevelt put together, or at least went a long way along that route. From Roosevelt to Nixon, how many Republicans do you have? How right wing was Eisenhower in office? From Nixon to Bush Junior, the Democrats are in office for how long? How left wing are people like Clinton?

If you're not objecting simply because you instinctively do so to everything I say, what's your point? I am not saying it is just or right. Just that it happened. As it did.

Posted by HeiGou | August 2, 2007 10:24 AM

HeiGou,
I guess you're right. The policital incentive for Republicans is to start idiotic wars, then blame Democrats for the inevitable defeat, and thereby ensure subsequent Republican victories. So starting the Iraq War was another brilliant political stroke by the Republicans.

Posted by dogfacegeorge | August 2, 2007 12:22 PM

"We are buying time at a cost of the lives of our soldiers."

Which is what the UN peacekeepers will be doing in Darfur.

They are buying time for Iraqis who have suffered through years of sanctions + Saddam and are now enduring the meddling of foreign jihadist fighters and rich neighbor states like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Posted by Peter K. | August 2, 2007 2:27 PM