No Expertise Necessary

Ilan Goldenberg reads Al From and Harold Ford on Iraq and comes away mighty displeased:

I gotta say that this is one of the most hollow and vapid Iraq articles I've read in a long time. It reads like a bunch of buzz words and standard lines taken out of various policy pieces with no real coherence or understanding of what it means. Is there a line in the entire article that is not an Iraq debate cliche at this point? One iota of creative thinking in all of this? Clearly the authors have no solid detailed concept of what is actually going on. And the fact that they use the term "immediate withdrawal" to describe the Democratic position is right out of the Republican play book.

I implore our readers. Do not mistake these two as member of the "very serious" foreign policy community. That's not what they are.

Indeed, though you'll find one of my favorite people listed on the staff bios page of the DLC's think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute, I'm not sure that anyone who works there is really what you'd call a specialist in these issues. The Katulis/Korb "strategic reset" plan for the Center for American Progress (which, given that it's run by John Podesta and its general Clintonite heritage, really ought to count as an adequately centrist demmy institution for anyone) remains the gold standard for Iraq plans in my view. The International Crisis Group's "After Baker-Hamilton" plan and report is getting a bit outdated, but it's still smart.

Comments

What's wrong with "immediate withdrawal"? Sounds good to me and a great many voters too.

Posted by Ron | October 19, 2007 11:39 AM

Wow do I dislike Harold Ford. Like so many Democrats I was ready to give him a pass because he could have taken a Republican Senate seat, but he didn't. Just go away now!

Posted by Random Dude | October 19, 2007 11:48 AM

Harold Ford is just another Lieberman-like DINO. Can you imagine Ford and Lieberman in the Senate together? Just what Democrats need another Senator running around spouting talking points for the former Cheerleader and his gang of atavistic thugs.

"The only plan they have is immediate withdrawal" meme is worn out and so patently phony and untrue; Richard Milhous Nixon must be smiling from the Eternal Fire. Jesus! Did the Democrats dodge a bullet when Ford lost that race in Tennessee? Yes they did.

Posted by Cindrella Ferret | October 19, 2007 11:57 AM

OK, I give up -- who is Matt's "favorite person" on the PPI's staff? Is this a girlfriend or something we're supposed to know about?

Posted by King | October 19, 2007 12:30 PM

The percentage of people who comment about Iraq who have any familiarity with what is happening there is extremely small, and even that tiny group is severely limited in what they can get a handle on, for the simpple reason that it is to complex to model effectively. This was always the best argument against invasion in the first place; the endeavor was far too complicated to execute with the amount of calibration required for the political situation, and war is first and foremost a political endeavor.

Posted by Will Allen | October 19, 2007 12:46 PM

This is the comment I wrote at the "Ideas Primary" site where this appeared. Once I realized they had comment moderation, I toned it down a bit, but I still give them credit for publishing it. Herewith:

"This is a recycling of tired talking points. First, Bush changed strategy on Iraq at the end of last year: he cleaned house — replaced his Secretary of Defense, his top theater commanders, and his ambassador to Iraq, and implemented Gen. Petraeus’s surge. To pretend that none of this happened and that Bush just “stayed the course” from the disasters of last year until now, is dishonest.

Second, the new strategy is clearly achieving results. Iraqi civilian casualties are down sharply; so are our casualties. The WaPo reports that Al Qaeda in Iraq has been severely hurt, etc. To pretend that none of this is happening is dishonest as well.

Third, there is no “stalemate” on Iraq policy: Democrats were elected to summarily end American involvement in Iraq and they failed. Now they flirt with indirect ways of sabotaging the war effort, like infuriating Turkey, through which most of our troops’ supplies arrive.

If you want a new way forward on Iraq, why don’t Democrats stop hoping for defeat out of spite for Bush and start working with him to succeed in stabilizing Iraq? Better both parties get credit for success. Americans and Iraqis would be better off.

For an earlier generation of Democrats, politics stopped at the water’s edge. What would Scoop Jackson or JFK think about what you are doing today?

