What Is Success?

One line of thought that many liberals, myself included, have entertained from time to time is the idea that on some level George W. Bush knows perfectly well that Iraq is lost and just wants to kick the can past January 2009 so that he can blame his successor for the defeat. But what if this is wrong? Looked at from a certain point of view, the war is actually doing fine. In particular, if you think of the main goal of the war as simply being to maintain a large American military presence in a "strategical vital" country -- as Bush's resort to Korea analogies suggests -- then the moment of maximum danger really came in spring 2004 when it looked for a little bit as if the Sadrist forces might team up with nationalist Sunni insurgents to present a common front against the occupation.

And, indeed, while the absence of political reconciliation is probably Iraq's biggest problem, it's not a particularly large problem for the American military presence. On the country, a unified Iraq -- especially one swayed by Iraqi public opinion -- might be very likely to give the US the boot. By contrast, in a divided and chaotic Iraq one can easily imagine the main players resenting the US presence but preferring it to anarchy. Indeed, Bush seems to have convinced both the Maliki government and the Anbar Salvation Front that they need American troops to protect them from each other. Meanwhile, the Kurds want us to defend them from the Turks, and the Turks want us to keep the Kurds in line and there's really no sign of an end to the tensions and violence.

From one point of view it looks like a quagmire, but from another point of view it's more-or-less ideal.

Comments

Bingo.

The plan is not to promote a)democracy, b)freedom, c)religious plurality, d)electoral institutions, e)good governance, f)"hope"....

No, the goal is establish a permanent military presence in the world's largest oil producing region. That's not a conspiracy theory. It's just reality.

Posted by Mike | September 14, 2007 3:24 PM

Hey ... why didn't I, or anyone else, think of that one? Oh, yeah, we did.

Okay, snark over, it's deserved for past failures of perception, but now that you've seen the light, welcome to the team.

Posted by LarryM | September 14, 2007 3:26 PM

i've thought that this was their aim too as it's the only one that makes sense of all the events since 03, but without something approaching conventional success it's not something the US can sustain indefinitely (as it could post-cease fire korea).

Posted by jimmy boy | September 14, 2007 3:32 PM

Scarily, that makes more sense than anything else I've seen. In fact, it is the new CW as of right this second.

Posted by IP Guy | September 14, 2007 3:33 PM

I suspect this is indeed what a number of the war's defenders (and midwives) are thinking. And it only costs a handful of American lives per week, and a thousand dollars or so per second, etc.

Posted by Bave Dee | September 14, 2007 3:34 PM

"On the country" for "on the contrary" may be your best slip yet. Is Kaye Grogan your proofreader?

Posted by what was that? | September 14, 2007 3:39 PM

Wow, I thought I was cynical for believing the "kick the can" explanation... but you've got me beat. One thing I've learned over the last 6 years though is that the most cynical explanation usually turns out to be the correct one.

Posted by Lee | September 14, 2007 3:40 PM

Isn't important to point out, that one point of view is a hideously immoral one, while the other is not?

Boehner really summed up your argument well this week; he, and many other Republicans, really don't mind a small loss of soldiers on a monthly basis. To them, dying for the cause is what soldiers are FOR.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | September 14, 2007 3:41 PM

Umm, my snark at Matthew was, I thought, perhaps a bit unfair, but now I see that some of his readers are acting as if the idea is just occurring them to the first time. I mean, what kind of a cocoon does one have to have been in to not have been at least exposed to this point of view over the last few years.

Posted by LarryM | September 14, 2007 3:47 PM

Plus the military industrial complex gets lots
of dollars and no one demands peacetime cuts in military spending as long as the troops are in harms way. All benefits when the MIC contains most of your supporters.

Posted by catclub | September 14, 2007 3:49 PM

http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/ref=pd_bbs_2/105-8187300-2821243?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189799335&sr=1-2

Posted by jonathan | September 14, 2007 3:50 PM

The idea that Bush wants to keep troops in Iraq as an "ideal" is truly asinine. We have always had a large troop presence in the region with a permanent brigade (-) in Kuwait with a brigade troop set, AF and ADA in Saudi Arabia, a fleet HQ in Bahrain, at least one aircraft carrier on station and more equipment sets and supplies afloat throughout the AO. I think Bush would pull out of Iraq in a flash if the conditions were right. Believe it or not, his visible displays of emotion when he visits Walter Reed are not fake. Here I am defending him and I don't even particulary like the guy.

