Conditional Engagement

Two interesting perspectives on Iraq in Foreign Affairs one in which Colin Kahl outlines a strategy of "conditional engagement" in Iraq and one in which William Odom makes the case for a speedier withdrawal. I've grown sympathetic to what Kahl is trying to get at here as the post-"Awakening" reduction in violence has proven more durable than I would have thought. But one shortcoming of Kahl's article is that it doesn't grapple with Odom's point that "The key to thinking clearly about it is to give regional stability higher priority than some fantasy victory in Iraq."

Odom then goes on to argue that "The first step toward restoring that stability is the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq." That may be right or it may be wrong, but either way any strategy that would have us "conditionally" engaged in iraq needs to take a broader, more regional view of the conditions we're talking about. The next administration desperately needs to undertake a "diplomatic surge" in the region, and Barack Obama seems inclined to do so. But one can't really know in advance what the outcome of efforts at a diplomatic breakthrough with Syria and/or Iran would be. We can say that one of the primary goals of our engagement with both regional players and Iraqi politicians should be to lead to a U.S. departure (rather than the Bush/McCain goal of an indefinite presence) but the schedule needs to be actually negotiated with Iraqis and others.

Comments

So I guess the new Democratic trope is to refer to every liberal nostrum as a "surge": e.g., we need a "diplomatic surge." And increasing trade barriers can be a "fair trade surge" and stronger gun control measures can be a "crime control surge" and so on. Clever, although it won't actually make the policies in question work.

Posted by y81 | June 22, 2008 10:54 AM

Right, y81, especially when measures like "gun control" actually mitigate against their goal, in that particular case "crime control".

The key to "thinking clearly about it" is indeed to recognize the primacy of regional stability, but is there really any evidence that a US withdrawal would contribute rather than detract from regional stability? I think not.

Posted by robert powell | June 22, 2008 11:05 AM

Half a trillion dollars and 4 thousand lives pi$$ed away for absolutely NOTHING!

Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Abrams...

God damned AIPAC/Israel-uber-alles crowd. They should be hung from the nearest tree.

Posted by kafka | June 22, 2008 11:15 AM

Hey, y81, sometimes on the TV box you might have watched that at the time of the original "surge", it sure as hell wasn't teh libruls what started using the damned word all the time.

First it was the Republican fetishizers, next it was the 24 hour news knuckleheads, and then it was everywhere.

Blame anyone you want, but it sure as hell wasn't teh libruls that started using "surge" in every g** d*** sentence they could.

Amazing innovation in point missing, though, I'll give you that.

Posted by El Cid | June 22, 2008 11:27 AM

I'm still waiting for a nation wide referendum in Iraq to determine the preference of the Iraqi people (not the al-Maliki government) in regards to American occupation. Do you want us out in 6 months? A year? 5 years, ten? We wouldn't be obliged to leave when they say-- if that was a condition of the referendum happening, I'm sorry to say, it wouldn't-- but it would give us legitimacy for the hopefully short period we remained there and would leave the neocons who insist that the Iraqi people want us there forever with nothing to say.

Posted by Freddie | June 22, 2008 11:31 AM

I've grown sympathetic to what Kahl is trying to get at here as the post-"Awakening" reduction in violence has proven more durable than I would have thought.

The entirely predictable, but nevertheless awkward and grueling, slow-motion sellout of liberals on the Iraq question is becoming entertaining to watch.

Posted by Dan Kervick | June 22, 2008 12:02 PM

I do not understand why the Saudis are never included in as part of the solution to bring security and stability to Iraq. The Saudis have more more money and resources to bring to the table than Iran and Syria put together.

Posted by jerri | June 22, 2008 12:18 PM

For the record, I'd just like to note that piece was penned by the late William Odom, who passed a few weeks ago.

Posted by Madorsky | June 22, 2008 12:59 PM

The interesting thing is that we aren't fighting for stability in Iraq. We aren't fighting for anything except to stay in Iraq.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 22, 2008 3:08 PM

The larger report on "conditional engagement" touches on exactly the regional dimensions--in terms of our interests and the need for regional diplomacy--not discussed in the FA piece.

http://www.cnas.org/en/cms/?2311

Posted by Colin | June 22, 2008 3:42 PM

Is it funny that so many people talk about the war in Iraq without mentioning the on-going American genocide?

At least 1,200,000 Iraqis have already died as a consequence of our invasion and occupation of Iraq, but it sounds so much better to talk about a "speedy withdrawal" instead of a "speedy end to genocide."

Mr. Obama wants us to be very careful how we disengage from our Islamic Holocaust...

Is 16 more months of genocide after the inauguration of Barack Obama too much? What do the focus groups say?

Posted by Jacob Freeze | June 22, 2008 6:18 PM

Is it funny that so many people talk about the war in Iraq without mentioning the on-going American genocide?

At least 1,200,000 Iraqis have already died as a consequence of our invasion and occupation of Iraq, but it sounds so much better to talk about a "speedy withdrawal" instead of a "speedy end to genocide."

Mr. Obama wants us to be very careful how we disengage from our Islamic Holocaust...

Is 16 more months of genocide after the inauguration of Barack Obama too much? What do the focus groups say?

