Conditional Engagement

What to think of "Conditional Engagement", the brief policy memo from Colin Kahl and Shawn Brimley of CNAS. Well, I'm not as skeptical as Kevin Drum. In essence, what I take them to be saying is that we should probably leave Iraq but if upon taking office the new President finds that key Iraqi politicians are all prepared to produce the pony we need then we ought to be willing to stick around. You can count me as very skeptical that this strategy would, in fact, produce a pony which is why I put emphasis on the idea of packing up our bags and going home but I don't think I disagree with their literal claim.

Now of course a lot comes down to the details. But beyond the details, a lot comes down to the purpose here. Do Kahl and Brimley really intend to quit Iraq if/when the pony doesn't materialize? Or is the real point here just to generate "a nuanced middle position between 'all in' or 'all out'"? Certainly, I've had about enough of policymaking where we decide first to find a nuanced middle ground and then second sketch out what that nuanced middle ground means. It seems to me that a lot of efforts have been expended essentially with the goal of avoiding the DFH conclusion that we ought to leave Iraq at all costs.

So I'm skeptical. But I'll be interested to see the longer version, because I don't have a huge literal disagreement with what they're saying and it sounds like the new report will be a big step in my direction relative to where "Phased Transition" had positioned CNAS.

Comments

"Nuanced middle position" = stay in Iraq forever but pretend to agonize a lot about it in public.

I thought Ken Pollock already had the patent on this.

Posted by Paul Campos | March 28, 2008 3:15 PM

What does "DFH" refer to?

Posted by right | March 28, 2008 4:28 PM

What to think of Conditional Engagement?

It doesn't matter what we think about Iraq, says Cheney, so I guess we shouldn't care what happens in Iraq either way.

Posted by AKBY | March 28, 2008 4:34 PM

Matt, How can you even feign indulgence of this comical "policy brief". yet another little puffy strategy PDF. It is a virtual parody of the genre of safe, vacuous, split the difference, wonky BS that is the typical pre-fabricated output of our centrist foreign policy pros. Brimley and Kahl are two more masters of the genteel IR art of pretending to say something important without really saying anything, and aiming straight for the middle of the middle of the middle.

So - another "nuanced middle position" proposing to strike a reasonable balance between those horrible and unsophisticated extremes of the get out yesterday and never leave camps. We've been hearing the same content-free, fence-sitting fluff from these folks for years. Remember the whole "benchmarks" movement with their own middle way between getting out and staying in? That was like two or three years ago right?

Even O'Hanlon produces more real content than these cats. All that is missing is an explicit call for another few Friedman units - or better yet, a proposal to begin a process to begin an evaluation that will begin the process of producing recommendations that will establish guidelines on how many Friedman units the Iraqis have left.

Some more gems from these top foreign policy minds:

Iraq and America share a common interest in achieving sustainable stability in Iraq

"Sustainable stability" - love it!

make clear ... the United States is willing to help support the Iraqi government over the long term, but only so long as Iraqis move toward political accommodation.

Yes, let's be really, really firm about our indecisiveness.

establish a broad framework for withdrawal — but also demonstrate a willingness to leave residual forces in the country to support the Iraqi government if accommodation is reached.

That's why the Iraq issue never goes anywhere, right? Not enough "broad frameworks"!

a credible threat to abandon allies if they don’t move toward accommodation, while providing a credible promise to continue supporting them if they do move in this direction.

Yes, what we need is a somewhat uncertain "date certain", after which we promise to begin the process of making an actual decision - once we consult our political accommodation Movement-o-meter that will tell us whether the Iraqis have or have not gone far enough on the path to progress.

This crap really writes itself, doesn't it? I'm envious. How do I get to be one of these foreign policy experts, and draw a check for composing this sort of drivel? Our country is seemingly blessed with a whole class of credentialed experts who are paid to produce recycled nothings, even though they don't actually seem to know anything about anything.

I'm sorry to be so harsh, but I've had it. This is the real world, and real lives and fortunes are at stake. And yet our think tanks continue to exgurgitate this brand of peabrained nothingness.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 28, 2008 4:55 PM

"What does "DFH" refer to?

Posted by right | March 28, 2008 4:28 PM"

Dirty Fucking Hippy.

If the pony magically appears while the new president is figuring out where the paperclips are, then there is an argument for staying to help solidify a government that has just got its shit together. The same could be said if we start showing we mean business and won't be baby sitters by withdrawing troops and they suddenly act responsible. If Kim Jong-Il gives up the throne and comes out in favor of disarmament and reunification with the South under the democratic rule of Seoul, the new president should take that too. If Captain Kirk and Spock come back in time and need us to help him find a pair of humback whales for the future, the new president should get right on it.

Posted by Reality Man | March 28, 2008 8:53 PM

"Rather than re-litigate the debate over how we got here, Congress must look forward and help shape the public debate over the basic strategic choices from which this and the next President must choose."

Wrong. Re-litigating how we got there is precisely what is needed - because the REAL reasons why we got there are the REAL reasons we're not leaving - ever.

If these jerks don't get that, they don't get anything.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 28, 2008 9:14 PM

"This strategy ignores the very real contribution American forces are making to preventing a resurgence of civil war in Iraq."

And they posted this argument in the middle of the meltdown currently going on in Iraq. Besides which, they offer ZERO evidence that US forces are doing anything to prevent a civil war other than running a welfare operation for Sunni insurgents - which can't last.

"It also shares the flaw of the administration’s approach in offering few incentives for Iraq’s leaders to accommodate. If nothing Iraqi leaders do will affect the pace of an American withdrawal or alter the degree of support for the government, why would they take the risks needed to accommodate?"

This is exactly ass-backwards. The Iraqi government at the moment is utterly dependent on the US forces to support their physical existence, let alone their ability to "govern" - which fundamentally does not exist outside the Green Zone, as the events in Basra and elsewhere the last few days have demonstrated graphically.

The only possible way Iraq is going to reconcile does not entail propping up these losers. It entails letting the Iraqis solve their conflicts - by actual violent conflict if necessary.

Nothing is being resolved at the moment, and nothing the US brings to the table is capable of altering the fundamental issues between the factions.

Plus, as current events show, either side can drag the US into the civil war on one side or the other - either the Sunnis get paid to rearm and regroup, or the US ends up attacking one bunch of Shia for the benefit of another bunch.

I don't see anything in the "nuanced" approach that changes this dynamic. Only full and complete US withdrawal can do that. If there is ANY way to force the factions to come to terms, either by negotiation OR violence, US withdrawal is the linchpin for that effort.

Until that happens, Iraq remains in a stalemate that results in a failed state. While it IS possible that a US withdrawal will also produce a failed state, not withdrawing guarantees a failed state that cannot stand on its own.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 28, 2008 9:23 PM