Getting Closer

To say, as the U.S. Institute of Peace apparently does, that we're no closer to achieving our goals in Iraq seems to me to involve implicitly conceding what ought not to be conceded -- namely that we have coherent goals in Iraq. In the Bush/McCain framework, our troops are in Iraq and they're fighting, so it stands to reason that they must be fighting some coherent force of "bad guys" who they've chosen to identify with al-Qaeda, with Iran, or with both. Conversely, those Iraqi forces who are currently aligned with us must be good guys. Objectives, in this view, involve helping the good guys to beat the bad guys, thus securing our interests in beating back Iran and al-Qaeda.

That framework simply lacks sufficient contact with reality to be achievable. So instead we're doing . . . who knows what? General Petraeus seems to have succeeded in making Iraq less deadly for U.S. forces. But of course avoiding casualties isn't a viable goal for a war. Our casualty rate is still way higher than it would be if we left Iraq. But in terms of its real goals of preventing GOP members of congress from deserting the administration and thus ensuring that the Iraq problem would get handed over to the next administration, the surge has been a stunning success.

Comments

Our goals are not coherent?

We are fighting al Qaeda, because if we do not, this minority of fighting Sunnis, which are a minority of Sunnis, which are a minority of Iraq, will overthrow the government that we say has been making progress for 5 years.

Some days, we have different enemies. We support the pro-Iranian givernment's efforts to support pro-Iranian militias fighting other pro-Iranian militias so we can establish a stable state that will not be pro-Iranian.

When we do succeed in having a majority Shiite government which is pro-Iranian, we will need to stay for 100 years to keep an advance base ... to protect against Iran. We protected Iraq from Iran 20 years ago when the US provided intelligence to Iraq because we decided that supporting a dictator who gasses his minorities was less bad that advancing Shiism from Iran.

Posted by maddarter | April 7, 2008 11:43 AM

One thing about Basra is clear - whenever the American occupiers want to actually do something - by making the Iraqi government do something - the Iraqi state of affairs goes to pot. The surge has provided a structure for withdrawal - we've armed all militias except Sadr's to the teeth, and it turns out - surprise! - that it is relatively easy to weapon yourself up in the area - from Iranian factions, or from the Saudis, or just steal from the Americans, too clueless to notice, so using that structure, we've got a great opportunity to go.

Of course, we aren't going to use it. Having mouthed a lot of pablum about democracy, the new plan is apparently to forbid those parties having militias from participating in elections, and then allow all the parties with militias to participate in elections except Sadr's trend. This is a beautiful plan, very South Vietnam like - where all parties could participate in elections except any party that threatened to erode Thieu's solid ninety percent of the vote, in which case their leaders were thrown in jail and tortured to death - something that was perfected in South Vietnamese jails long before the North Vietnamese practiced it.

Democracy plus death squads equal the right wing's favorite foreign policy.

Posted by roger | April 7, 2008 11:51 AM

I believe we have a clearly defined goal in Iraq. It is to insure that Iraq's government, democratic or otherwise, can function in such a manner as to insure the well being of its people without our assistance. As soon as that is achieved, we will leave.

The only catch is that it is unlikely that the Iraqi government can reach that goal unless we are there to back it up. So it is a Catch 22 but that does not mean we don't have a goal. All it means is our goal is not achievable.

One other note: when Iraq is compared to post-WWII Germany or Japan, or the 1950s Korea, where the American forces remained at the termination of hostilities there is one huge difference. Once the hostilities ceased, American forces could mingle within the general population without danger. That will never happen in Iraq. Even during the fighting in Vietnam, American troops could wander freely through Saigon and other cities without fearing death. Now in Iraq, no soldier dares go off on his own to enjoy the hospitality of the local folks.

Posted by Matt Connolly | April 7, 2008 11:52 AM

I suppose that it depends on whether you focus on our nominal goals in Iraq (see previous commenters), or on the goals which had this administration looking for a reason to attack Iraq even before 9/11. A case could be made that the latter is going just fine. On the former, it's more problematic.

Posted by wj | April 7, 2008 12:44 PM

First of all, who is this 'we'? The relevant opinions are those of the people who hold power in Washington, not those of the US Institute for Peace.

The lack of coherence in the stated goals of US rulers is not the same thing as them not having coherent goals at all. Whatever else may have happened, there are still tens of trillions of dollars worth of oil under Iraq, and that oil remains a potent instrument of both global power and profit.

It is perfectly normal for the general public to have little to no understanding of the world around them; but we cannot and should not assume that their rulers are equally dull-minded.

