The Wonk's Dilemma

To return to the report referenced below on "Salvaging the Possible" in Iraq, I have sharply mixed feelings. Pollack and Pascual do a lot of analyzing of this and that, but there baseline conclusion is this:

The more time passes and as violence escalates, the harder it will be to achieve a political settlement. The United States must cooperate with regional players, the UN and other international partners in order to create leverage over Iraqis who might rein in the militias and reach a political compromise. The chances for success are low, but this is one of the few options that has not been tried, despite the imperative suggested by international experience with civil wars. And failing to try essentially amounts to accepting civil war in Iraq.

The report goes into more detail about what they're proposing, but it's similar to Toby Dodge's implausible scenario. And reading Pollack & Pascual write about it, on some level I agree with them. As they say, probably if we made a big push for a UN-sponsored diplomatic settlement of Iraq's internal conflicts and related regional ones, etc., etc., our push would fail. On the other hand, if such a push succeeded, that would be very good. And the costs of trying for such a settlement and then failing would be low.

At the end of the day, though, the whole premise of a discussion like this is that Bush might read a Brookings Institution report and agree to a radical change in direction. That, of course, isn't going to happen. At the present day, the set of options that might plausibly occur between today and January 2009 are:

1. Bush gets his way.
2. Enough Republicans get freaked out that congress is able to force Bush to start withdrawing troops.

Under the circumstances, the political impact of things like this Pollack/Pascual report seem to me to be mostly pernicious. It mostly serves to obscure the real issues and choices in play. It lets people continue with the delusion that they're floating off on some worthy path between Bush and Bush's opponents. This nicely serves various people's sense of vanity and desire to avoid undue association with dirty fucking hippies, but it's every bit as detached from realities on the ground in America as Bush's policies are from realities in Iraq. Either the Bush steamroller is going to plow forward for 18 more months, or else congress is going to muster the votes to shut it down.

That said, in gossipy terms it's interesting that Pollack and O'Hanlon have responded so differently to the criticisms of their "War We Just Might Win" op-ed. O'Hanlon's basically double-down as a hawk, whereas Pollack's gone back to the relatively sensible views of his Things Fall Apart era.

Comments

I'm going to repost this from the thread below, which I realize is obnoxious but it does hinder conversation to split your discussion of the report between two threads.

Anyway, I don't think you should be touting this report without reading the "safe havens and buffer zones" part of the report's recommendations (pp.16-17). This is their *preferred* option, and it's simply astounding. They propose leaving an occupying force of 50-80,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who "police", "protect", and "disarm" large refugee camps (excuse me: "safe havens") full of Iraqi civilians. They also "patrol Iraq's borders", preventing the "outflow of terrorists" or the "inflow of external forces".

This is simply continued occupation, except with a smaller force. To say nothing of the obvious set of problems with U.S. patrolled and managed refugee camps. Matt, are you truly agreeing that this is a reasonable strategy?

Granted they favor some kind of diplomacy. Although a key goal of this would be to "make clear to all that we are staying engaged in the Region", along with other code words for bullying. If you read it carefully, they say very little in teh regional diplomacy section about any concessions we will give to other countries or any way we will stand down from our recent strategy. It's simply a device to call on others to clean up the mess we made, which granted they should do for their own self-interest if nothing else.

Posted by mq | September 10, 2007 10:32 AM

I agree with the set of choices on the table are Bush's way or Congress forces him to retreat. The other point is that only after Bush is defeated and forced to retreat will any other possible course of action--be it Pollack/Pascaul or any number of withdrawl plans being discussed--be even seriously considered. Just as with Social Security privatization, you can't look for a middle way until you have defeated Bush.

Posted by dmh | September 10, 2007 10:32 AM

Re Matthew's comment "At the present day, the set of options that might plausibly occur between today and January 2009"
-----------
Actually, the die will be cast over the next FEW WEEKS. The Democratic Congress has to approve the Defense Budget for next year --including the IRaq supplemental -- SOON.

Once they do that --give up the power of the purse -- they give up ALL control over the situation and Bush can do whatever he wants until he leaves office.