I will be pleasantly surprised if you post this comment unedited.

Posted by Juan | October 19, 2007 2:28 PM

Matt said: "the Center for American Progress (which, given that it's run by John Podesta and its general Clintonite heritage, really ought to count as an adequately centrist demmy institution for anyone)"

You are forgetting one thing though Matt, the Center for American Progress is actually serious about pushing Democratic goals. In other words, their problem is that they aren't actually pushing conservative policy and calling themselves Democrats. This means that they aren't nearly centrist enough.

Posted by d | October 19, 2007 2:35 PM

“OK, I give up -- who is Matt's "favorite person" on the PPI's staff? Is this a girlfriend or something we're supposed to know about?”

Yes. Sara Mead, I believe.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | October 19, 2007 5:10 PM

The Katulis/Korb "strategic reset" plan did not impress me - especially when they babbled over distributing US diplomatic personnel all over Iraq in "secure consulates" with "adequate forces to protect them."

That was a non-starter right there.

Of course, the recommendation to solve the Israel-Palestinian issue was correct, and of course engaging Iraq's neighbors. But suggesting Iraq's neighbors send troops into Iraq is another non-starter.

All in all, another "wonk" policy suggestion that relies on complete ignorance of what is going on in Iraq on the ground and the basic power imbalance between the Sunni and the Shia.

The "After Baker-Hamilton" group was quite a bit better. While they emphasized regional matters, they also specifically suggested using the regional actors to open up lines of communication with the factors in Iraq - which most people seem to be ignoring.

You have to deal with al-Sadr and the other actors directly or you're not going to get anywhere.

They also had this to say about the US military:

"18. Adopt a less aggressive military posture in Iraq by:

(a) redirecting resources to a program of embedding U.S. troops in Iraqi units; and

(b) moving away from fighting the insurgency to focusing on protecting the civilian population, and in particular halting blind sweeps that endanger civilians, antagonise the population and have had limited effect on the insurgency."

That is entirely correct, although it falls short of a complete withdrawal which ultimately is the only solution.

However, they then screw up with this:

"19. Redeploy troops along the frontlines of the unfolding civil war, notably by filling in the current security vacuum in Baghdad.

20. Focus on limiting the militias’ role to protecting civilians in places where government forces cannot, rather than seek to forcibly disband them, while taking strong action against political assassinations, sectarian attacks, or attempts to overrun government offices.""

In other words, keep fighting. They contradict themselves here.

The bottom line: the US needs to stop doing ANYTHING but "force protection" - which basically means retreat to our bases and wait to be shipped out on an accelerated schedule. Doing ANYTHING else is simply going to increase casualties and make it clear to the Iraqi actors that the US is still meddling in Iraq's affairs.

And since recent reports indicate that there is a broad-based insurgent "coalition" coming together of both Shia and Sunni groups to attack US forces and drive them out of Iraq, the US policy definitely needs to be one of "force protection" and immediate retreat.

I reiterate - the US military in Iraq needs to stop doing ANYTHING - no attacks on "Al Qaeda" no attacks on militias, no sweeps, no patrols, nothing. Just sit back and wait to ship out.

Of course, this isn't going to happen, so why even bother discussing it? Where does anybody see any evidence that the Bush administration and its toadies in Congress are even beginning to consider such a program?

And with Bush intended to attack Iran in the near future, where does anybody get the notion that US troops will be coming back anytime after that?

OTOH, with the reports of a new insurgent coalition forming in Iraq, it is possible that the attack on Iran will in fact have to be postponed - as this coalition could press the US military in Iraq so hard that it may be forced to leave regardless.

Of course, if this new coalition is NOT that effective, it will give Bush the excuse he needs to CONTINUE the war in Iraq by proclaiming that the insurgent resurgence demonstrates that the US needs to remain in Iraq.

And of course it will also allow him to claim that Iran is behind it all, further justifying his war in Iran.

I predict that the next year will determine the fate of the US in the ME for the next couple of decades.

And it doesn't look good.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 19, 2007 7:43 PM