Obama and Iraq

There was lots of buzz in Aspen, and I believe also in the press, about whether the "success" of the surge will or should cause Barack Obama to re-evaluate his stated Iraq policy. I think it's clear that if Obama does become president in January 2009, he won't and shouldn't super-literally apply a policy that will by then be almost two years old. But I don't think he should or will meaningfully alter his platform. It's worth recalling that all throughout 2007 it really seemed like Obama was going to lose the primary and that getting to Hillary Clinton's left by sketching out a clearer and more unambiguous withdrawal plan would have been a plausible gambit to beat her.

But he didn't do it because he wanted to preserve some flexibility in the event that he became president, and I have every expectation that he'll stick with that built-in flexibility during the campaign. After all, Obama's stated position on Iraq is fairly conservative. He's calling for the withdrawal of combat forces on a 16 month time frame. Realistically, that would mean the last combat forces leaving Iraq in June 2010 or maybe a little bit later depending on how long it would take between inauguration and actually setting the wheels in motion. Substantively, that's plenty of time to continue to try to have a constructive influence on the course of events there. And politically, if John McCain wants to make a big deal about how two more years of war isn't long enough, then he's going to lose badly.

On top of all that, Obama has always had a pretty vague formulation about residual troops and liberals, myself included, have always criticized him for that. I don't think that's the correct policy, but it's one Obama's long maintained and it means he's always had a "centrist" Iraq position rather than a "bring the troops home" position.

Comments

The Surge was about using increased troop levels to bring about the political breathing room for Iraqi political leaders to create political reconciliation. This did not happen in any meaningful way, therefore the Surge failed. By Bush's own metric, the Surge failed. Any other claim is just Orwellian.

Posted by Reality Man | July 3, 2008 2:10 PM

Admiral Mullen says that we can't send more troops to Afghanistan until we draw down from Iraq. This despite the fact that we just had our deadliest month in Afghanistan and for the past 2 months, more U.S. soldiers have died there than in Iraq.

To all those in the right wingnutosphere who said we weren't sacrificing victory in Afghanistan when we barreled into Iraq and later "surged", we from the reality based community get no pleasure in smacking you in the forehead with a huge "I TOLD YOU SO." Your plans and dreams for Iraq are literally killing our soldiers in Afghanistan. Thank you, thanks George W. Bush, and thanks John S. McCain for failing our troops in Afghanistan so badly.

Posted by LFC | July 3, 2008 2:19 PM

Which it is why it is important to elect a Congress that can go where Obama won't. The troops should be home by December 2009, at the latest. They should, have course, have been withdrawn before they committed the war crime of razing Fallujah, that is, in early 2004. Actually, they shouldn't be there at all. But that's a lotta spilt blood.

It is a question at the moment of whether the liberal blogs are going to roll over for "centrism", or whether they are going to give Obama flexibility by attacking, with might and main, the pro-war party; whether they are going to advocate what obviously has to be correlated with a withdrawal, detente with Iran, or whether they are going to look the other way as another idiotic pro-war resolution against Iran is passed in the House; whether they are going to seriously question the whole strategy of coddling the Pakistanis, which ultimately means coddling the Saudis, in Afghanistan, or whether they will straightforwardly beat the drum for the only strategy that will work, i.e., doing real nationbuilding by spending billions on Afghanistan's social and economic infrastructure. while slowly weaning U.S. policy from its fixation on the terrorist lovin' Musharref.

Its easy. Withdrawal, detente, nationbuilding where necessary. And hey, with detente comes new funding - the Iranians can take on a lot of the burden of helping Afghanistan. (Oh noes! That means their deadly form of Islamo-fascism will triumph!)

Posted by roger | July 3, 2008 2:30 PM

shouldn't super-literally apply

You have finally convinced me that getting a book published and landing a blog at The Atlantic have absolutely nothing to do with the ability to write.

Posted by jim | July 3, 2008 3:00 PM

I wonder if the same buzzers in Aspen who think the "success" of the surge necessitates a longer U.S. presence in Iraq would think that a worsening of conditions there would necessitate a quicker withdrawal. Having seen the past five-plus years, I tend to think not. It seems like whatever happens in Iraq, good or bad, is a reason to stay.

Posted by Jake H. | July 3, 2008 3:59 PM

Admiral Mullen says that we can't send more troops to Afghanistan until we draw down from Iraq.

