What Remains

Good piece by Matt Duss. I especially like the last bit:

Perhaps most importantly, no real consensus yet exists among Iraqis as to what the new Iraq will be. Consensus does exist, however, around the belief that no genuine, sustainable Iraqi unity can develop while the Iraqi government continues to be underwritten by a foreign military presence. Recognising the latter consensus is essential for enabling Iraqis to arrive at the former.

This is important. To say that we can't leave Iraq until we succeed, or else that we can only now contemplate leaving Iraq because we've succeeded (because "the surge worked" or what have you) is to miss the point. The underlying problem in Iraq has long been the lack of any kind of consensus over what a legitimate Iraqi state would look like. But one point on which there is something resembling consensus is that a legitimate Iraqi state can't be permanently in a state of American military occupation.

Comments

Therefore, leaving at this point IS success.

http://strategy08.wordpress.com

Posted by Dan | July 22, 2008 2:14 PM

Right. The truth is that from an overall perspective the surge failed, because the Iraqis still couldn't use the conditions created by the surge to come together to resolve key issues. And the Iraqis, at least, learned from the failure of the surge that the only plausible way forward is for the U.S. to withdraw its occupation troops and for the Iraqis and other stakeholders in the region (which would include the U.S., but not as an occupier) to negotiate a resolution to these issues.

But all that said, I am more than happy to let certain people save face by claiming all this proves the surge worked, if that means they will stop obstructing our withdrawal from Iraq. And for what it is worth, I highly doubt that will be a problem for Obama politically--as many have pointed out, even if people accept that McCain was "right on the surge", that hardly outweighs being McCain being wrong on starting the war, and then being wrong on how to end it.

Posted by DTM | July 22, 2008 2:19 PM

The problem with all this talk that Obama wants to "withdraw" from Iraq is: it isn't true.

Obama will not "withdraw from Iraq" (you all get that in your head and soon maybe there is something that can be done about it still):

What do you mean when you say residual force?

The missions that I've called for: as you said, protecting diplomatic forces and civilians, U.S. civilians or foreign civilians in Iraq, making sure that we are protecting our bases, training Iraqi forces, if, as long as we are short of the fact that we are not training them to engage in sectarian war but rather training them for the integrated force structures that are needed to protect them, and to have a counterinsurgency force that can act swiftly if you start seeing the reemergence of al Qaeda in Iraq.

The smarter liberals have realized this and are not willing to play along:

Posted by novakant | July 22, 2008 2:25 PM

I think that you could argue that the success of a candidate who wants to withdraw from Iraq in the Democratic Party, and his favored position in the polls leading up to the election, might have encouraged some Iraqi leaders to be more bold in pressing the demand that the US get out. After all, politicians everywhere want to position themselves to that point where events will eventually end up. It gave them a point of leverage with the Bush administration.

In short, it is more likely that the Democratic Party's consolidation on a Iraqi withdrawal position has done more to create the conditions for ending the war than the surge.

Posted by Tom in Ma | July 22, 2008 3:12 PM

I dunno, the MaxBoot, J-Pod, JohnDerbyshire crowd thinks the U.S. has a right to a few residual odds-and-ends like, well, control of Iraqi airspace, the right to detain Iraqis whenever, the right to conduct military operations whenever, etc.

I know they're insane. The problem is that they're going to create a narrative of 'surrender' in Iraq similar to the one they constructed regarding VietNam.

Obvious to me that al Maliki and O'Bama have agreed to end the war. That's almost a done deal.

Now we need a Truth Commission or similar public explanation of how we got into this misguided fool's errand. Put the facts in the light.

Posted by JohnMcC | July 22, 2008 3:51 PM

We are not the only "foreign military presence" underwriting the current government, but we will be the first to leave. From the day we invaded, there was no other possible outcome. The questions will be how much influence Iran will have and over how much of Iraq.

Posted by Th | July 22, 2008 4:48 PM

Thanks to novakant for pointing out what anyone paying attention should have known all along. Barack Obama is a smart guy who understands that Iraq represents several vital US interests, and that simply walking away is not, has not been, and won't be for a very long time a realistic option.

It is factually incorrect to refer to our role in Iraq as an "occupation". We are there pursuint to a unanimous UN mandate at the invitation of Iraq's freely-elected democratic government, which I expect we will continue to support for many years to come. The fact that we won't continue to function as the Baghdad P.D. is good for all concerned, although if we'd done so more effectively when we actually were an occupation force things would likely have gone a lot better.

Posted by robert powell | July 23, 2008 9:34 AM

Technically it was said to be incorrect to refer to U.S. actions in Indochina as a "war". Feh.

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2008 9:41 AM

It wasn't said by me, Cid, nor anyone else who knew what they were talking about after 1964.

Our "occupation" permitted elections judged free and fair by UN observers in which lots of people we supported lost, and lots of people we didn't like won. Subsequently, the Iraqi government has at times restrained the actions of US troops, pursued relations with Iran on its own terms, voted several times for a withdrawal plan, balked at "benchmarks" that had more to do with politics in Washington than Baghdad, and generally behaved with admirable autonomy. Most unlike any "occupation" I'm familiar with.

Besides, the diplomatic lexicon is really clear on "occupation", "Security Council Mandate", etc.

Posted by robert powell | July 23, 2008 2:40 PM

Our brutal assault resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions. For bloodthirsty assholes like robert powell that's a small price for the Iraqis to pay.

That the occupation is being undermined by American politics and the fact that smart Iraqi politicians - even those installed under "elections" held under the boot heel of an occupying army - are taking advantage of the political climate in their oppressor's nation as well as their own doesn't make it an "occupation."

There was a government in Iraq. robert powell felt that it wasn't murdering Iraqis fast enough and didn't have enough respect for multi-national oil companies and so it had to go. Pretending that 150,000 foreign boots on the ground enforcing the will of a foreign government isn't an occupation doesn't change the reality. It only demonstrates that you are either willfully stupid or just plain fucking stupid.

Posted by Not as Bloodthirsty as robert powell | July 23, 2008 2:54 PM

As ever, "not as stupid" brings discredit to the faction of pro-Saddam anti-American zealots he presumes to speak for.

It's become clear that no one could be this destructive of the arguments he tries to champion by accident. "not as stupid" is obviously Dick Cheney in mufti.

Posted by robert powell | July 24, 2008 6:29 AM