The War's End

Matthew DeLong reports that John McCain says the Iraq War is already over and yet that means we need to . . . keep fighting the war forever:

]I repeat my statement that we have succeeded in Iraq, not we are succeeding we have succeeded in Iraq. The strategy has worked and we now have the Iraqi government and military in charge in the major cities in Iraq. Al Qaeda is on their heels and on the run, but the success that we have achieved is still fragile and could be reversed, and it’s still – if we do what Sen. Obama wants to do, then all of that could be reversed and we could face again the chaos, increased Iranian influence and American loss and defeat.

It's an intriguing perspective, I guess.

It's worth noting that minimizing Iranian influence in Iraq as a war aim is a pretty tough cookie. Iran, unlike the United States, is adjacent to Iraq. Unlike the United States, in other words, Iran doesn't have any plausible way to be indifferent to what happens in Iraq. Iran can have a friendly relationship with the Iraqi government, or it can have a hostile relationship with the government of Iraq, but it can't be indifferent -- the Iranians don't have any other continents to live on. So if we are determined to keep large forces in Iraq checking Iranian influence, then the Iranians are going to do their best to undermine that. And the only way to keep checking that influence over the long-run is going to be for us to be continually meddling in Iraqi affairs. But no need to worry about that since we've already succeeded.

Comments

...increased Iranian influence...

Maybe Senator Senile should have thought of that before calling for an attack on Iraq back in 2002. Hey, Johnny. They're called "consequences", and if you want to be president, it would be a good thing if you learned about them.

Posted by LFC | July 17, 2008 5:58 PM

the only way to keep checking that influence over the long-run is going to be for us to be continually meddling in Iraqi affairs.

Well, the unstated motive is 'at very least, hang around until Regime Change II: Persian Boogaloo; ideally, do something to bring it about.' You can presumably 'check' Iranian influence in Iraq by fucking up Iran in a similar fashion.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 17, 2008 6:02 PM

It is always success in Iraq for McSame and his friend Joementum. McSame doesn't give two shits about all the lies that were told to us, the trillion dollars wasted, and the precious lives lost. Apparently his beef with Dubya is that the war (and killing) was not done more efficiently. This is what the GOP offering to lead our country out of the hole that Dubya and co dug us in. I hope the McSame and GOP get the ass-whoppin of their lives in Nov.

Posted by Rum Raisin | July 17, 2008 6:08 PM

Unlike the United States, in other words, Iran doesn't have any plausible way to be indifferent to what happens in Iraq.

Huh? The U.S. can't be indifferent to what happens in Iraq either. It's odd that Matthew seemlingly believes that only countries in physical proximity to Iraq can have strategic interests in the country.

Posted by Al | July 17, 2008 6:22 PM

What, no "last throes"? I find that much more poetic than "on their heels and on the run".

Posted by DTM | July 17, 2008 6:23 PM

This is a problem of terminology. The war really did only last a month or so. "Mission Accomplished" had a point. Then it was an occupation that quickly failed and become a counter-insurgency. At times in particular places it's been a peacekeeping operation. But it hasn't been a war for five years.

Posted by Chris | July 17, 2008 6:45 PM

The war really did only last a month or so.

By your reasoning, the Vietnam War could be considered an extended peacekeeping operation. This is sophistry.

Posted by dob | July 17, 2008 7:08 PM

By the way, Matt, someone (me) caught the Rancid quote in the post title.

Posted by James Gary | July 17, 2008 7:16 PM

McCain is caught in a word trap. He says the Iraq war is a "success," but then insists that we must stay and continue his surge strategy to "win the war." This is twisted logic.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | July 17, 2008 7:19 PM

We have won, we are winning, and if we remain committed, we still can win!

Posted by El Cid | July 17, 2008 7:33 PM

Iran can have a friendly relationship with the Iraqi government, or it can have a hostile relationship with the government of Iraq, but it can't be indifferent.

Yes it can. Many neighboring nations have neither friendship nor hostility - just an arrangement to get along and not meddle in one another's affairs.

Iran, unlike the United States, is adjacent to Iraq. Unlike the United States, in other words, Iran doesn't have any plausible way to be indifferent to what happens in Iraq.