Posted by RLaing | April 7, 2008 1:34 PM

This is interesting: AP: "Al-Sadr calls for dialogue in Iraq". Excerpt:

Aides to Muqtada al-Sadr called Monday for dialogue to resolve a violent standoff with the Iraqi government, saying that the radical Shiite cleric would disband his militia if senior religious leaders ordered it.

Maliki seems intent on preventing Sadr's movement from becoming the Hezbollah of Iraq -- a movement that seeks power through both politics and force and intimidation at the same time. If Sadr is as popular in Iraq as some here suggest, his best tack would be to rein in his militia and beat the other parties in the October provincial elections, and then build on that victory to clean up in the 2009 federal elections. Perhaps that's his intention.

Posted by Fred | April 7, 2008 1:39 PM

Matt, my post was obviously facetious, but I think you are right that the goal is or should be about a stable Iraq.

A leftie conspiracy theorist might think it has been a great success for the proponents: Bush gets re-elected; Democrats on their heels; oil prices high; budget busted for social programs; lots of cash to military contractors; more spying on the public;p etc.

The stated purpose, after WMD of course, was to create this beacon of democracy in the Middle East. Questioning whether this was practical was deemed to be demeaning the Arab people, as if our form of democracy were somehow a higher state. But what if the people want a theocracy? I think we underestimate the religious nature of Islam. We think that because we have people like Pat Robertson, we know what we are dealing with. But what if 70% of the people were far more pious than what we think of as pious Christians, and to complicate further, what if 40% were passionately Protestant and 30% passionately Catholic?

The Islamic world is a lot like the Christian world, just 400 years behind. Considerihng it started about 600 years later, it's starting to catch up.

Even if the country stabilizes, there's a good chance of it sinking into chaos again. If we look to comparisons in the ME and see Lebanon as a relatively good model, you know we're in trouble.

On long-term occupation, the US stayed in Japan as a forward base against the Soviet Union. When people say we might need to stay in Iraq for 50 years, as "because of what?" There will be no satisfying answer. At least in S Korea, we could say with a straight face we are protecting the S from the N; or in Germany and Japan as forward bases to protect against the SU. But 50 years in Iraq as what? A glorified police department? a forward base for Iran even though we have created a pro-Iranian state?

Posted by maddarter | April 7, 2008 1:40 PM

Nooooooooooooooooooooo! Mark you can't say that the Islamic world started 600 years later but still has 400 years of catching up to do. Islam had a high-civilisation with religious tolerance, classical studies, developed sciences back when we thought torture was a really cool idea (doh!)--then we really, really looked comparatively backward and barbaric. You can't assume that religosity means backwardness--that is actually demeaning to most of your fellow citizens (and I for one deeply respect their religosity and general scepticism of the secular academy, especially some of their fairy stories).

The reason that the ME is messed up is politics, with deep roots in our (especially Anglo-US) past and ongoing clumsy interference.

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 7, 2008 3:08 PM

Chris, I do not equate religiosity with backwardness, but do think that a more uniform and passionate following of a religion will make a majority-rule/minority-right form of democracy less likely, because the majority will want to impose its will, or reflect the overwhelming majority view (choose your term). And if religion is a large part of the daily life of a large majority, maybe having priests, mullahs, imams, or whatever is a logical outcome.

I was thinking about the 400 years from people saying that Sunni and Shiite are not all that different and that this is political. I would challenge the average Christian to identify a liturgical difference between Catholic and Protestant, and yet these groups fought battles for decades. Hopefully Muslims will get it out of their system.

Posted by maddarter | April 7, 2008 4:05 PM

Since, as others have pointed out, the whole issue is to avoid the real reasons the war was done, clearly making suggestions as to whether those goals were achieved or not is nothing to the purpose.

This is the perfect environment for a context-free argument - which is what you see in Congress and the press. Since nobody wants to acknowledge that the US state is a criminal enterprise - because that would reflect on the US electorate (a group I'm proud to say I have absolutely no connection with since I don't vote for assholes) - the argument will go on forever - or at least until the pain really starts to reach enough of the ordinary citizens that they start to get really upset and try to make it stop.

Which will be when Bush and Cheney attack Iran, oil spikes to $200/barrel, and gas costs $5-10 a gallon at the pump - and the economy has evaporated because China dumps the dollar. When the cost of US wars soars to $25-50 billion/month month instead of $12 billion/month, things may change.

The other way this might change is if enough of Iraq gets together to finally drive the US out violently. This is also the most likely outcome of any attack on Iran since almost all the Shia factions will unite to support Iran - and the Sunnis will take the advantage to hit the US as well.

Until then, as long as the US military-industrial complex, the oil companies, and the investment banks - and politicians - with investments in them continue to make money, you will continue to have unending war.

As I said, the corruption starts here.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 7, 2008 6:17 PM