Posted by Jacob Freeze | June 22, 2008 6:21 PM

That link is fracked. You didn't include the "f" on "href". I still can't believe you guys do HTML by hand.

Posted by Chris O. | June 22, 2008 6:35 PM

Dan Kervick: Right on. Matt doesn't follow the Iraq news closely enough to know one way or the other. It's just his "impression" based on that fact.

Here's a recap for today:

Sunday: 35 Iraqis Killed, 62 Wounded

Updated at 3:39 p.m. EDT, June 22, 2008

At least 35 Iraqis were killed and another 62 were wounded in the latest attack. A female suicide bomber attacked a government center in Baquba at the end of the work day, leaving behind dozens of casualties. No Coalition deaths were reported.

A female suicide bomber blew herself up outside the Baquba governmental center, killing 17 people and wounding 42 others. A number of policemen were among the casualties The explosion occurred as the courthouse was winding down proceedings for the day. In an unrelated incident, three gunmen were detained in connection with the kidnapping and murder of three family members this week.

In Baghdad, three dumped bodies were recovered. U.S. forces killed six suspects and wounded another in several incidents on Friday; they had been observed trying to plant roadside bombs in various locations around the New Baghdad neighborhood.

A roadside bomb near Kirkuk killed three and wounded two more. Two women were among the dead. Another bomb, this one in al-Wasiti, left no casualties. In nearby Fashka village, a roadside bomb killed four people.

In Mosul, one policeman was killed and another was wounded in a drive-by shooting. Fourteen people were wounded during a suicide car bombing at a checkpoint in Wihda.

A bomb hidden in a bag injured two people at a market in Hilla.

The Iraqi army detained 65 suspects in Dhi Qar province.

Three Iraqis and an Egyptian were detained in connection with the assassination of a tribal leader in Awja.

Five wanted men and a cache of ammo were seized in Basra.

Three suspects carrying attack plans were captured as they were trying to sneak in Karbala.

In Amara, Iraqi security forces conducted a second search of several areas in the city. Sixteen people were detained. More weapons were also found.

Sixty suspects were arrested in other areas of southern Iraq.

Also, Iraqi courts have ordered that 20,000 detainees be freed. This includes people convicted of petty crimes but does not [include] potentially innocent inmates held in Coalition prisons. Amnesty laws have been a point of contention between Sunni Arabs, who feel they have been unjustly targeted, and the Shi'ite majority government. Tens of thousands more out on bail or otherwise accused of crimes have had their warrants dropped as well.

Squatters in Baghdad have been given a deadline to leave occupied homes so that their owners may return home to claim them. They will be forcibly evicted after the deadline. Between four and five million Iraqis are thought to have left the country or been internally displaced due to sectarian attacks, the U.S. invasion, or other violence.

What Matt fails to note is that everybody - especially the Sunnis and the Sadrists - are waiting for the provincial elections in the fall, and the parliamentary elections next year. In the first elections, the Sunnis stayed home. This year and next, the Sunnis are expected to participate more heavily. The Sunnis and Sadrists are expected to win big against the perceived failures of the Maliki government.

What happens then will determine whether violence peaks again.

Not to mention whether Bush attacks Iran in the meantime. If that happens, all the Shia in Iraq will turn on the US, and the Sunnis will join in as it will be the best chance to get rid of us.

For that matter, all it takes is one major mosque bombing or some other incident to break down the situation again. But right now, all sides are waiting and working for the elections.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 22, 2008 8:40 PM

Dan,

Ah yes, conditional engagement. You are absolutely right. This blog is getting pretty hilarious in its increasing caution about iraq. The continuing capitulation of liberal politicians and like-minded pundits makes me think Iraq may become more of a multiple presidential debacle then I thought.

As far as Iraqi's go. The evidence from surveys to the non embedded reporters work and the clear disdain for the Iraqi government show that we are not wanted. Outside of the kurds, most people support attacking American troops and consider us the most significant impediment to peace.

It is time to leave. Now the metrics have changed:

Before with bush it was WMD, then democracy and now stability.

For liberals it conditional engagement, a seemingly benchmarks by a new name. Inventive! Withdrawal based upon a number of conditions necessary for leaving.

Where is Nixon and his secret plan when we need him.

Posted by anonymous | June 22, 2008 10:50 PM

I forgot: Conditional Engagement will leave a force 60,000 to 80,000 deep in Iraq through 2010.

Is this what American liberalism advocates. It seems the scribes have far different opinions than the rubes.

The blogoshpere is really "crashing the gates."

Posted by anonymous | June 22, 2008 10:57 PM

Maybe just "crashing", anonymous.

People who have only a superficial and/or partisan propaganda-based understanding of when, how, and why we came to be fighting in Iraq are unsurprisingly puzzled about the fact that we won't just flip a switch and get out. Of course we won't, no matter who wins the election. The war in Iraq has been a throughly bi-partisan affair for nearly two decades, and that isn't about to change.

Posted by robert powell | June 23, 2008 3:28 AM

Terrible shame that Odom is no longer with us.

Posted by bob h | June 23, 2008 6:03 AM

Let me fix that typo for you, Powell:

"War has been a throughly bi-partisan affair since the founding of the country, and that isn't about to change."

I guess I'll let the Iranians explain it to the citizenry here over the next ten years.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 24, 2008 12:36 AM