More Conditional Engagement

I criticized Colin Kahl's "Conditional Engagement" Foreign Affairs article for not really grappling with the regional dimensions of the Iraq situation, but but the longer report on Iraq he wrote with Michèle Flournoy and Shawn Brimley for CNAS does go into. I largely agree with what they have to say on that subject with the perhaps not-so-minor proviso that in other sections of the paper they define curbing Iranian influence as one of our objectives there.

To me the point of regional diplomacy would be to get beyond a situation where the US and Iran see each other as engaged in a zero-sum conflict over influence in Iraq. At the moment, both countries want to see Iraq stabilized. But Iran wants to curb US influence in Iraq. And the US wants to curb Iranian influence in Iraq. And as long as Iraq's most important neighbor and the global hegemon are both contending for influence in Iraq, it's hard to see how Iraq can be stable even if both the U.S. and Iran have a second-order desire to Iraq a stable Iraq.

In other thoughts inspired by the report, the fact that the security gains in Iraq have sustained themselves longer than I would have guessed several months ago had lulled me into a bit of complacency. But the checklist of things the CNAS trio wants to see happen in Iraq is a stark reminder that despite the improvement there are literally dozens of ways in which the situation might fall apart again with or without our involvement. The report also helped clarify my thinking on where I disagree with the authors. In particular, I'm much more inclined to what they call "conditional disengagement" -- which would basically focus on heading for the exits but with the proviso that any responsible leader would have to be open to modifying that plan under certain conditions.

Conditional engagement as CNAS lays it out could work, and certainly seems preferable to the Bush/McCain stay forever policy, but to me it's still unduly invested in the idea that the United States should be risking a lot of people's lives (and spending a lot of money and killing people, etc.) in an effort to micromanage the politics of Iraq in a way where I think the prospects for success aren't great and the American interest is hazy.

Comments

There is no Bush/McCain 'stay forever' policy. That's a MoveOn talking point, not a serious note on anyone's actual policy.

Speaking of which, has anyone seen MoveOn's latest tastelest ad called "Not Alex'?

Posted by Tim K | June 23, 2008 12:04 PM

the U.S. and Iran have a second-order desire to Iraq a stable Iraq.

That's the first time I've seen Iraq used as a transitive verb.

Posted by nbt | June 23, 2008 12:16 PM

Their "Time Horizon" is B.S., right? CNAS distinguishes "Time Horizon" from "time tables" for withdrawal.

Posted by M | June 23, 2008 12:24 PM

And as long as Iraq's most important neighbor and the global hegemon are both contending for influence in Iraq, it's hard to see how Iraq can be stable even if both the U.S. and Iran have a second-order desire to Iraq a stable Iraq.

Didn't we Iraq a stable Iraq five years ago?

Posted by Jim | June 23, 2008 12:26 PM

Tim K is exactly right. Neither George W. Bush Jr. nor John McCain have literally promised an eternal presence in Iraq.

No evidence has been given by those crazy extremist fringe totally not DLC brainheads at MoveOn.org that either of them has proposed remaining in Iraq beyond the time when the Sun will swell into a red giant star.

So there, fringies!

Posted by El Cid | June 23, 2008 3:49 PM

Matt: "To me the point of regional diplomacy would be to get beyond a situation where the US and Iran see each other as engaged in a zero-sum conflict over influence in Iraq."

That would be rational.

What part of "Bush and Cheney and the neocons and the Zionist freaks in Israel and the oil companies and the military-industrial-complex war profiteers are not rational" don't you understand, Matt?

Some people think the "mad mullahs" in Iran are crazy. That's not what I'm talking about when I say this crowd "are not rational." The "mad mullahs" are totally rational compared to this crowd.

This crowd is CRIMINAL. That is perfectly rational - unless you have some other goal in mind than your own personal aggrandizement. Which Bush, Cheney, and the rest don't.

Until Matt gets a clue about this, blindly posting about what would be nice for Iraq, Iran, regional diplomacy, blah, blah, is utterly pointless.

It's not going to happen. What's going to happen is another war.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 24, 2008 3:38 AM

Re Richard Steven Hack

"This crowd is CRIMINAL. That is perfectly rational - unless you have some other goal in mind than your own personal aggrandizement."

Well, Mr. Hack is certainly an expert on criminal behavior, given his bank robbing activities. I doubt that Cheney, unlike Mr. Hack, will be a guest of the good folks at Leavenworth Federal prison.

Posted by SLC | June 24, 2008 8:29 AM

You don't understand, SLC. Mr. Hack has had a rehabilitation experience. He now recognizes that Koffi Annan is the World's Leading Expert on "international wars" and, moreover, has more legal legitimacy than Congress, Parliament, and the chief legal authorities of these and a couple of dozen of the other of the world's most important democracies. Augmented, of course, by unnamed panels of "experts" who don't appear to have any government positions.

I guess you can't really lie if you don't have a clue. But all isn't lost. His credibility will be restored any minute now when Bush launches D-Day II in Iran.

Posted by robert powell | June 24, 2008 11:12 AM

Powell's siding with SLC now. That's appropriate.

Both are freaks and liars. One is a Zionist freak and liar, the other is a neocon freak and liar.

Meanwhile, Powell can't produce one single expert in international law who is willing to declare the Iraq war legal. Instead, he relies on unnamed "legal authorities".

How he figures the head of the UN is someone who has no say in what is legal under international law - specifically in the case of war - is an interesting concept in itself. You can't get more disingenuous than that.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 24, 2008 4:33 PM

There's nothing more disingenuous than not knowing your ass from a hole in the ground yet pretending otherwise, Hack.

The "experts in international law" who declared the war legal were a majority of Congress, Parliament, and the analogous lawmaking bodies of dozens of the world's most important democracies, plus their chief legal officers and duly elected executives. You fill in the names since you seem to have a lot of time on your hands.

The idea that some unelected Bozo like Annan, plus a bought-and-paid-for crook like Chirac and some loud-mouths on the internet have more legal authority than real-life lawmakers and duly elected democratic governments is so plainly stupid that it provides its own insult. Nice work.

Posted by robert powell | June 24, 2008 6:35 PM

Nice avoiding the point, Powell.

Here we go.

Links to Opinions on Legality of War Against Iraq
http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm

Legality of the Iraq War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

The "lawmaking bodies" are not experts in international law in any event - they're politicians. And even Britain's Law Lord was coerced into finding the war "legal" after first believing it was illegal.

Powell lies again.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 25, 2008 5:38 AM

Thanks for making my point, Hack. Legitimate democratic governments like those of the US, Britain, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Holland, etc, etc are not bound by the authority of self-appointed "experts" of the sort you link to. Koffi Annan does not determine what's legal.

The officials whose job it is to determine what the law is made it clear that Iraq's violation of the ceasefire agreement and subsequent Chapter VII Resolutions made the invasion legal. In US terms, when Congress gives its approval to the duly constituted executive to carry out a policy they and the majority of their constituents think is legal, it is BY DEFINITION legal. Good luck with getting your internet pals authority to run the US foreign policy.

Posted by robert powell | June 25, 2008 8:57 AM