Blaming Maliki

I'm really not sure about the approach Carl Levin is taking to these hearings. Basically, he's saying the Iraqi government is inept and hasn't done what it needs to do. I think this is essentially true, but I'm not sure it supports the conclusion Levin and I are both aiming at. After all, if Iraq has failed to meet all its benchmarks, maybe that shows the need for us to stay in Iraq? It sets the bar such that all the defenders of an open-ended engagement need to do is to claim that some progress has been made in the right direction so, yes, we're disappointed but blah blah blah blah.

The current situation calls for a broader strategic argument that doesn't merely consist of nitpicking with Ryan Crocker about the precise state of Iraqi politics. The point I would make is that our current allocation of resources reflects bad priorities (primarily Bush's desire to rescue his legacy) and that the ongoing American presence in Iraq is per se contrary to our real interests which involve refocusing on the core problems of al-Qaeda, nuclear proliferation, and then getting moving on a broader international policy agenda that includes economics, climate change, etc. Levin, to his credit, is moving on to some of these points, namely that Iraq is plagued by problems that fundamentally don't have very much to do with us and that are simply beyond our capacity to solve.

Comments

Remember, it was Petraeus himself who, before the party line changed yet again, described the purpose of the surge as the buying of time to bring about a lasting political settlement. I think the point Levin was making is that we're no closer to that, so the surge has failed by Petraeus's own standards. That is certainly subsidiary to the larger strategic point, but it's still worth highlighting.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 8, 2008 9:52 AM

Dr. Zaius is up now talking about attacks on the Forbidden Zone.

Posted by joejoejoe | April 8, 2008 9:56 AM

You probably should get on Carl's calendar and point this out to him.

However, I think that as an American politician, it is just convenient for Carl to blame the Iraqis for all the problems in the country. It is a way he thinks can deflect the charge from McCain and the Republicans that he wants us "to lose the war" and is "stabbing the troops in the back" by saying that our soldierrs won the war, but that the Iraqi politicians have lost their war.

As Dean Baker points out, politicians really are not ruled by ideology so much as what they think will help them win elections.

Posted by Rick Kane | April 8, 2008 10:26 AM

Levin has been riding this one for a couple of years, now. It's his "blame the Iraqis for fucking up our brilliant plan, so we can get out without admitting we did anything wrong" agenda.

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 8, 2008 11:53 AM

It seems to me wildly off the mark to describe Al Qaeda, whatever they may be these days, as a "core problem". And what, precisely, would "refocusing" on them mean? Nuking Pakistan?

To the (surely exaggerated) extent that we're actually threatened by "Al Qaeda", the threat is centered in major European cities, where Islamist radicals can live relatively unmolested in congenial ethnic ghettos kept by the welfare state and political correctness, and get passports that permit visa-free travel to the US. How would pulling combat brigades out of Iraq help us "focus" on this?

Posted by Robert Powell | April 8, 2008 5:12 PM

Powell actually has this partly correct. Al Qaeda is almost irrelevant as a "problem". Worrying about "European radicals" is nothing to the purpose, however.

Neither is the notion that Matt and others - most notably Obama - have that focusing on a MILITARY solution in Afghanistan and Pakistan should be a priority. There IS NO military solution to terrorism. Period.

Changing US foreign policy would be the best solution - but then, Powell can't accept that because it invalidates all of his "strategic national interests in the Middle East" horseshit.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 8, 2008 6:33 PM

Strategic interests in the Middle East aren't some fantasy dreamed up by a minority of fanatics. That's the description of the isolationist idea that we don't really HAVE any strategic interests.

Our interests in the Middle East are similar to those of every other industrial nation--reasonably free access to vital commododies, along with the usual concerns about outlyers acting against the generally accepted norms of international conduct. This sort of thing has been recognized internationally as vital for centuries.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 9, 2008 2:24 AM

Robert Goebbels-Powell says: "Our interests in the Middle East are similar to those of every other industrial nation--reasonably free access to vital commododies, along with the usual concerns about outlyers acting against the generally accepted norms of international conduct. This sort of thing has been recognized internationally as vital for centuries."

In other words, we want to continue to get oil at bargain prices. Mr. Goebbels-Powell is admitting that this was a war for oil, which every sane person knew all along.

If the primary product of Iraq were coconuts, we would not have invaded. That cons dismissed the "war for oil" claim is just more evidence that they're almost all liars.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 9, 2008 3:18 AM

Another blindingly superficial, yet boorish and obnoxious post by ML&J. Petroleum may be a factor in Persian Gulf geopolitics? No shit?

Oil is the life-blood of the WORLD economy, not just that of the US. Control of, or even the ability to cause significant mischief in the territory in which most of it is produced and transported, is a Big Deal.

Of course it's also a Big Deal when a country fueled by oil wealth develops wmd's (and incidentally uses them to kill tens of thousands of people); invades, rapes and annexes other states; is a charter member of the state-sponsored terrorism club; systematically subverts the international post-Cold War security architecture; engages in genocide; and etc. But for idiots like ML&J this is all just Nazi propaganda. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 9, 2008 12:00 PM