Well, maybe we could send more troops to Afghanistan if chickenhawks like Matthew start signing up for the Army.

Posted by Al | July 3, 2008 4:13 PM

Re Al

"Well, maybe we could send more troops to Afghanistan if chickenhawks like Matthew start signing up for the Army."

Maybe we could send more troops if eligible young men didn't have the example of draft dodgers like George W. Bush and Richard Cheney as role models.

Posted by SLC | July 3, 2008 5:02 PM

Reality Man,

The Surge was about using increased troop levels to bring about the political breathing room for Iraqi political leaders to create political reconciliation. This did not happen in any meaningful way, therefore the Surge failed. By Bush's own metric, the Surge failed. Any other claim is just Orwellian.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that and one day you might actually persuade yourself it's true.

Whether the surge has "worked" is a pretty meaningless question anyway. The point is that there is widespread agreement that the surge has improved conditions in Iraq significantly. For obvious reasons, this is intolerable to you. Any improvement in Iraq undermines your claim that the war was wrong. Any sign that Iraq is progressing towards stability, democracy, and a better life for its people helps to vindicate the decision to invade in the first place. You can't stand that idea, so naturally you do everything you can to pretend that the surge has "failed."

Posted by Mixner | July 3, 2008 5:29 PM

Matt is right in frmaiong the "success" of the surge in quotation marks.

It is unbelievable to me how we have let the Right Wingers, the Cheneyites, the MSM, and the GOP skate free on framing this issue as a "success".

They are going around now saying that Iraq has experienced "reduced violence" as a result of the surge, it's been a roaring "success", and any story to the contrary is now immediately ridiculed and set aside.

I just saw a report by a company in Iraq tasked with protecting dignitaries, and they state right out THERE HAS BEEN NO REDUCTION IN VIOLENCE.

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/iraq-contractor

The White House made sure they got one of their own, a master propagandist, Special Assistant to the President Major General Kevin Bergner,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/k-bergner-bio.html

appointed as one of, if not THE most senior US leaders in Iraq. Since this Soviet-KGB-style Political Officer arrived in the Green Zone, there has been airtight message control, and a near-complete blackout of all non-White House-approved messaging from Iraq.

Karl Rove and his GOP know their political fortunes will hang on the perception of Iraq in November, and they are not about to let the truth come out if they can help it.

Posted by Ed Johnson | July 3, 2008 5:46 PM

Matt is right in framing the "success" of the surge in quotation marks.

It is unbelievable to me how we have let the Right Wingers, the Cheneyites, the MSM, and the GOP skate free on framing this issue as a "success".

They are going around now saying that Iraq has experienced "reduced violence" as a result of the surge, it's been a roaring "success", and any story to the contrary is now immediately ridiculed and set aside.

I just saw a report by a company in Iraq tasked with protecting dignitaries, and they state right out THERE HAS BEEN NO REDUCTION IN VIOLENCE.

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/iraq-contractor

The White House made sure they got one of their own, a master propagandist, Special Assistant to the President Major General Kevin Bergner,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/k-bergner-bio.html

appointed as one of, if not THE most senior US leaders in Iraq. Since this Soviet-KGB-style Political Officer arrived in the Green Zone, there has been airtight message control, and a near-complete blackout of all non-White House-approved messaging from Iraq.

Karl Rove and his GOP know their political fortunes will hang on the perception of Iraq in November, and they are not about to let the truth come out if they can help it.

Posted by Ed Johnson | July 3, 2008 5:50 PM

The point is that there is widespread agreement that the surge has improved conditions in Iraq significantly. For obvious reasons, this is intolerable to you. Any improvement in Iraq undermines your claim that the war was wrong.

No it doesn't. The escalation has been largely successful in some areas. It still doesn't, in itself, justify anything if one doesn't buy into the premise that ends justify means. And the end of this one is history unwritten. If there is a moral argument to be made in favor of the surge its that our people willfully took a terrible situation and made it much, much worse. Because of our president's idea that this would be a cake walk with a big oil payout and a World's Greatest President mug for him, we broke their country.

Not that I think the surge was the best way to approach things in Iraq, but that sort of thing seems to be just about the only thing George Bush and cadre of unqualified Texans can cook up.

Posted by RoboticGhost | July 3, 2008 5:54 PM

I just saw a report by a company in Iraq tasked with protecting dignitaries, and they state right out THERE HAS BEEN NO REDUCTION IN VIOLENCE.