That is foolish. Plenty of nations are indifferent to what happens over their neighbors borders as long as it doesn't hurt them. And Matt makes the folly of saying only nations in direct physical borders contact with one another can have strategic interests in the country.

Posted by chris ford | July 17, 2008 8:37 PM

Let me get this straight. We have installed a government in Iraq that supports Iran, who we consider a bigger threat than Saddam ever was, yet somehow we have succeeded. Whoa.

Posted by Rich | July 17, 2008 10:23 PM

The Bush/McCain approach has been a wet dream for bin Laden as well as the Iranian leaders.

They have strengthened both while weakening the US.

McCain is a danger to America, not to terrorists, not to Iran.

Time to vomit him out.

Posted by cm | July 17, 2008 10:41 PM

Dumbshits Ford and Al of course stupidly or deliberately miss Matt's point, which is that Iran is closely tied to Iraq these days and will remain so, no matter what nonsense McCain is spouting.

Even if the nationalists such as Sadr's group take power in Iraq, as long as the Sunnis don't regain complete control, the Iraqi government will continue to have close ties to Iran.

The present situation is that Iran can influence Iraq in many ways: through their influence on the dominant Shia political parties, through influence on the ground via Shia pilgrims, through their economic ties, through influence militarily, through influence even with groups like Sadr, etc.

There's no way Iranian influence can be eliminated in Iraq, no matter how long the US tries to stay there. In fact, the longer the US stays, the greater the Iranian influence will be - until eventually the Iraqis throw the US out because of that influence.

And any attempt to remove that influence by attacking Iran will result in an immediate removal of the US from Iraq by Iraqi Shia - violently.

Even an attempt by the US to re-establish Sunni control of the government - and that is apparently one BIG reason behind Maliki's refusal to sign the SOFA - would be a disaster, because neither the Iranians nor the Iraqi Shia are going to allow that to happen. And the Shia are now as heavily armed as the Sunni used to be - and they are more numerous. The Shia can never again be controlled by the Iraqi Sunni - despite what the Sunni insurgents may dream of.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 17, 2008 11:17 PM

the people who initially supported this war are idiots, no?

Posted by SydB | July 18, 2008 3:21 AM

Al and Chris are exactly right. The war, as such, has been over for a long time. What's left is the end game of the post-war power struggle we got caught up in.

Iranian influence in Iraq is a two-way street. It is of course inevitable, but it's also got some positive aspects. We are inevitably going to have to re-think our relationship with this big, important, traditional regional power. Having been instrumental in establishing the world's first Shi'ite-dominated democracy whose leaders have decent relations with Iran can only help.

Posted by robert powell | July 18, 2008 5:43 AM

Al is a moron and Chris's point has been shown to be moronic. The war on the Iraqi people has continued apace from the moment George W. Bush ordered a terrorist bombing in their capitol (actually before, but that was the point of no return).

Having been instrumental in slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in a brutal take-over of Iran's neighbor can only be seen as the fruit of George W. Bush's "crusade" talk and as a thuggish abuse of America's "super-power" status.

Only a dimwitted apologist for murder and theft claims Bush went to provide the Iraqis "democracy." No one who has read the AUMF rammed through Congress (who were idiots for appeasing Bush) could read it as a democracy promotion document. It's all about the fear of Saddam Hussein with some sops to the notion that the Iraqi people were suffering. In other words, it's fearmongering based on the false premise that "Iraq was a threat to our national security."

Quoting from this deeply dishonest document:

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security
of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

None of which, of course, had any basis in fact. But then, the bloodthirsty morons of the world never need any facts to support mass murder - it's just what they do.

Posted by Not as Bloodthirsty as robert powell | July 18, 2008 6:39 AM

robert powell,

I still don't see how that is a positive given the status quo ante in Iraq.

Posted by Rich | July 18, 2008 7:44 AM

If our war has succeeded, and we leave, then how could there be a US defeat? Sure, there could be chaos once our troops have come home, and the government could fall, but by that logic we've been defeated in Italy.

Posted by BarryG | July 18, 2008 8:28 AM

If our war has succeeded, and we leave, then how could there be a US defeat? Sure, there could be chaos once our troops have come home, and the government could fall, but by that logic we've been defeated in Italy.

Posted by BarryG | July 18, 2008 8:28 AM