We are riding the tiger in Iraq and it is hard to dismount. We now have a moral obligation to patch up Iraq into some semblence of order before we pull out. The leftist notion of "Oops, my bad" followed by hasty withdrawal from Iraq is not worthy of a great nation.

Posted by danceswithgoats | September 14, 2007 3:52 PM

if you think of the main goal of the war as simply being to maintain a large American military presence in a "strategical vital" country -- as Bush's resort to Korea analogies suggests

Huh?

The main goal of our troops in Korea is to "maintain a large American military presence in a 'strategical vital' country"??? Since when?

I thought the main goal was to help the South Koreans protect themselves against the North Koreans. But I guess the Reality Based Community knows better.

Posted by Al | September 14, 2007 3:55 PM

For the last 50 years, we have made it our "National Security" interest to plunge certain regions into civil war, to allow us to exploit their natural resources. We've done this in South America, Asia, and the Middle East, most of the time covertly using mercenaries or rouge military leaders. This is perhaps the first instance in which we've deployed the full American military, but the strategy is essentially the same.

What people don't realize is we our the wealthiest nation on earth precisely because of this economic imperialism. Many people don't understand why remaining in Iraq is vital to our national security... it's vital to our economic security, which at this point is very tenuous, and thus vital to our national security. No politico would dare say this - it smacks too much of the utilitarian ideas that the ends justify the means... though perhaps in this case they don't. Our economy is doomed to fall, a pullout from Iraq will only precipitate - a prolonged stay will only delay the inevitable.

Posted by Nicholas Moore | September 14, 2007 3:58 PM

Still too cynical. Although I'm sure Bush wouldn't mind if we had troops in Iraq for decades, as we do in Korea and Germany, the only way that's possible is if:

The number of troops is a lot smaller, and

They aren't getting killed every day.

So it remains in Bush's interest to stabilize Iraq. A long-term presence of 100k+ troops with 60+ KIA per month is unsustainable. A long-term presence of, say, 30,000 troops with no KIA is.

At this stage, I am wondering what exactly the Democrat objection is to Bush's strategy of gradually phasing down the American troop presence, while using military, diplomatic, economic and other means to continue to try to stabilize Iraq. If their argument was Yglesias's "all-out" position versus Bush, there would be a useful contrast. Instead, it just seems like they plan to do what Bush is doing, but accelerate the withdrawals for domestic political reasons and to decrease the chances of stabilizing Iraq.

I think Hillary wants to protest just enough to appease the netroots but is secretly hoping Bush gets his way on Iraq this time. If she's elected president next year, she would rather the current Petraeus-Crocker strategy be extended, because this is likely to leave Iraq more manageable for her than it would be otherwise.

Posted by Fred | September 14, 2007 3:59 PM

"...the most cynical explanation usually turns out to be the correct one."

It's the new Occam's Razor.

Posted by Njorl | September 14, 2007 4:03 PM

Hear, hear. That's silliness. Even George Bush knows that we can't keep 130,000 servicemen in Iraq indefinitely. Our guys are seeing three and four tours there now. You get up around six or seven and there will be open revolt. Hell, I did a week there in 1991 and that alone pretty much soured me on a military career.

Posted by Toady | September 14, 2007 4:03 PM

"And, indeed, while the absence of political reconciliation is probably Iraq's biggest problem, it's not a particularly large problem for the American military presence."

Easy for you to say, bub. It's not your ass standing in the middle of a civil war, which is the reality hiding behind your euphemism, "absence of political reconciliation."

Posted by nikkos | September 14, 2007 4:07 PM

...and to LarryM's point, it is surprising that this seems to be a new idea for so many. "Birth pangs?" "Constructive chaos" Anyone? Anyone?

http://myfriendscallmenikkos.blogspot.com/2007/02/why-sy-hersh-is-wrong-just-this-once.html

Posted by nikkos | September 14, 2007 4:13 PM

The leftist notion of "Oops, my bad" followed by hasty withdrawal from Iraq is not worthy of a great nation.

The part where we actually committed that bad was even less worthy. I too wish we could unshit this particular bed, but it isn't happening.