So all this talk about what happens in April is beside the point.

Also, once the Defense budget is approved , Bush can then attack Iran without the Democrats being able to do anything. Assuming any Democrat wants to cross Haim Saban and try.

Posted by Don Williams | September 10, 2007 10:45 AM

Plausibly being the key modifier in this phrase correct?

"At the end of the day, though, the whole premise of a discussion like this is that Bush might read a Brookings Institution report and agree to a radical change in direction. That, of course, isn't going to happen. At the present day, the set of options that might plausibly occur between today and January 2009 are:

Bush gets his way.
Enough Republicans get freaked out that congress is able to force Bush to start withdrawing troops."

You do not deny that the Democrats can NOT fund the war I hope.

Posted by Armando | September 10, 2007 10:45 AM

My sense is that this report is more about positioning for the next administration than affecting this one. Matt's post seems to miss the point a little in that context.

The report says a lot of generalities that sound sensible, but their actual preferred option is pretty hawkish within the context of the non-Bush debate on Iraq.

Posted by mq | September 10, 2007 10:53 AM

"The more time passes and as violence escalates..."

But violence is deescalating. Even the Democrats admit that. Now, the argument is that regardless of the level of violence, the political settlement is not happening. This may or may not be true, but isn't one of the premises of the statement you quoted.

Sk

Posted by sk | September 10, 2007 11:18 AM

But violence is deescalating. Even the Democrats admit that

Huh? There is little good evidence that violence is decreasing, and certainly most observers do not "admit" this.

Posted by mq | September 10, 2007 12:02 PM

If the report provokes more discussion between now and November, 2008 about broader regional strategies for the Middle East, and the ways in which the challenges and opportunities for Iraqi stabilization depend on broader regional affairs and relationships, then that will be a good thing in itself, although it will probably have no impact on Bush.

However, mq is right to call attention to the crazy safe havens proposal, which seems to be a call for the US to operate some sort of apartheid police state, moving to a hard core West Bank-style occupation.

Posted by Dan Kervick | September 10, 2007 12:14 PM

Not to parrot Atrios, but there will be no change in the war strategy. Withdrawal equals losing to Bush. Staying, it follows, equals winning. It's that simple.

The Dems lack the votes and the balls to cut off funding. The boy king will continue on his merry way with possibly a small reduction in troops in recognition of the fact that current levels of manpower cannot be sustained. But that will be it -- although our idiot press will treat this like it is a meaningful concession.

We will continue to muddle along. American service personnel will die unnecessarily. Iraq will continue to come apart as a meaningful national entity. Ugly internecine warfare will continue and escalate. War opponents will be blamed.

It all falls into the lap of the next presdient.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | September 10, 2007 1:08 PM

Dismissing option 3 has become a knee-jerk response to an ineffectual Democratic leadership:

Harry Reid realizes the Republicans will never come around and decides to act like a Senate majority leader and quit whining.

Democrats do have the power to control the funding of this war, to demand specific goals, and timelines and to condition funding on real measurable progress.

All they have to do is abandon this ridiculous line that they need 60 votes to pass legislation. They don't need a veto proof bill. They need to realize that ultimately, George Bush can't write his own check. He'll have to accept what they give him. But he won't compromise when he doesn't think they'll seriously oppose him.

Posted by Jinchi | September 10, 2007 1:25 PM

You do not deny that the Democrats can NOT fund the war I hope.

They've already voted the funds, haven't they? My understanding is that the moment when simply refusing to pass an appropriation could have worked has already come and gone.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | September 10, 2007 2:35 PM

Here's an interesting interview with Carlos Pascual.

Posted by novakant | September 10, 2007 2:58 PM

Remember that it isn't simply that people like Pollack are Pollyannas who believe that their advice might get followed by Bush. They have an enormous temptation-- both because of their general belief in American imperialism (cast as "liberal internationalism" but in a very hawkish form with America dictating terms for the rest of the world) and their specific advocacy of the Iraq War-- to try to portray the Iraq War as having a chance to succeed. When we do pull out, it is going to be a gigantic repudiation of the viewpoints not only of neocons but also of liberal hawks. So they have a huge incentive to advocate even false narratives to keep us there.