Ha ha ha! Oh yes, Spencer Ackerman and the Washington Independent are a totally reliable source of unbiased information about conditions in Iraq.

Here's the latest Iraq Index from the Brookings Institution. As you can see, there has been a massive decline in violence of all kinds. A massive decline in Iraqi civilian casualties, a massive decline in attacks on coalition forces, a massive decline in deaths of Iraqi military and police, a massive decline in the number of multiple fatality bombings, a massive decline in the number of deaths and injuries from such bombings. All the indicators point a massive decline in violence. Even Obama admits this. But the die-hard loony-left probably never will.

Posted by Mixner | July 3, 2008 6:02 PM

"Whether the surge has "worked" is a pretty meaningless question anyway. The point is that there is widespread agreement that the surge has improved conditions in Iraq significantly. For obvious reasons, this is intolerable to you. Any improvement in Iraq undermines your claim that the war was wrong. Any sign that Iraq is progressing towards stability, democracy, and a better life for its people helps to vindicate the decision to invade in the first place. You can't stand that idea, so naturally you do everything you can to pretend that the surge has "failed."

Posted by Mixner | July 3, 2008 5:29 PM"

Um, actually the question of whether the Surge actually worked in meeting Bush's stated goals for it is actually rather big, considering it has been Bush's main policy response to the 2006 election and his alternative to the Iraq Study Group's proposals. Just because I think the war was wrong doesn't mean I and those like me want more Iraqis to die. However, a lot of that reduction in violence is due to the fact so much of Iraq has already been ethnically cleansed. Unless your are Professor X and can read minds, everything you wrote here is crap. Nothing you write on Iraq is meant to be taken seriously. You are just a deeply unserious person.

Posted by Reality Man | July 3, 2008 6:09 PM

Ha ha ha! Oh yes, Spencer Ackerman and the Washington Independent are a totally reliable source of unbiased information about conditions in Iraq.

Yup:

One of the funniest things about the past eight years has been the way people like Mixner, who've merrily gone about creating many of the greatest catastrophes in America's history through their spectacular ignorance and foolishness, still adopt a tone of sneering contempt toward everyone else.

It's hilarious to witness. You would think they might learn from experience, but apparently it's impossible for them.

Posted by 23456 | July 3, 2008 6:10 PM

Also, why is a center named for Haim Saban with a clear intellectual bias - perhaps the least serious part of Brookings - supposed to be more reliable than the Washington Independent?

In addition, there were times between independence and the Nigerian Civil War / Biafran War when Nigeria had a lower level of violence than others. Measured at those time, Nigeria was improving. However, since there was never real political reconciliation at the national level among politicians representing the main ethno-sectarian factions, Nigeria has never simultaneously been at peace, been democratic and had the central government been in control of the whole country (thus having parts of Nigeria run by unjust Shari'a or tribal law). Considering the similarities between Iraq and Nigeria - both are oil rich, young nations cobbled together by the British made up of three primary geographically, religiously and ethnically distinct groups, such similarities should give one pause.

Posted by Reality Man | July 3, 2008 6:16 PM

Reality Man,

Um, actually the question of whether the Surge actually worked in meeting Bush's stated goals for it is actually rather big,

No it isn't. The big question is whether the surge has produced significant improvements in conditions in Iraq, and the answer to that question is clearly yes.

Just because I think the war was wrong doesn't mean I and those like me want more Iraqis to die.

But the better things go in Iraq, the weaker your case against the war becomes. You know this full well. Which is why you're going to do everything you think you can get away with to deny and downplay the improvements.

However, a lot of that reduction in violence is due to the fact so much of Iraq has already been ethnically cleansed.

Do please produce your evidence for this assertion.

Posted by Mixner | July 3, 2008 6:19 PM

As I've pointed out repeatedly, what anybody wants as opposed to what is going to happen is pretty much irrelevant.

The US will be out of Iraq within two years, regardless of who gets elected.

Either there will be an Iran war and the US gets kicked out in three months, or the nationalists will order the US out within two years of coming to power in the parliamentary elections next year.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 3, 2008 6:23 PM

Reality Man:

Um, actually the question of whether the Surge actually worked in meeting Bush's stated goals for it is actually rather big

Mixner:

No it isn't.

Yup:

CHAPMAN: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

CLEESE: No it isn't.

Mixner: the living embodiment of the ridiculous since 1972.