The genuineness of Bush's emotions at Walter Reed are also, by the way, completely irrelevant to the issue of whether the occupation is playing out satisfactorily from the administration's point of view. I am sure the war's architects would love nothing more than to be able to accomplish their ends without the loss of US soldiers' lives. That does not logically imply, however, that any amount of lives lost could change the leadership's minds with regards to accomplishing those ends.

Easy for you to say, bub. It's not your ass standing in the middle of a civil war, which is the reality hiding behind your euphemism, "absence of political reconciliation."

And nor is it the collective asses of the leaders who are masterminding the war. This is not rocket science: people have desires that they seek to fulfill, and people in power are no different. When Matt proposes the utterly banal idea that the narrow sliver of Americans who run this country acts primarily in the interest of the narrow sliver of Americans who run this country, the burden of proof should properly fall on those who want to argue otherwise.

Posted by tps12 | September 14, 2007 4:24 PM

I must say that the current USA strategy in Irak has reminded me of the Syrian strategy during Lebanon's civil war for quite some time. That is, prevent any side from obtaining a decisive victory, keep them armed and fighting as long as possible and wait until exhaustion forces them into a weak "compromise" government who needs you to act as protector and referee. My guess is that this "strategy" as emerged mostly as an answer to the realization that a majority-governed Irak would be a Iran-friendly Shiite theocracy.

Posted by Carlos | September 14, 2007 4:27 PM

From one point of view it looks like a quagmire, but from another point of view it's more-or-less ideal.

No snark from me. Just yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

Easy for you to say, bub. It's not your ass standing in the middle of a civil war, which is the reality hiding behind your euphemism, "absence of political reconciliation."

It's not George Bush's ass either, nikkos. I think that was Matthew's point.

Oh, I see tps12 got there first.

Carlos' Syria/Lebanon analogy above strikes me as very astute.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | September 14, 2007 4:32 PM

Bingo. As my crackpot mild rants here have repeated many times, it's all about permanent bases in the Gulf. Also the Iraqi government is a joke, that was the whole idea, the feature not bug thing.

I will grant these things were probably not Bush's conception of what he was doing and probably they still aren't. He's probably still dreaming of ponies. Put his picture next to the entry for useful idiot.

Posted by rapier | September 14, 2007 4:37 PM

yes! absolutely! and duh.

Right from the start this has always been about moving out of Saudi Arabia and into Iraq. We started building permanent bases in 2003. They might have expected the war to be short, but the occupation / colonial rule was supposed to have gone on forever. That they thought this was possible given how, oh, EVERYBODY IN IRAQ would feel about it is further proof of how insane the Bushies are.

After a trillion dollars so far, I can't say it was worth it.

Posted by chris | September 14, 2007 4:40 PM

"As my crackpot mild rants here have repeated many times, it's all about permanent bases in the Gulf."

We already had those, in Kuwait and Qatar, before invading Iraq.

Posted by Fred | September 14, 2007 4:44 PM

It's unclear to me if Matt's statement:

"And, indeed, while the absence of political reconciliation is probably Iraq's biggest problem, it's not a particularly large problem for the American military presence."

...is uttered as though from the mouth of Dubya or if it is something Matt himself believes to be true.

If the former, then the "duhs" in response are warranted and my criticism is misplaced.

If the latter, my point stands: this euphemistic reference glosses over the reality of the threat faced by our military in Iraq. Meaning, if you don't think the lack of political reconciliation is a big deal for the U.S. military, just wait until we try to leave.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding his point and that of tps12 and Uncle Kvetch. If so, carry on and thanks for the comments in reply.

Posted by nikkos | September 14, 2007 4:50 PM

In so far as a major point of military bases is to project
power, Iraq is obviously a huge minus, because the bases
there have to be supplied and defended and neither is easy.

That is why Admiral Fallon is unhappy. He has wider
responsibilities than Petraeus and sees Iraq absorbing
all his military assets.

Posted by Nick Patterson | September 14, 2007 4:59 PM

Part of the problem here is that responding to some of the doubters properly is impossible in the limited context of a blog thread.

But as for Nick's comment, Admiral Fallon's conception of our interests in the ME reportedly does not include an attack on Iran or Syria. And arguably absent such an attack, the bases in Iraq are more trouble than they are worth. But if, just let's pretend, some of our leaders WANT to engage in such a conflict, bases in Iraq might both be usefull in such an attack, and help gin up a provocation for such an attack.

