SOFA

This meta-wrangling over the Bush administration's refusal to subject its planned agreement for a long-term US military presence in Iraq is a bit silly. It is worth making the point that Bush's effort to bypass the Senate is pretty dubious. But obviously Bush is bypassing the Senate because he thinks it would lose a Senate vote. But if he would lose a Senate vote, then the Senators who would hypothetically vote no ought to be spending some time making the case on the merits against a long-term presence and not purely making the meta point that Bush should go to the congress.

The crux of the matter, of course, is that seeking a long-term presence in Iraq plays into the propaganda of anti-American forces around the world. It's a very unpopular idea with Iraqis, and it's unpopular throughout the Arab world. Given its unpopularity, it shifts the nature of the mission in Iraq toward a war for the sake of permanent bases, which isn't a cause worth fighting or dying for, and it helps fuel instability in Iraq.

Comments

Amazingly, it's unpopular here in America too! Who wins in a long-term military presence, other than defense contractors?

Posted by Adam | April 8, 2008 12:57 PM

Indeed, Matt. The courage of our fine Democratic Senators, in hesitating to openly take a position that's massively popular both at home and everywhere else, is truly breathtaking. Bravo, losers.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 8, 2008 1:01 PM

Personally I like (or at least rely on) Bush's "don't wanna and you can't make me" petulance. Were he to suddenly act like an adult, I'm afraid I'd have a heart attack and die.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 8, 2008 1:03 PM

The President solely reserves the right to determine what causes are worth fighting and dying for. The opinions of others on such matters are trivial and carry no legal weight.

Posted by steve duncan | April 8, 2008 1:05 PM

The crux of the matter, of course, is that seeking a long-term presence in Iraq plays into the propaganda of anti-American forces around the world.

"Anti-American forces" will not be pleased with anything America does short of disbandment followed by collective suicide. Why do leftists always insist on bending over backwards to satisfy (whatever they perceive as) the demands of our rivals?

Posted by MarkG | April 8, 2008 1:06 PM

Why do leftists always insist on bending over backwards to satisfy (whatever they perceive as) the demands of our rivals?

Strike "rivals," insert "adversaries."

Posted by MarkG | April 8, 2008 1:10 PM

Let the frail bastard Bush make an agreement with that cocksucker maliki. It'll be an agreement between two illigimate--I hesitate to call them leaders here--incompetents fer the moment propped up by the amrican military, and not worth a sinner's fart in hell. The next president can just ignore it as the deformed bastard child er two degenerates that it will be, somethin gibberin and malform (picture Chris Ford as a diplomatic memorandum) in the corner. None but Maliki an Bush will care.

Posted by ol one eye | April 8, 2008 1:10 PM

You raise a good point-- we shouldn't be obsessing over what our adversaries are going to "think." They'll never be happy unless the USA doesn't exist. So why are we muttering to ourselves how we can't do something intelligent because that would be a "propaganda victory for the terrorists."

Presumably, however, our long term view for our military is for us not to be fighting a guerilla insurgency. As a consequence, it's generally a good idea to make decisions that don't exacerbate the insurgency, and a long-term presence in iraq exacerbates the problem.

Posted by Tyro | April 8, 2008 1:17 PM

Why do leftists always insist on bending over backwards to satisfy (whatever they perceive as) the demands of our rivals

An excellent question, one worthy of serious discussion. I would say that the answer to your "why" is: because the terrorists depend heavily on financial and other support from the local population. This is what makes it so damned hard for us to just hunt them down and kill them. An adversary that has minimal support is much, much worse off than one that has broad support.

Accordingly, most intelligent adversaries work very hard to get the people on their side. Our goal is to thwart them in that effort, not to make it ridiculously easy for them.

Posted by SomeYoungGuy | April 8, 2008 1:50 PM

because the terrorists depend heavily on financial and other support from the local population.

I see. And the public beheadings of our supposed supporters there are actually only nothing more than egregious, self-inflicted shaving accidents on the behalf of the terrorists' real supporters -- celebrating because they finally have their true defenders take over local government wherever possible. Just like God wants it, peace be upon Him...

Posted by MarkG | April 8, 2008 2:40 PM

Amazingly, it's unpopular here in America too! Who wins in a long-term military presence, other than defense contractors?

Not defense contractors in general, but a subset which makes gear or services being expended in the field right now. Contractors involved in training, maintenance, and R&D all take it in the shorts when a moderately-sized war gets extended to extra innings.

Posted by cmholm | April 8, 2008 3:14 PM

"Anti-American forces" will not be pleased with anything America does short of disbandment followed by collective suicide. Why do leftists always insist on bending over backwards to satisfy (whatever they perceive as) the demands of our rivals?

