No Middle Way in Iraq

Max Bergmann's polite explanation of why there's no viable "middle way" in Iraq between an indefinite military presence and an expeditious withdrawal is recommended to all and sundry. Or, rather, there is a middle way but that way simply consists of adopting the logic of indefinite engagement and then adding hope that things will just work out very nicely and we'll be done in five more years' time.

This, though, is just what the Bush administration has been doing all this time. The proponents of the tactical policy framework du jour never explicitly outline their favored policy as likely to fail and require the war to continue indefinitely. Rather, each gambit from the transfer of sovereignty in June 2004 to the first, second, and third Baghdad security plans to the rise of Ibrahim al-Jafari to the fall of Jafari to the rise of Maliki to the surge and beyond were supposed to succeed, it's just that they all failed. One needs to answer the strategic question at some point of whether this is all worth it. I think the answer is clearly "no." There are pressing, fairly urgent reasons to disengage from Iraq not least of which is the continued piling-on of the death toll. Meanwhile, there aren't good odds of accomplishing anything especially worthwhile there within a reasonable time frame.

Comments

The Osama plan: goad the US to invade and occupy a middle-eastern/southwest-asian country where we bleed money and people until our economy and/or military breaks and we are forced to pull back from the whole region. Without US interference, al-Qaida is better able to overthrow the Arab monarchies and reestablish the Caliphate. Bush the unintentional co-conspirator.

Posted by Th | January 22, 2008 2:42 PM

Remember what Mr. Miyagi said: you can walk on the left side of the road, and be safe. You can walk on the right side of the road, and be safe. But walk in the middle of the road, sooner or later... squish, like a grape.

Occupy Iraq, or don't occupy Iraq. No middle path.

Posted by Freddie | January 22, 2008 3:01 PM

Isn't it possible the Bush administration gave up hope of total victory and concocted the surge as a way of passing the problem off on his successor? That way they get to claim victory even in defeat - "we wouldn't have lost the war; we were winning when we left office..."

Posted by Bob | January 22, 2008 3:01 PM

You may be right Matt, although I really don't think you have shown your readers any real insight as to why you are so sure things won't become much worse if we immediately pull out. It's easy to point to the problems in Iraq now as they are tangible and any problems with a pull out are completely speculative.

I am sensitive to your "endless occupation" argument(ala Germany and South Korea), but if we pull out, I sincerely hope we don't have a civil war killing hundreds of thousands. Doesn't that even cross your mind? If it does, what role does that possibility play in your calculus?

Posted by Dave | January 22, 2008 3:05 PM

Dave, in the words of Tonto, where do you get this "we" shit, paleface.

Posted by rickhavoc | January 22, 2008 3:31 PM

if we pull out, I sincerely hope we don't have a civil war killing hundreds of thousands.

We already have a civil war killing hundreds of thousands. Still for endless occupation?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 22, 2008 4:11 PM

"We already have a civil war killing hundreds of thousands. Still for endless occupation?"

That would be an argument for leaving, but it's simply not true.

Posted by Dave | January 22, 2008 4:39 PM

"Meanwhile, there aren't good odds of accomplishing anything especially worthwhile there within a reasonable time frame."

define reasonable time frame.

Iraq still sits on an ocean of oil does it not?

we won't be in a position to control or steal the oil if we leave.

that's why we won't leave till the oil's gone. book it.

dead GIs or Iraqis are a small (ie nonexistent) price for Shrub and Shooter to pay.

Posted by ran | January 22, 2008 4:46 PM

"but if we pull out, I sincerely hope we don't have a civil war killing hundreds of thousands. Doesn't that even cross your mind?"

The only logical response to this is: SO WHAT?

The US military ITSELF has killed an estimated 300,000 Iraqis and the war in total is estimated to have killed an excess between half a million and one million over Saddam's regime - and that doesn't count the critically wounded and the four million displaced.

And you bring this crap up - yet again?

And what responsibility does the US have for the actions of Iraqis in the first place? If you see two drunks beating each other to a pulp outside a bar, do you run over and get in the middle?

And finally, pray tell, what the hell makes you think that the US could do anything about it in the first place even if it did happen? What makes you think the US is preventing it from happening now - the mere fact that both sides are making deals with the US to prepare for that eventuality? What makes you think either side particularly cares if the US remains (with the sole exception of Maliki whose position rests entirely on the presence of the US occupation and who would be out in a heartbeat if the US wasn't there?)

The argument is devoid of logic.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 22, 2008 7:03 PM

Ran, we'll be leaving a lot sooner than the oil will, trust me on that.

Unless the US can continue the "divide and conquer" routine for another twenty or thirty years in Iraq, the Iraqis are going to throw the US out.

There are moves already in that direction by al-Sadr and others to form a nationalist coalition government, dump Maliki, order the US out, and then throw the US out when it doesn't leave, then deal with their own conflicts.