Of course, Admiral Fallon is also tasked with merely MILITARY responsibilities. He isn't tasked with, say, worrying about the interests of American oil companies.

Posted by LarryM | September 14, 2007 5:24 PM

Here I go again . . .

One of the first consequences of the fall of Saddam's regime was the closure of the massive Prince Sultan airbase in Saudi Arabia. That airbase had been necessary to maintain the UN sanctions regime which succeeded the first Gulf War. Also, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia had been cited by Al Qaeda as a substantial part of their dissatisfaction with the United States.

The foregoing is ironic in the context of this thread. For all the disaster the war in Iraq has caused, it did shift our military footprint entirely out of Saudi Arabia and attempt to address at least one element of the root causes of terrorism.

Posted by southpaw | September 14, 2007 5:40 PM

And, indeed, while the absence of political reconciliation is probably Iraq's biggest problem, it's not a particularly large problem for the American military presence.

We're talking about a lot more than a lack of political reconciliation. The country is effectively being partitioned. We've got multiple groups striving for dominance in their respective regions and they are succeeding. Baghdad has been segregated, the Sunnis are losing. Shiites already control Basra the question only whether the Mehdi Army or the Badr Brigade come out on top. Meanwhile the Kurds continue to purge Turkmen and Arabs from the North and the Sunni tribes are consolidating their forces in the West.

Once each has secured it's respective territory, who exactly are we left dealing with? If you think The U.S. can easily maintain a military presence with hostile parties in each region you're kidding yourself.

Posted by Jinchi | September 14, 2007 5:50 PM

So this is all just going great for Bush because this is exactly what he wanted? I guess we can call this the Darth Sidious Syndrome, right? Or "All your base are belong to us," cackled over steepled fingers while Cheney polishes his gun.

I hope the Atlantic thinks they're getting their money's worth

Posted by JA | September 14, 2007 5:54 PM

I don't give this administration one ounce of credit for behaving in good faith, but I don't buy the "everything is going according to plan" theory.

Bush is staying the course because Bush doesn't think that he has lost until he has conceded that he has lost. He'll let a Defeatocrat make that concession and then ridicule that Defeatocrat for not having the courage to stay the course.

Posted by Sean Wright | September 14, 2007 6:14 PM

I'm afraid that here, on planet Earth, the story is much more boring.

An incurious President who goes with his "gut" got sold a stack of goods. He fucked up, got us in over our heads, and we've been trying to learn like crazy to figure out an approximately decent way of still winning and saving America's honor. It's tough because this President has a cognition problem. But it's tougher still because many other people -- ahem -- have their own as well.

Bush may be responsible for bad things -- but out of negligence and incompetence, not malicious intent.

Posted by JA | September 14, 2007 6:15 PM

"winning" was to be in quotes, since that term is obviously fluid.

Posted by JA | September 14, 2007 6:18 PM

I'm cynical, so I think that Bush, et al., ad naseum, WANT permanent bases in Iraq. The problem with our bases in Kuwait and Qatar (oh no, not Qatar, how ever will I ever "win the argument" now that you've thrown down the Qatar military base gauntlet) is that they have them there pesky and oh so awfully inconvenient "governments" in place.

I may be even more cynical, cause I don't believe there's any "grand unified rationally coordinated strategy" behind any of it. I think they're just winging it, flying by the seat of their pants, smokin' the ditchweed on the long march to nowhere'sville, man (oops, dirty hippy burp...) and we'd be "lucky" if we got out of this mess with just a military base and the shirts on our backs (and the blood in our soldier's and the Iraqi civilian's veins).

Posted by Rihilism | September 14, 2007 6:21 PM

No one is saying that "everything is going to plan." Well, some people are, but Matthew isn't, I'm not, and most if not all of the commenters here aren't. I'm sure than in a perfect world Bush would prefer an Iraq with a somewhat stronger but still pliant central government, and a somewhat lower level of violence. The point isn't that, from the point of view of the Bush administration, things are going PERFECTLY. The point is that, if one assumes that the goal is a permanent military presence, things are going well enough.

