A Job Well Done

In my view, there's no American interest in who controls which corner in Sadr City, but it's always good to see fewer people dying. Apparently what it took to stop the situation where people kill each other was for the United States to stand aside:

Sadrist leaders said they had demanded that American soldiers remain on the sidelines of the military incursion.

"We stressed that the occupation forces do not come in," said Selman al-Freiji, a senior Sadrist leader in Baghdad. "We welcome the entrance of Iraqi troops."

U.S. officials have said they were happy to let Iraqi troops take the lead. "It is heartening to see Iraqi security forces operating peacefully while enforcing the rule of law," Capt. Gordon J. Delcambre, a U.S. military spokesman said in an e-mail.

And you know what, it is heartening the see! So how about we take some troops out of Iraq, then some more, and then some more, until there are none left? It seemed to me back in late 2004 that the looming elections in January 2005 would be a good opportunity to declare victory and go home on a relatively upbeat note. Instead, the president decided that we needed to stay in order to forestall civil war and ethnic cleansing. Then came several years of civil war and ethnic cleansing. Now we're looking at another spate of good news. So why not take the opportunity to leave?

Comments

Funny that General Petreus is saying the same thing.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jVNY5z3FxKGucttOScUSY2M2wcSAD90QTJ200

The difference is that he had the good sense to keep US troops in until the Iraqi army was ready to take over and not some arbitrary date. I hope more troops are sent home as the Iraqi army continues to become more capable.

Such a victory as the one described in the article you link to, however, would never have been possible if we had listened to Matt Yglesias and taken our troops out earlier.

Posted by Dave | May 22, 2008 5:56 PM

"Such a victory as the one described in the article you link to, however, would never have been possible if we had listened to Matt Yglesias and taken our troops out earlier."

On the other hand, it would never have been possible if we didn't listen to Matt Yglesias and decided against invading in the first place, so let's call it even.

Posted by drive by troll | May 22, 2008 6:07 PM

So how about we take some troops out of Iraq, then some more, and then some more, until there are none left?

Easier said than done, even when we get a new president who's promising to take our troops out of Iraq. Most of the American foreign policy elite still want a puppet government in Baghdad and 50,000 American troops in the permanent bases. If Obama really does try to remove them all, the Pentagon and half the DC elite will resist every step of the way. I would keep an eye on the palace guards.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 22, 2008 6:08 PM

Well to some of us you (Matt) is making complete sense anyhow. As all of those that don't live in neocon la-la land have been saying there aren't any good choices, just bad choices and worse ones. So far we have been opting for the worse ones, but there is no chance of a change before Feb.

Posted by Chris Dornan | May 22, 2008 6:09 PM

But we're supposed to be there for 100 years. Defeatocrat! Appeaser!

Posted by LFC | May 22, 2008 6:41 PM

Morons.

The Mahdi Army keeps its light weapons (and by some accounts are moving their heavy weapons into hiding elsewhere in Baghdad and southern Iraq), and its troops faded into the population. The Iraqi Army marches around and nobody cares.

One article pointed out that things may change when the Iraqi Army (read: Badr militia) starts entering Sadr City homes looking for heavy weapons. There apparently is a revenge streak in the Iraqi Army that may come into play, since they took heavy casualties from the Sadrists.

Nothing has changed fundamentally, of course. Maliki is still determined to crush the Sadrists and vice versa. Sadr is still supported by millions of Iraqis while Maliki is considered a lame duck Quisling.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 22, 2008 6:58 PM

So you're saying that if we had declared victory and left in January 2005 (or sooner), Iraq might have became a fairly stable country? I agree, but if that's right, then the war would have been seen as a big success.

Posted by Ragout | May 22, 2008 10:02 PM

Then how would we justify our permanent bases there?

Posted by Trigger | May 22, 2008 10:35 PM

So you're saying that if we had declared victory and left in January 2005 (or sooner), Iraq might have became a fairly stable country?

GUIL: Our names shouted in a certain dawn ... a message ... a summons... there must have been a moment, at the beginning, where we could have said-no. But somehow we missed it.

Well, we'll know better next time.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 23, 2008 12:09 AM

"Now we're looking at another spate of good news. So why not take the opportunity to leave?"

Bush's plan for escaping blame for the Iraq war seems to be hope that if he waits long enough, the situation in Iraq will improve to the point were invading Iraq no longer looks like an incredibly bad decision. That's almost certainly not going to happen, forcing Bush to fall back on plan B: Keep the war going until the end of his term, and blame the war on the next president.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | May 23, 2008 1:59 AM

We were spending about $70 billion a year and deploying tens of thousands of combat personnel around the edges of Iraq for over a decade before the last invasion because we had a vital national interest in what happens there. These interests have only grown more vital since 2003.

There is no, zero, chance that we will just go away, at least not until the world economy runs on something other than petroleum and Islamic terrorism is no longer a problem. The current program seems to be working, and will almost certainly be continued through the next administration.

Posted by Robert Powell | May 23, 2008 3:56 AM

And you know what, it is heartening the see!

I think you could leave the Pope out of it.

Posted by Brodysattva | May 23, 2008 8:36 AM

This is good to see. Not too long ago the Mahdi army spanked the Iraqi army. Now the Iraqi army is mixing it up again.

Hack:

Nothing has changed fundamentally, of course. Maliki is still determined to crush the Sadrists and vice versa. Sadr is still supported by millions of Iraqis while Maliki is considered a lame duck Quisling.

That's a caricature. Sadr is helped out by Iran, who he asked to help negotiate a cease fire not to long ago. The Sadrists do a lot of the ethnic cleansing against the Sunnis. Maliki won an election representing the majority Shia, wheras Sadr hasn't.

Maliki does seem to be going after the Sadrists and mixing it up, which is good. Maybe he senses the Americans will be pulling back to their permanent bases soon.

Then how would we justify our permanent bases there?

It will be like in South Korea or Japan.

Posted by Peter K. | May 23, 2008 11:25 AM

Peter K demonstrates his ignorance:

"Maliki won an election representing the majority Shia, wheras Sadr hasn't."

It was the support of Sadr who allowed Maliki to come to power.

Look it up. Maliki has never won an election.

Sadr is helped by Iran? Who do you think CREATED Maliki's Dawa Party? Who do you think CREATED ISCI, the other party supporting Maliki?

Better morons, please.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 23, 2008 5:11 PM