After You, My Dear Alphonse
As usual, Fred Kaplan nails it.
Let the Bush administration pound the table and bark that it would never, ever, no way cut and run from Iraq. And let the Democrats simultaneously run from Jack Murtha as if he has the bird flu.
Doesn’t matter. Because we’re leaving Iraq anyway.
Kaplan makes two important points – which I happen to agree with. First off, Murtha did not call for immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. And “the plan” he has outlined is fairly murky. Kaplan summarizes the Murtha prescription this way:
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.
Not very detailed, says Kaplan. But hardly “cut and run,” either.
Second point: Kaplan argues, as I have been saying for some time now, that despite its protestations, the Bushies are planning to do pretty much what Murtha is demanding except they haven't the walnuts to say so publicly. Only difference is that Murtha has a plan -- as half-baked as it might be. The administration. meanwhile, has made it militarily impossible to continue in Iraq. And then there's the political cost. Again, Kaplan:
It almost doesn't matter whether withdrawing or redeploying the troops is a good idea; it's simply going to happen because there is no way for it not to happen (short of a major act of political will, such as reviving the draft or keeping troops on the battlefield beyond reasonable endurance).
This is what Murtha meant when he told Russert, "We're going to be out of there, we're going to be out of there very quickly, and it's going to be close to the plan that I'm presenting right now." (There are political reasons for this near-inevitability, as well. When Murtha predicted we'd be mainly out of Iraq by 2006, Russert asked, "By Election Day 2006?" Murtha responded, "You—you have hit it on the head.")
So, the pertinent question becomes: What is the best way for redeploying? In other words, by what timetable (whether one is explicitly announced or not), after what political and military actions? How many U.S. troops should be left behind, and what should they be doing? Where should the others be redeployed, and under what circumstances will they move back into Iraq? Do we have any realistic strategic goals left in this war (one big problem in this whole fiasco is that the Bush administration never had any from the outset), and how do we accomplish them?
Precisely. Murtha at least offers us a start in what ought to be a damn serious debate and a well-worked out plan. That’s what makes the slash-and-burn pushback of the administration over the last week absolutely irresponsible. What so irked them about Murtha wasn’t that he was calling for the troops to withdraw—but rather he was calling the bluff of the Bushies. Beyond all their uber-freedom bluster, they too want the troops to start coming out – certainly before the mid-term elections a year from now. They just don’t know how to do it and save face.
P.S. And what on earth would we do without the solidarity of Mongolia?
November 21st, 2005 at 8:45 pm
Mongolia. Ah yes, how empires rise and fall, how fortunes wax and wane…
November 21st, 2005 at 9:47 pm
I’m from the Gen. Odom school on this. He ruled on PBS tonight.
November 21st, 2005 at 10:43 pm
Right now in Iraq we’re like a surgeon who’s completely botched an operation. It would do the patient no good if we were to leave his chest hanging open. What we have to do is patch the patient up any which we can and close the wound up.
Of course, the sensible thing to do at this stage of the proceedings is to get a different doctor.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:39 pm
Yes, that critical support from Mongolia! And don’t forget those monkeys sent by Algeria to set off mines. (Are the ones who survived getting Purple Hearts? One can only hope.)
Must beg to differ with Kaplan on at least one point:
“Do we have any realistic strategic goals left in this war (one big problem in this whole fiasco is that the Bush administration never had any from the outset), and how do we accomplish them?”
I’ve been thuddingly monotonous in this forum that there was always a realistic strategic goal, come what may, from the beginning. And this administration probably knows it. How could they not? And … here I go again, I just can’t help myself:
Kurdistan as a U.S.-protectorate oil supplier. To hell with the rest of Iraq, those damned, faint-hearted ingrates. Screw ‘em.
If nothing else can be accomplished, at least that’s one thing that this administration can salvage from all but the worst mess that Iraq might turn into.
The term “exit strategy” assumes that there is a coherent national identity called Iraqi, occupying a coherent national region called Iraq. Thereby making the picture simplistically binary: either we’re in Iraq, or we’re out. However, it’s been plain from day one that this administration is top-heavy with a certain kind of person who, if asked to play “pin the tail on the donkey” with a map of Middle East oil reserves, would never have to peek over their blindfolds to nail Kirkuk Province — long coveted by the Kurds, even described as “our Jerusalem” by the pluckier Kurds. Yes, those are the kind of devoted public servants we have up there right now, looking out for our interests. Obviously, they can figure out this sort of “pseudo-exit strategy” in their sleep. Equally obvious: they wouldn’t dare talk about it right now. If it must be done, events must appear to force it. (But events can be allowed to force it, if necessary.)
Colin Powell, in a career-killing moment of candor, said we went into Iraq with the goal of getting a friendly, stable oil-supplier nation in the Middle East. And, gosh, just where ARE most of our planned permanent military bases in Iraq? Rather more northward than otherwise, by some odd coincidence. If need be, we can establish a “true” Iraq government-in-not-quite-exile in Kirkuk, as all hell breaks loose southward. And with the Pesh Merga’s proven battle skills, defending this Kurdistan Plus Oil wouldn’t be hard.