Posted by LarryM | September 14, 2007 6:29 PM

I'm with Rihilism: "Everything's going according to plan [bwahahaha]" suffers from any number of flaws, the most glaring one being that it ascribes infinitely more competence and intelligence to this administration than is warranted.

That said, there does seem to be every reason to believe that from the standpoint of a sociopathic narcissist like our beloved President, things really aren't looking that bad right now.

This is about geopolitical hegemony and control, and from that standpoint, an ongoing low-level civil war in Iraq may very well provide a better context for a long-term US military presence than a stable, Iran-friendly government that would tell us to get the hell out. Now, that's not to say that this is what they wanted all along. It's only pointing out that if staying in Iraq is the only thing that matters, the situation in Iraq right now isn't Bush's biggest problem, not by a long shot--rather, it's keeping the Republicans in Congress in line. And on that score, so far, so good. What, him worry?

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | September 14, 2007 6:35 PM

"The problem with our bases in Kuwait and Qatar (oh no, not Qatar, how ever will I ever "win the argument" now that you've thrown down the Qatar military base gauntlet) is that they have them there pesky and oh so awfully inconvenient "governments" in place."

Acknowledging the gaping holes in your argument doesn't close those gaping holes. In what sense have the governments of Kuwait and Qatar ever been "pesky" or "inconvenient"? Are you even aware of the history of the Qatar base? Do you know Qatar built the giant airfield to entice us to put a base there? Do you know what percentage of its country Kuwait turned over to us to use as a staging area to invade Iraq?

Posted by Fred | September 14, 2007 6:41 PM

I guess the reason I read "everything going according to plan" into the post is because Yglesias closed with the statement "from another point of view it's more-or-less ideal." I took that to mean that the Bush administration may be pleased with the way things are going in Iraq because the ongoing chaos gives them an excuse to keep the troops in Iraq.

Posted by Sean Wright | September 14, 2007 7:25 PM

I'll point out the minor...but definitive....truism that the "military-industrial" complex is not exactly benefited by this war. The last thing the really big players (Boeing, Raytheon, etc.) want is to see all our dollars go for Iraq (MRAPs and the like are peanuts in the big picture (and those are mainly made by truck-manufacturers anyway)....instead of the big-ticket items (FCS, DDX, CX, ABL, F-22, F-35). Blackwater and KBR are not big players.

Posted by Nathan | September 14, 2007 9:02 PM

There was no one plan, no one goal for the Iraq adventure. There were many goals, many motives. From the herds of prancing ponies in the showers of flowers and recognition of Israel fantasy to the deepest dark fantasies of the painful deaths of millions of Muslims, take your pick. Any and every eventuality can be claimed by Republicans at a moments notice and embraced. No matter what happens it can be painted as a GOP strength.

While we argue about the past they create the next reality. Well not create so much as adopt it as their own. Was a significant terror attack likely on Bush's watch? Of course. The 911 conspiracy crowd is too clever by half. 911 was a political power bonanza for the GOP because they were ready for it. Just as they have been ready for the next. If it happens on Bush's watch they will cash in. If it happens on Hillary's or another Democrats they will cash in.

Posted by rapier | September 14, 2007 9:05 PM

"In what sense have the governments of Kuwait and Qatar ever been "pesky" or "inconvenient"? .

I was referring to masters' Bush and Cheney's opinions of those countries.

Do you know Qatar built the giant airfield to entice us to put a base there?

I'm sure that tourist bureaus in Qatar could recommend some hip happening hot-spots to our "new" recruits, but I'm guessing it's strategeric military value to us/US is the them mighty purty oilfields they got over there.

Come to think of it, maybe we should build a military base in Saudi Arabia too, to protect them (;), ;)) from the Islamo-fascists that Saddam sent over to nuke Mount Rushmore...

Posted by Rihilism | September 14, 2007 9:07 PM

Back to the oil -- I think Matt is right. Back in early 2003, before our invasion, Jeffrey Sachs wrote an op-ed in the Financial Times saying that the war was about the US seizing control of Iraqi oil as insurance against a revolution in Saudi Arabia. Time has not proven him wrong on this.

Just one question, though. Is the situation really working out? Iraqi oil production was 2.6 million barrels/day before the invasion. It's down to 2.0 million now. Yes, it could go way up in the future. Iraq even has undeveloped oil fields, which is kind of amazing.