It's the right that's bending over backwards to give our enemies what they want. The most extreme of our adversaries in the Muslim world -- the ones who (as you note) wish America's literal destruction -- WANT the U.S. fighting in Iraq. Bin Laden has said so explicitly. The hard-core anti-American Islamists know that the terrain favors them in Iraq, they know the U.S. can't possibly win without hopelessly alienating the local population and world opinion. In short, they believe Iraq will be a quagmire for the U.S. and will leave it weakened morally and militarily. And the right wants to give them exactly what they want -- a continued war in Iraq.

Smart people on the left know that permanent military bases in Iraq and the Maliki government are not worth fighting for, not compared to the long-term good will we'd win from ordinary Iraqis and other Muslims (i.e. NOT the hard core) if we ended the occupation (not to mention the rest of the world). Smart people on the left also know that even if permanent bases and the Maliki government WERE worth fighting for, we can't achieve them in any case. We don't have the ability. Our forces are stretched to the breaking point and our allied forces are corrupt and divided. Better to pull out and put our resources where they'd be more effective, pursuing missions that really are worthwhile. Like going after that hard core directly.

But right-wingers think that to redeploy forces anywhere, anytime without resounding victory is to look weak. That just shows they have an adolescent schoolboy's approach to strategy.

Posted by Ryan | April 8, 2008 3:17 PM

And the public beheadings of our supposed supporters there are actually only nothing more than egregious, self-inflicted shaving accidents on the behalf of the terrorists' real supporters -- celebrating because they finally have their true defenders take over local government wherever possible.

Can you restate this in the form of a coherent thought?

Posted by SomeYoungGuy | April 8, 2008 3:56 PM

The crux of the matter, of course, is that seeking a long-term presence in Iraq plays into the propaganda of anti-American forces around the world. It's a very unpopular idea with Iraqis, and it's unpopular throughout the Arab world.

Nevertheless, the long-term presence is probably going to happen. America Inc. has already made the Iraq acquisition, and has poured over a trillion into the re-structuring and re-organization of its new Middle East division. I doubt that the next President is going to find it feasible for the DC parent company to divest itself of this new asset, once that President is advised of the full extent of the investments already made, and the degree to which Iraq is built into the empire's strategic plans.

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 8, 2008 4:03 PM

Isn't a wider issue here that the US hasn't been operating -- to my knowledge, at least -- under any kind of SoFA in Iraq since the departure of Bremer as viceroy? It's that which has allowed contractors, in particular, to operate in a legal vacuum.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 8, 2008 6:24 PM

"Who wins in a long-term military presence, other than defense contractors?"

The Congressmen who have $200 million dollars worth of investments in those defense contractors.

And Matt wonders why they don't make the case?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 8, 2008 7:47 PM

Dan Kervick is right. However, Dan should consider that it is the Iraqis who are going to decide how long the US stays.

And that doesn't make it look likely that the US is going to be staying much longer than maybe another year or two, if that. And that's assuming the US doesn't attack Iran, in which case the US will be out in ninety days.

So chalk up another trillion down the tube.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 8, 2008 7:51 PM

Iraqis certainly have the last word here. It might be useful to consider what we actually know as "fact" as opposed to what we assume to be true based on some selected facts and a lot of supposition, much of it transparently biased by political, institutional, and even in some cases financial interests.

It is fact that our current status is not "occupation", but support for the freely-elected Iraqi government, at its request and under a unanimously-approved UN mandate. Lots of people have all sorts of caveats about that, but few of them are based on more than political bias.

It is also a fact that we have been "in Iraq" in a big way for quite some time--at least since 1991, and realistically even before Jimmy Carter officially recognized the Persian Gulf as an area of vital national interests. The chances of our actually "getting out of Iraq" as long as oil is still the lifeblood of the world economy, Iran is still a major problem, the Persian Gulf remains the world's most strategically important trade route, etc., are vanishingly small.

We don't have any facts about "what Al Qaeda really wants", and damned few about what Al Qaeda even is today. It's possible to make a case that they really want us to persist in Iraq. It's also possible to make a case that Iraq is proof that Al Qaeda over-reached disastrously on 9/11, and that the resulting regional catastrophe has done far more damage to AQ, and to Islamic radicalism generally, than to legitimate Western interests.

We also don't have many facts to support the proposition that our presence in Iraq "fuels instability". There are quite a few persuasive facts that indicate our presence there does the opposite. In any case, our "being in Iraq" has evolved over the years, and will certainly continue to do so.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 10, 2008 4:34 AM