Posted by Dilan Esper | September 10, 2007 3:08 PM

Re Matthew's comment "They've already voted the funds, haven't they? My understanding is that the moment when simply refusing to pass an appropriation could have worked has already come and gone "
------------
Are you sure? Citation? Funds are first Budgeted --and then later Appropriated. Have the funds for Iraq operations next year already been appropriated?

Posted by Don Williams | September 10, 2007 4:16 PM

Correction: The IRaq funding is being set up as supplemental appropriations which
bypass the normal budgeting process.

However, the $147 Billion Supplemental Appropriation for military operations in Iraq
in 2008 is contained within the National Defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2008
-- which is currently on hold in the Senate. See
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01585 and
http://irannuclearwatch.blogspot.com/2007/07/defense-authorization-bill-put-aside.html

My understanding is that it has to be passed by the Senate and then any changes sorted out
with the House in conference.

Posted by Don Williams | September 10, 2007 4:42 PM

No. The Iraq funding for the full fiscal year 2008 has not been approved.

Bush's $50B supplemental funding request makes this clear.

Posted by Armando | September 10, 2007 5:11 PM

Matt wrote: Either the Bush steamroller is going to plow forward for 18 more months, or else congress is going to muster the votes to shut it down.

The Dems are reduced to a basic defensive strategy from boxing: The Clinch. So the White House can see the war as essentially a public-relations issue, since there are no real consequences or restraints on its freedom of action in Iraq. Nothing is likely to change unless the Dems discover the meaning of "opposition party" or Republicans go into full panic mode as the election approaches next year. Or both.

Interesting constitutional question: could Bush ignore a de-funding of the war? In theory (and on the model of the signing statements), he could shuffle the Pentagon's accounts in a way that continues the war as-is and ignores Congress. After all, only about 10% of the discretionary military budget would be applied to Iraq. In other words, the war could still be funded through creative accounting, and rearranging priorities, even without a supplemental budget.

It would be a mistake to underestimate (or misunderestimate) Bush/Cheney's willingness to ignore the clear text of the Constitution. "Textualists" indeed...

Posted by Geaghan | September 10, 2007 6:54 PM

They've already voted the funds, haven't they?

No they haven't. That's quite an astonishing question coming from someone who covers the political beat.

Congress approved the Iraq supplemental bill in May. That was additional funds for the fiscal year ending in October. Debate on next year's budget is beginning now.

Posted by Jinchi | September 10, 2007 7:12 PM

In other words, the war could still be funded through creative accounting, and rearranging priorities, even without a supplemental budget.

Possibly. But right now the situation is that the Democrats have given Bush's strategy a Congressional seal of approval (only 11 Senate Democrats voted against the supplemental bill last May).

In the situation you describe we'd be involved in a constitutional battle over funding authority. Frankly, that's a battle that should be fought, since the current situation sets a precedent giving future presidents unchecked power to wage war.

Congress is responsible for the war right now, despite their attempts to lay it on Bush's doorstep. He can't continue to fight without their OK. They have to at least attempt to change course if they want credit from the voters who elected them.

Posted by Jinchi | September 10, 2007 7:24 PM

Jinchi writes: "He can't continue to fight without their OK."

I'd prefer to agree, but the familiar powers of Congress under Article I, Section 8, only include the express authority "to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years..."

Under Cheney's expansive interpretation of presidential authority, the administration could take the position that the role of Congress is simply to provide the money as a kind of lump-sum allocation for defense. It's entirely up to the executive to manage how or where those funds should be spent. It would be inconvenient to be denied another supplemental, but not insurmountable.

Such an in-your-face response isn't just possible: it's likely.

If the issue ever comes before the Supreme Court, there's even more reason to despair: as Charlie Savage argues convincingly in his new book (Takeover), John Roberts and Sam Alito were nominated more because of their strong presidentialist views than their opinions on social issues.

Posted by Geaghan | September 10, 2007 7:33 PM