But how will Iraqi production go up unless things calm down there? And if things do calm down, won't the Iraqis ask us to get out? Where is the middle ground, a la Lebanon, where the US can constantly stir the pot, while also extracting plenty of oil?

Posted by Hal | September 14, 2007 10:27 PM

Divide and Conquer

The Bush administration can hardly be credited with discovering this basic technique of empire, Divide and Conquer, a phrase which derives from Tacitus.

So, yes, of course the war is going well from the point of view of those who want a more frank American empire to replace the merely informal hegemony we have had in the recent past. A free and independent Iraq is not what victory would look like to these imperialists, so it is pointless to accuse them of failure to accomplish something that they would not want to see come to pass, because it would frustrate their designs. The divided and dependent Iraq we have now is a necessary feature of an Iraq that will always need US troops, not an unwanted bug.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | September 14, 2007 11:28 PM

We should label this post of Matt's: "Matt develops a sense of reality."

Now if he can just pursue it long enough to understand that Iraq is just a way station on the road to Tehran...

Too much to hope for...

This is obviously the neocon and Zionist intent from the beginning. Chaos in the Middle Eastern nations allows the US and Israel to further their objectives - or more precisely, the neocons and Zionists THINK that is what it does. It doesn't have to be true, they just have to THINK it's true.

People who argue from the "reality-based community" forget that the neocons and Zionists are not and never have been "realists". They are greedy, ideology-driven power seekers - and such are not known for having a "reality-based" world view.

Therefore, all the arguments against a war on Iran, or against the idea that the war was for oil, or against the idea that it was for Israel, or against the notion that it was for "American Empire" are all irrelevant. It WAS for all those things - because that's what the neocons and Zionists believe it was for.

And, of course, it was for lining their pockets and the pockets of the military-industrial-security complex, and the pockets of politicians, as well.

And of course it was also to give them the opportunity to push the US population around with more "security", surveillance, spying, draconian laws, reducing civil rights, etc.

Bottom line: it's about power, greed and fear. As always with humans.

None of this has anything to do with "reality". So it doesn't matter WHAT disaster the policies cause, none of that will stop them creating the NEXT disaster.

As for oil production, Greg Palast's theory is that the oil companies wanted Iraqi oil production taken OFF the market because Saddam was meddling with the oil prices. He wasn't a good OPEC member, apparently. Then, of course, once they have control, they can exploit it under their own terms.

The same applies to Iran. There is little doubt that the exact same plan is in place to seize the Iranian oil fields in Khuzestan = directly across the border from Iraq.

"While we argue about the past they create the next reality.: Rapier has that spot on.

While Matt dimly figures out that the situation in Iraq might actually be okay with George, George is plotting with Dick to set up Iran the same way.

Will Matt figure this out in time to post a realization on this blog sometime in the year 2012 that MAYBE this was really in the cards all along?

Stay tuned to "The Atlantic" where the pundits get it right - someday!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 14, 2007 11:53 PM

There are many Zionists who opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. If you had said Likudniks, you'd have been closer to the mark.

Posted by Hal | September 15, 2007 12:45 AM

Actually, Bush's war has killed and impoverished a lot of people and accomplished nothing:

Let’s take a look at the chessboard
Saudia Arabia-Authoritarian Monarch/Islamic State
Qatar->Islamic State
Kuwait->Islamic State
Iran->Islamic State
Turkey->Islamists in charge
Syria->Dictatorship
Pakistan->Dictatorship
Egypt->Dictatorship
Libya->Dictatorship
Tunisia->Dictatorship
Jordan->Authoritarian Monarch/Dictatorship
Lebanon->Identity feuding
Palestine->Hamas vs. Fatah
Israel->Identity state

Bush has merely transformed Iraq into a quagmire of identity feuds. Is that worth 300,000 lives to them and a trillion dollars and counting to us? No oil, no democracy, no nothing. Attack Iran? To deliver more nothing??

Posted by Nur al-Cubicle | September 15, 2007 12:59 AM

Matt isn't saying that he believes Bushco SEES the situation as "more or less ideal". He is only pointing out that such a perspective is POSSIBLE and has some INTERNAL CONSISTENCY.

