Biddle Update

Brendan Green in comments ads some context to my mild surprise that Stephen Biddle doesn't think the upshot of his views is that we need to leave Iraq:

At APSA last weekend, biddle indicated that his personal view was that we should leave. But for Very Serious reasons, he feels he should maintain that the surge is an intellectually serious longshot (with a 10% chance of success he hazards) for those who think the costs of leaving are unbearable. More fairly, he also wants to cut the ground out from under the middle options, in the hopes that people will draw your obvious conclusion.

That strikes me as a bit of an odd approach. Also: Did Biddle really say that? I'm pretty sure more than one reader of this blog was at APSA.

Comments

Sorry, but can you fix that "ads" typo- it's really distracting (at least to this unserious person).

Posted by Doh | September 7, 2007 3:47 PM

The only way this makes sense to me is that Bidlde wants the surge to go on to show that it can't work. He thinks that the only way to shut up those who want a "middle way" or "moderation" or something is to give them what they want. Of course this is completely immoral. Staying is a disaster, leaving is a disaster and everything in between is a diaster.

In the last posting on Biddle I commented that we are all Leninists now. Don Williams thought I might have meant that "The purpose of terror is to terrorize." I found that close enough to what I was thinking: all attempts to reform capitalism are doomed. The possible truth of such thoughts has only become clear in the present Age of Terrorism that the Serious People, Important Media Types, and Administration Psychopaths have foisted on us.

Bush is staying in Iraq. The democrats are staying in Iraq. We are all Leninists now.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | September 7, 2007 4:08 PM

I wasn't at APSA, but in the attached interview (from the CFR website) Biddle says "If I were in the Senate and I had to cast the vote and I couldn’t be an academic, I would vote for outright withdrawal."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13807/biddle.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F2603%2Fstephen_biddle%3Fgroupby%3D1%26page%3D1%26hide%3D1%26id%3D2603

I have stated a few times that I don't quite get the railings against foreign policy experts and moderate to liberal think tanks. In addition to blowing their influence remarkably out of proportion (particulary in the context of this presidency), the many on the net (even on occassion extremely well-informed and insightful commentators such as Matt) seem frequently to either misinterpret or be unaware of the expert's actual views. Most of all I think that the issue is simply a diversion.

Posted by Greg | September 7, 2007 4:28 PM

Speaking of Iraq, here is Gen. Petraeus's Petraeus Letter to Coalition Troops. Should give you an idea of what he will say Monday, so this can be target practice for lefty bloggers.

Posted by Fred | September 7, 2007 5:06 PM

I have stated a few times that I don't quite get the railings against foreign policy experts and moderate to liberal think tanks.

And yet here's Biddle, who as you point out, thinks the surge has about a 10% chance to work if we give it 20 years, but he's sufficiently coy about that view that he ends up getting quoted in the media in support of the surge. Are you sure you don't understand our frustration with him allowing himself to be used as such a tool?

Posted by rea | September 7, 2007 5:41 PM

I was at APSALOOZA. Drezner jammed with Fred Durst. Missed Biddle, he came on like at noon or something.

Posted by stevesh | September 7, 2007 7:29 PM

Biddle appears (like many of the 'towers' and 'tankers' crowd) to be more concerned that his VSP card will be withdrawn if he stiches his forked tongue back together so we could understand him.

I'd like to revolk the humanity card they carry, since their 'position in life' is more important than human life of others.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | September 7, 2007 8:18 PM

Article on David Kilcullen in the Sydney Morning Herald here:

Dark side to the Iraq plan as the Sunnis turn
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/smh32.html

Read THIS brilliant piece of US stupidity:

"The Sunni security forces, depending on their location and skills, are paid and provided some training by US commanders and eventually may be authorised to carry their own weapons, "for defensive purposes only", says Lieutenant-Colonel Joseph Yoswa, a spokesman for the US command in Baghdad. "We don't give them weapons, we don't give them ammunition," he says."

Two points:

1) My Glock 9mm I carried into the bank was "for defensive purposes only." I'm sure no Sunni "security force" member would EVER point his weapon (assuming he ever gets ammo for it - from his brother who works at the ammo dump the US never secured, for example) at a US soldier. Right.

2) If I was in Al Qaeda in Iraq, I'd be real scared of these Sunni "security forces" - with no weapons and no ammo, they must be DAMN GOOD MARTIAL ARTISTS to be "security forces." Bruce Lee quality! 8.5 on the Norris bad-ass scale!

Has anybody here EVER read anything so mind-numbingly STUPID? And from a LIEUTENANT COLONEL! (Oh, wait, why did that surprise me? I KNEW Lieutenant Colonels during my military service. Never mind...)

They follow up with this useful info:

"In newspaper interviews earlier this year, Sunni tribal leaders who had been assassination targets of al-Qaeda stressed that their alliance with US Marines was critical for their own safety. They said that this temporary alliance against al-Qaeda did not mean they intend any reconciliation with the Shia Government in Baghdad, which they said is dominated by "Iranians".

Encouraging the growth of what are essentially friendly Sunni militias runs counter to what has been a four-year US effort to consolidate power in Iraq's central Government and emasculate tribal power bases and sectarian militias.

For that reason, the "bottom-up" revolt won't be measured by any of the 12 benchmarks that are meant to gauge the security and political performance of Iraq's Government."

Ya think?

Read the rest of it. Then tell me again that Petraeus - or any of the other morons we put general stars on - has a single goddamn clue what they're doing over there.

These guys should be flipping burgers at Burger King...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 8, 2007 2:48 AM

I think that some of you have just decided to be angry at this community no matter what the facts. Biddle said point blank that he'd pull out. He has also provided analysis that, as Matt pointed out, strongly points toward pulling out. I don't remember Biddle being cited for being in favor of staying other than the Slate article. Even if he has been, that is not his fault. It is the journalist's.

Posted by Greg | September 8, 2007 9:03 PM