Posted by 23456 | July 3, 2008 6:36 PM

You guys are fools. America lost the war in Iraq a long long time ago, and now you are just getting played by the various factions infighting each other, with a ongoing humanitarian disaster of millions of refugees spilling out of Iraq. The american public gets spoon-fed information with no real idea of what is going on in iraq, and "the surge" is just a codeword for a reign of terror of whoever allies with the Americans.

The Americans are like small children, completely clueless in the field. It's really too bad that the hawks haven't learned that dumping a lot of military strength doesn't equate with the power to project your will.

Posted by dmh | July 3, 2008 7:12 PM

We agree! But staying in Iraq for stability, the maintenance of residual forces, and the like are not that for from what Republicans have been saying. We will leave when things are "good" and our imperialist stamp is considered indelible.

Troubling stuff...

Posted by jeff | July 3, 2008 10:44 PM

You guys are fools. America lost the war in Iraq a long long time ago, and now you are just getting played by the various factions infighting each other, with a ongoing humanitarian disaster of millions of refugees spilling out of Iraq. The american public gets spoon-fed information with no real idea of what is going on in iraq, and "the surge" is just a codeword for a reign of terror of whoever allies with the Americans.
The Americans are like small children, completely clueless in the field. It's really too bad that the hawks haven't learned that dumping a lot of military strength doesn't equate with the power to project your will.
Posted by dmh

I'm reading milblogs of AF and Marine guys in Iraq now, and have a nephew just back from Anbar. Nothing you said agrees with what they are saying.

Let me guess. You were never in Iraq. You were never in the military.

You are a wasted example of college not educating a certain segment of society very well - so your vocabulary and stunted understanding of the world tends to fall into the "You fools", "The Americans are like small children, completely clueless in the field." - type.

You obviously don't read papers or you would be aware that the refugees are moving back into Iraq, and the "reign of terror" you associate with Americans causing is marked by stunningly lower casualty counts vs. the mayhem your now mostly wiped out Al Qaeda buddies inflicted 2004-2007.

*****************
The Surge was about using increased troop levels to bring about the political breathing room for Iraqi political leaders to create political reconciliation. This did not happen in any meaningful way, therefore the Surge failed. By Bush's own metric, the Surge failed. Any other claim is just Orwellian.
Posted by Reality Man

No, what is Orwellian is insisting on saying a forecast demonstrates failure if the final outcome, while excellent, did not comport with the forecast.

That is like calling a farmer a failure and should run away from his farm because he made 750K on soybeans and other crops when he predicted corn subsequently destroyed in flooding would be his biggest money maker.

Lets see, the Lefts pals in Al Qaeda have been almost completely smashed in Iraq, a strategic disaster for them leaving them only powerful in remote Himalayan wastelands.

Lets see, the Surge's American and Iraqi success against Al Qaeda once the populace rejected how awful AQ was to even Sunni Arabs has now led to loss of prestige and recruiting and money, plus heavier crackdowns, throughout the Arab world.

Let's see, Iraq is now a far more peaceful place with a death rate well below Washington DC's, the refugees are returning, business is flourishing, and 15 of the 18 required actions needed for political reconcilation between factions hostile to one another for 1200 years have been done.

But, full reconciliation, amid AQ's great defeat and peace looming, have not been done, 3 items remain...so all good little Lefties must follow Black Messiah, insist the war is lost. And we must abandon the most strategic point on Earth right now and go and chase after "The Real Threat" of some 6 guys in hiding in a global backcorner so hopefully they get ACLU lawyers and a "great criminal trial" in 6-7 years.

Oh, Black Messiah is so smart! And the Left has once again shown how well they can be trusted on National Security when they all but show their hand that they consider a successful Surge and a stabilizing Iraq and far less American & Iraqi deaths as horrible news for them.

Posted by chris ford | July 4, 2008 1:31 AM

"No it isn't. The big question is whether the surge has produced significant improvements in conditions in Iraq, and the answer to that question is clearly yes."

So a policy's stated goals no longer matter. I think I just heard the kicker get flattened by those rushing goalposts. That's like saying the Vietnam War was a success because that gave us great movies like "Apocalypse Now" and "Taxi Driver." Just because you want the goalposts to move doesn't make it so. "Cuz I say so" isn't an argument. Your Orwellian style of argumentation is proving my point for me, so thank you.