See how this is having our cake and eating it too? We can still be “in” Iraq — we won’t have to “cut and run.” Just not “in” very much of Iraq, and mostly out of harm’s way. And we’ll be “protecting our vital interests” (i.e., all that Kirkuk oil, which at today’s prices is worth triple the amount “invested” so far in the invasion and occupation. Why, that oughta get even that idiot Buchanan to shut the fuck up already!) And we’ll “be a friend to democracy” (the Kurdish leadership being able to dress up very convincingly in that kind of drag whenever convenient.)
The whole situation can glint ambiguously from afar at American voters, being whatever they need it to be: “IN Iraq, but not OF it (i.e., our boys and girls ain’t dyin’ in anything like the same numbers.)” Or “OUT of Iraq, and ‘IN’ Kurdistan only in the sense that we’re ‘in’ Afghanistan, which hasn’t bothered us nearly as much.”
A lot would have to happen before BushCo could go this route. Will the situation in Iraq decay rapidly enough over the next year to force all the pieces in place before the 2006 elections? I doubt it. If there’s been one respect in which I’ve been consistently wrong in my predictions, it’s been about how fast things would happen.
On the other hand, it’s never been all about Iraq. Polls show that American voter support for keeping troops in Iraq has been dropping toward 50% very rapidly over the last year (52%, shortly pre-Murtha). If that number goes much below 50% by Christmas, the chill in the air for the Bush administration will be more than seasonal. It will be a sea-change. The GOP would then go to Bush and say, “if you can’t promise something we can call victory, and soon, at least give us something. Something that can’t be unambiguously described as defeat, except by those we can disparage as moonbats on the left — including that bastard Ted Kennedy — and as wingnuts in the smaller spectral bands to our right. Something that promises a little relief from the specter of ever-rising gasoline prices … yes, that would be nice, too.”
At that point, I think it would primarily be a matter of this administration making sure that certain White House Powerpoint decks don’t have embarassing file-creation dates, like “December 2001″. It’s gotta look like a spanking-new policy. But they can pull off that impression, I have confidence in them as far as that sort of thing goes. As a face-saving retreat, it would be rather like reconstructive surgery on somebody whose jaw has been blown away by IED shrapnel. But if the American people come to feel that we’ve had to do rather too much of that sort of operation on real soldiers, for too little gain so far, it is a way “out” that doesn’t leave the U.S. empty-handed.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:43 pm
Michael – I wonder how Turkey fits into the vision you just outlined.
November 22nd, 2005 at 12:03 am
I wonder if those 160 troops from Mongolia will be the last ones to be pulled out of Iraq? To paraphrase John Kerry (when he was an anti-war activist, long ago), who will be the last man to die for a mistake? That’s the problem with all of these pull them out slowly and gradually plans, as much sense as they may or may not make militarily and politically.
November 22nd, 2005 at 12:25 am
Y’know, Michael, something tells me that those Mongolian fighters are somehow not on the frontlines. It’s like a bad joke, isn’t it? MONGOLIA?
November 22nd, 2005 at 1:06 am
Maybe we shouldn’t laugh…Ghenghis Khan knew a thing or two about imperial occupation and Mongolian troops have been there before. In fact, the Mongolian Empire stretched from the Persian Gulf to the Pacific. Biggest unified geopolitical entity ever carved out in all of history.
November 22nd, 2005 at 3:08 am
“Michael – I wonder how Turkey fits into the vision you just outlined.”
Uncomfortably, unless you bribe Turkish politicians and media figures to shut up about it. I figure one day’s output from the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline running at capacity oughta do it. Lessee, 1.6 million bbl/day x $60/bbl … yep, should be enough baksheesh. The expensive part would be the security guarantees from the U.S. But it’s a great place to park some U.S troops departing from Iraq, when you think about it: in Turkey, just across the border from Kurdistan. That’s not inconsistent with calls to pull the troops out but leave them nearby, as even Murtha seems to be in favor of. It’s possible that some hostile foreign power would respond by fanning the flames of Greater Kurdistan in Turkey’s largely-quiescent Kurdish minority, thus getting us bogged down in another insurgency, but I don’t think that nation would be Syria or Iran, who both have Kurd problems themselves.
It would take a while to build up to $1.6 mbd, but Kirkuk-Ceyhan will be quite a prize once it’s at capacity– about 15% of current U.S. foreign oil imports, which will probably decline for a while anyway as Americans steadily ditch their SUVs for econoboxes. When you consider that current oil prices have made a lot of domestic U.S. production profitable again, and that Canada has, with its tar sands, knocked Iraq from the #2 position in world oil reserves because those reserves become profitable above $25/bbl, I think a Kurdistan petrostate could take the U.S. a long way toward independence from Persian Gulf Oil.
And I think independence from gulf oil is very much a part of the strategy in the White House. When the White House got over the shakes about the nation’s capitol almost getting divebombed by Al Qaeda, and the Pentagon taking a hit, they certainly must have noted that most of the hijackers were Saudi citizens, and probably figured that the fuse on the Saudi timebomb was shorter than they’d been thinking. When Colin Powell let slip that the U.S went into Iraq to get a stable, friendly oil-supplier nation in the Middle East, I had to wonder what he meant to imply about prospects for Saudi regime stability over the long run. After all, he didn’t say *another* stable, friendly oil-supplier ….