To all of you who see Matt as a convert to your pet theory; probably not. Matt likes to pose brain stretchers now and again, because he is a liberal, and liberals actually think about things.

His theory is NOT the most cynical. In Matt's theory the people in charge are darkly competent, and in their twisted worldview they are intelligently forwarding their nation's interests.

A more cynical theory is that the Iraq War was an emotional backlash. 9/11 was a wound that had to be avenged. Afghanistan just wasn't satisfying enough, and anyway, we hadn't got bin Laden. We had to kill some ragheads, and it didn't mattter who.

This theory is more cynical. It posits the War as fundamantally racist (have to kill... Arabs).

It posits our leaders as acting on emotion, against any sound calculation and judgment.

It posits the public as also driven by a promitive need for revenge, and not concerned with details like whether Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

It posits a dark world, with the nuclear button is in the hands of a macho hot-head who loses his head when provoked. His reptilean hindbrain takes over when challenged. THAT is f***ing dangerous.

As a practical matter,it isn't too hard to blow huge gaping holes in the idea that Iraq has essentially worked out for the Administration:

1. These guys are politicians. They want to be in power. Yet Iraq is now a sucking chest wound for the Republican Party. The next election can be summed up as "people who want out are likely to vote Dem". Hell, Bushco barely got reelected! 2004 was way closer than it should have been considering the tidal wave of approval after 9/11. Politically they way overplayed their hand, and if the Dems play it smart the Republicans will be paying for years.

2. America will station troops in safe places for a long time. But deaths are a big no-no, especially in places most Americans don't care about. Who actually CARES about Iraq? Except as an irrational proxy for the 9/11 terrorists? That was a fiction that could be predidcted wouldn't hold up, and it hasn't.

The Dems have been playing a very cautious and smart game of standing by while the other side self-immolates. Such caution is difficult to countenance, because in the meantime horrible and pointless suffering and death is happening in Iraq. But from a cynical bird's eye view Bush blew it very badly, and the Democrats are circling.

Posted by tomtom | September 15, 2007 12:14 PM

From one point of view it looks like a quagmire, but from another point of view it's more-or-less ideal.

I'm really late to the party here, and haven't read through the thread, but, it's really really hard for me to believe that even the crazies running US foreign and defense policy these days think our current situation in Iraq is "more-or-less ideal." Unless they're a whole lot more fucking crazy than I thought. First, the meat grinder that is Iraq without question is putting enormous stress on the US military, and is surely negatively impacting its effectiveness. How the hell would would the US be able to respond to an outbreak of trouble in, say, East Asia? How can that be "ideal"? Moreover, the Iraq debacle is costing the Treasury over ten billion a month, if you believe the wildly conservative, unrealistic estimates (which fail to properly account for things like medical costs for rehabbing vets, etc.). Even for a country as rich as the US, writing an eleven figure check every freaking month ain't chicken feed. What's so vital about Iraq's geography that couldn't be emulated a lot more cheaply by bases in Kuwait or the UAE? I don't think there's any rational basis any more for US policy in Iraq besides Bush's worries about the history books.

Posted by Jasper | September 15, 2007 12:54 PM

And, indeed, while the absence of political reconciliation is probably Iraq's biggest problem, it's not a particularly large problem for the American military presence. On the country, a unified Iraq -- especially one swayed by Iraqi public opinion -- might be very likely to give the US the boot. By contrast, in a divided and chaotic Iraq one can easily imagine the main players resenting the US presence but preferring it to anarchy.

Where by "a unified Iraq" you must mean one in which one ethnic group has been allowed to wipe out its rivals. When they release polls saying most Iraqis want us to leave the country, I'm not swayed, as no doubt a large number of those people only want us to leave because they feel their ethnic group could then take the country over. You just can't ignore the violence and then talk about "Iraqi public opinion".

Posted by Mike | September 15, 2007 2:52 PM

Unless they're a whole lot more fucking crazy than I thought.

They are. Much, much more crazy than you, or almost anyone, thought.

By the time this is over, those crazy lovers of death are going to rain nuclear fire on the innocents of the middle east. And history will agree that comparisons with the Nazis are inappropriate- Buch, Cheney and their accomplices and successors will go down in history as the biggest mass murderers in the history of the world. Hitler will be considered a pacifist by comparison.

Posted by Sad but true | September 15, 2007 4:39 PM