The US will not be in Iraq more than another 12-24 months. The only question is whether the US will leave in an orderly evacuation or in body bags.

When you have eighty percent of the population of a country wanting you out, you aren't going to be staying long. It's that simple.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 22, 2008 7:08 PM

Liberal here.
For what its worth, I think that Iraq could get worse-a lot worse. Think Lebanon circa 1975-90 X 10.
There may be an argument that its no business of ours, but the liberal argument that peace & harmony will break out when those wicked American troops leave is almost certainly wrong.

Posted by stonetools | January 22, 2008 7:10 PM

stonetools - who argues peace & haromny will break out? Liberals if we leave, or conservatives if we stay? It's right wingers who claim a flowering democracy will bloom if we just keep our troops there long enough. I've heard no one on the left make that claim - based on either staying or withdrawing.

Posted by Bob | January 22, 2008 7:53 PM

I hope you're right RSH. as you note, we have no goddamn business being there to begin with.

it can be tough to get rid of a ruthless occupier with overwhelming military superiority, deep pockets and control of the skies though. just ask the Palestinians.

Posted by ran | January 22, 2008 8:18 PM

The Palestinian situation is entirely different than the Iraqi one.

First, the Palestinians are hemmed in with more or less controlled borders. The Iraqi insurgency has a big country to operate in.

Second, the Palestinians have limited military resources, mostly small arms and some smuggled explosives and possibly some anti-tank weapons. The Iraqi insurgency has millions of weapons, a million tons of explosives, and access to state resources via their infiltrated ministries, not to mention a huge border to smuggle in materials from Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia, depending on which group is importing.

Third, there's likely more Iraqis per capita than Palestinians who have a military background.

Fourth, the Iraqis have more money available to them than the Palestinians, both from outside and inside. The Sunnis have outside monetary support from Saudi Arabia, and the Shia from Iran. They also have a thriving black market in oil, and there is even some evidence that opium fields are being planted as in Afghanistan.

Fifth, the Iraqi combat forces could easily outnumber the occupation forces, whereas I'm not sure the Palestinians could produce enough combat forces to take on the entire IDF including reserves.

In Iraq, al-Sadr could field 20,000 or more insurgents; the Sunnis, another 20,000, maybe 40,000, and if the main Shia factions joined in, the total could easily exceed 100,000 or more, destroying the 10-to-1 numerical advantage a conventional military historically requires to contain an insurgency.

Unless the US is willing to send another 50 or 100 thousand troops to Iraq - and probably set up a military draft - I don't see them able to contain a greatly enlarged insurgency. And the cost would balloon to $15-20 billion a month. The insurgency can outlast that financial and personnel crunch.

The Sunni insurgency alone has run rings around the US forces for the last three years - not enough to drive them out, but enough to create 1,000 casualties a year. What happens when US casualties rise to 4 or 5 thousand a year, and injuries raise to 10 thousand or more a year? Could easily happen if the Shia and Sunni join forces against the US.

Of course, what could happen is that the nationalist coalition government fails to get the Sunni and Shia groups to cooperate long enough to drive the US out. There's no guarantees on that outcome. That's why I said if the US can continue the "divide-and-conquer" policy, we might be there for a while. But I can't see it being anything like another five or ten years, let alone anything longer.

The Iraqis ARE going to get fed up sooner or later - and probably sooner. The ONLY reason the US has lasted this long is that the first two or three years, the Shia were trying to get control of the government. Had Sistani and the Shia been against the occupation completely, the US would have been gone by now.

And Sistani, although his influence has waned somewhat, is still known to want the US out eventually. And he can probably still put 100,000 demonstrators on the street in an hour.

And al-Sadr will never accept the occupation, and neither will the Sunni. We know that the entire "Awakening" movement is nothing but a welfare program for elements of the Sunni insurgency. They aren't going to accept that forever.

There's simply no way the current status quo can be sustained, and thus no way the occupation will be allowed to continue.

Whether a civil war breaks out afterward is debatable, but the occupation cannot last, regardless of that other issue. Therefore, whether a civil war breaks out afterward is irrelevant to the question of the occupation.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 22, 2008 9:13 PM

"It's easy to point to the problems in Iraq now as they are tangible and any problems with a pull out are completely speculative."

The benefits of staying are entirely speculative as well. Who is to say what Iraq will look like if we stay 5 years, 10 years, or 20 years? What is known is that we're spending $2 Billion per week maintaining occupation. Run that out 20 years discounting at rate of 3.5% and the present value of future expenses comes in at about 1.4 trillion. To put it in perspective, that's over 9 times what Bush asked for in the emergency domestic stimulus package.

The burden of proof lies with justifying that spending (not to mention the blood).

Posted by BJC | January 22, 2008 10:10 PM