November 22nd, 2005 at 6:37 am
There is nothing wrong with the U.S. thanking its friends–even those who can’t contribute as much as others, as is the case with Mongolia. It also makes sense to strengthen our ties with that country, given its support for us and its strategic position above China. Only a lefty, whose brain has had all reason and courtesy squeezed out by hate, could criticize a U.S. leader for thanking a friend for support, and only such a person would ridicule a country based on the size of its population rather than its heart.
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:16 am
It’s interesting that the Cairo confab of Iraqi leaders which asked for the U.S. to set a timetable for troop withdrawal also affirmed “the right of resistance” while condemning acts of terrorism. They explicitly condemned violence against civilians and Iraqi government institutions but failed to mention U.S. troops in the equation.
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:27 am
“squeezed out by hate” This is a tired ad populum and propaganda technique that’s really wearing thin. There’s no hate, but by Christ there’s bigtime disagreement with this pack of “misleaders.” Mongolia, Bush should spend some quality time in a yurt.
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:28 am
Reg once again beat me too it (I’m getting real piissed bud!) but the news out of Cairo puts us in a real interesting spot. US functionaries, going back to Bremer and the CPA (of Halliburton and the forty thieves) have said that we would abide by the wishes of the Iraqis when it came to our presence in country. Now they are saying – set a timetable to get out. Two possibilities: Bush seizes on this as a gift to get him out with “honor”, Or the Commander in Chief finds a more compliant Iraqi Government so he can continue his Crusade in the Middle East. No points for guessing what the neocons want. But Karl Rove may be able to speak some sense to the dufus. Funny when you have to hope turdblossum has the ear of the President still. What a world!
November 22nd, 2005 at 4:25 pm
There ain’t but a handful of zanies left who think we can begin the reinvention of the middle East by what we are doing in Iraq. They are praying for any excuse to cut ‘n’ r…er…begin an ordered, phased withdrawal based on the ability of Iraqi forces to protect freedom their ownselves.
I would expect that the Cairo meetings were promoted by at least some in the military if not the administration itself.
November 22nd, 2005 at 6:40 pm
One reason Murtha’s speech touched such a nerve is that everyone in DC knows that he is close to the top military brass and is probably speaking for many of them. It is an open secret that the Iraq misadventure is destroying the Army.
November 22nd, 2005 at 7:17 pm
rlc’s point is the ticking bomb behind the Murtha brouhaha…
(Incidentally, richard, I’d be happy to trade my insomnia for your consistently beating me to the punch at marccooper.com)
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:08 pm
Woody writes:
“There is nothing wrong with the U.S. thanking its friends–even those who can’t contribute as much as others, as is the case with Mongolia. … Only a lefty, whose brain has had all reason and courtesy squeezed out by hate, could criticize a U.S. leader for thanking a friend for support, and only such a person would ridicule a country based on the size of its population rather than its heart.”
U.S. foreign aid accounts for one-third of Mongolia’s GDP. (Japan, whose government support U.S Iraq policy, kicks in even more.) American entrepreneurs in Mongolia are essentially just earning back U.S. taxpayer dollars.
http://www.gluckman.com/MongoBiz.html
If Mongolia can afford to help the U.S. in Iraq, and does so, it’s probably less a matter of “heart” and more a matter of quid pro quo and diversion of economic assistance funds.
The path of heart is the high road, and I try to assume some basic goodness on the part of your average human being. But we’re not talking average human beings here, we’re talking about politicians. So when I need to explain foreign affairs coherently, I find it’s usually more reliable to follow the money. The U.S. mostly bought its “coalition of the willing,” including some countries that contributed troops and assistance in the face of overwhelming opposition from their voters. Many of these countries have since pulled out. I don’t know whether Mongolians favor or oppose being in Iraq, and somehow, Woody, I don’t think you do either. For all either of us know, your average Mongolian’s “heart” is against a U.S. presence there.
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:56 pm
Sure, they bought them just like all the coalition forces. Conservative “normal’s” are incredibly naive to match their ignorance.
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:17 am
Not all of the coalition — you had popular support in Britain, and even Rummy’s “New Europe” Poland, though there was some quid pro quo element there as well. Certainly Israel. The Japanese voters went from a “let’s not go there” to a “stay the course” mode after their troops were put in. One might argue that it’s “incredibly naive” and “ignorant” to think that the U.S. only had allies that it could buy. It’s certainly naive, in any case, to think that it didn’t buy some of them. I haven’t found a public opinion poll about Iraq from Mongolia, so I’ll reserve judgment, and I suggest that both you and Woody do the same.
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:11 am
Let’s say that the countries had things in their interest to cooperate.
July 20th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Ich can mich an dich uberhaupt poker nicht errinern.jnw
July 22nd, 2007 at 4:33 am
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! ztjcsfrbvgi
June 22nd, 2011 at 11:20 am
Yea, I already know about all the best free music websites. Thanks for the post though