In addition, these are "significant improvements in conditions in Iraq" only if they can become permanent through political reconciliation. Without such reconciliation, any security gains are just a mirage, especially since we have to draw down troops. I'm not sure such improvements can be considered significant if they are brought about by ethnic cleansing.

Posted by Reality Man | July 4, 2008 3:35 AM

In my view the hubris of GW Bush in imagining that he could topple a murderous totalitarian police state, disband its entire organizational infrastructure, turn things over to a FEMA-like bunch of College Republicans, and ride off into a neo-Reagan sunset, was of Greek proportions.

It is perhaps exceeded by the hubris of lefties who demand that the most representative and legitimate government in the Arab world, if not in Arab history, is only worth supporting if they jump through a set of hoops called "benchmarks" that have more to do with politics in Washington than Baghdad.

In some respects expecting "reconciliation" on demand from groups of people that have been recently attempting genocide against each other is about like demanding in the '50's that Israel provide retirement benefits to ex-SS troops. This is a process, and from any reasonable historical perspective it's moving right along.

Posted by robert powell | July 4, 2008 5:19 AM

Ford: "I'm reading milblogs of AF and Marine guys in Iraq now, and have a nephew just back from Anbar. Nothing you said agrees with what they are saying."

That's because your nephew is presumably genetically related to you and thus is a moron.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 4, 2008 6:17 AM

"In some respects expecting "reconciliation" on demand from groups of people that have been recently attempting genocide against each other is about like demanding in the '50's that Israel provide retirement benefits to ex-SS troops. This is a process, and from any reasonable historical perspective it's moving right along.

Posted by robert powell | July 4, 2008 5:19 AM"

I would put Lebanon as far more representative democratically than Iraq is today. After all, the whole reason al-Maliki is in power is that we found him to be a whole lot more cooperative and helped to engineer his replacement of al-Jaafari.

In addition, the fact that we are expected to babysit a centuries-long process that has little direct bearing on our national security is just chickenhawk masturbation. The British were in Nigeria and Iraq a lot longer than we have been so far and got absolutely nowhere. Meanwhile, the situation in Afghanistan is getting worse because we took our eyes of the ball. There is a reason why the neocons' former Trotskyite ideology failed and there is a reason their newer ideology is failing before our eyes today.

Posted by Reality Man | July 4, 2008 11:15 AM

Having spent some time in Lebanon, including during an election, let's just say I disagree. The Lebanese government set up after the Taif agreement was certainly all about "representative", as it sliced the country and the government up into tiny sectarian cantons. Democratic? Not so much.

People doing analysis on things like the transition from Jaafari, who was simply inept, to Maliki, who whatever else he is clearly isn't a puppet, need more insight into internal politics in the Shi'a community. The Iraqis have been demonstrating significant independence from Day 1, and continue to develop their government in a way that enhances it. Nothing like this happened in Nigeria or Iraq under the British.

Posted by robert powell | July 4, 2008 12:50 PM

powell is so stupid he thinks that someone whose power base is 130,000 American soldiers is "not a puppet." He also believes that the Vichy Government was the legitimate government of France.

Posted by Not as stupid as robert powell | July 4, 2008 1:01 PM

Hey powell, you sick fuck, how's the violence level in Iraq today compared to - oh, I don't know, let's pick 2002 as a reference point. You get to include all of the "violence committed by the state" in the 2002 totals (you do, however, need to include that same thing in your 2008 totals), but you also need to include the violence done because George W. Bush destroyed the infrastructure and left Iraq without any governance.

Oh wait, because you are a bloodthirsty fuckwit you don't want to compare those things because Iraq is a much more violent place under their current dictator George W. Bush than it was under Saddam Hussein. Admitting that would be to admit that George W. Bush isn't in fact some kind of cross between Nelson Mandela and Prince Charming, but rather another vile dictator who has made Iraq a hell-hole, much to the entertainment of the robert powell's of the world.

Posted by Not as bloodthirsty as robert powell | July 4, 2008 2:16 PM

Chris Ford:

Do you speak with any Iraqis? You know, the people that actually live there and will do so when the military leaves. Well, they seem to disagree with you about the success of the surge. In fact, the overwhelming majority of them want the U.S. out of their country and support attacks on American soldiers. In the long run it matters little if the military believes it is achieving success. They are not wanted there.

But I doubt you talk to those folks, now do you.

Posted by jeff | July 4, 2008 5:50 PM