Our Success in Iraq and What it Means

[davefoc]

If we can't leave, has it worked? If we can't reduce to pre-surge levels without fear of the civil war breaking out again, has it worked?

It is a vast Chimera. Bush is playing out the clock using our soldiers lives and our national treasure to make it to the end so he can claim that he stoodfast.

That is a price too high for any American to pay.

And yet, we will be there for years and years...whether it is McCain, Hillary, Obama or any one of the major candidates. That is Bush's doing. So, in that sense, the "surge" was a complete success for Bush, because it ties the hands of the next Administration and puts off the potential disaster to someone else's watch.

Nice job, Georgie-boy! Your daddy didn't raise no fools.

I think it's possible that the US can leave, somewhat quickly. The Iraqis will be facing a civil war, probably the same civil war that the Iraqis will be facing if the Americans leave years from now. The Iraqis need to figure out how to avoid a civil war and if the Americans announce a plan to get out the Iraqis may or may not be successful in setting in place a process to avoid a civil war. Nobody knows whether they will avoid that civil war unless the Americans get out. But the Bush administration has done everything in its power to prevent it from being known whether the Iraqis can avoid a civil war without a continued US presence.

But stopping the loss of American troops and the vast American war spending is not the priority for the Bush administration. The vast spending is enriching their buddies so they don't see that as a problem and their base still sees things the way Texas does. i.e. If the US keeps expending resources the US never has to admit what a hugely wasteful venture the Iraq war was. This is the catch 22 of foreign intervention. The more disastrous the intervention is, the more important it is to keep the disaster going to keep from admitting that the disaster was unnecessary. And the beauty of this situation from the cynical partisan perspective is that much of the US population will blame the administration that ends the disaster more than the administration that initiated the disaster.

 

[SonOfLaertes]

If we can't leave, has it worked? If we can't reduce to pre-surge levels without fear of the civil war breaking out again, has it worked?

It is a vast Chimera. Bush is playing out the clock using our soldiers lives and our national treasure to make it to the end so he can claim that he stoodfast.

That is a price too high for any American to pay.

And yet, we will be there for years and years...whether it is McCain, Hillary, Obama or any one of the major candidates. That is Bush's doing. So, in that sense, the "surge" was a complete success for Bush, because it ties the hands of the next Administration and puts off the potential disaster to someone else's watch.

Nice job, Georgie-boy! Your daddy didn't raise no fools.

Exactly. The main purpose of the Surge is to string out the situation so that Bush & Co. can leave office with an amiguous enough situation to blame any eventual (possible) failure on Clinton, er, someone else.

This is the United States. The Iraq Adventure should be judged in tems of ROI (Return On Investment). By any reasonable measure The Bush Administration has failed utterly in this regard.

I think a conservative estimate of the total cost of this war would be a trillion dollars, taking into account post war costs (ie, heavy equipment attrition, veterans health issues, additional recruitment costs such as incentives, etc.) . For a trillion dollars, what guarantee do we have that, even if we miraculously leave Iraq with a functioning democracy, matters will not revert to the pre-war status, or worse, in a few years? We have no such guarantee, for a trillion dollars. This is a staggering amount of money even for the US.

Then you could take into account the potential benefits a "smarter" strategy would have reaped. Let's say that, instead of invading Iraq, we had kept the pressure on the Taliban in Afghanistan and, using our considerable leverage at the time, found a way to pursue him into Waziristan. Such a strategy would have resulted in considerable returns and would have cost a hell of a lot less. Bonus: the Arab, Iranian and Pashtun world, understanding revenge as they do, would admire admire and fear us because of it. Instead of their perception after Iraq - scorn, anger, and despite.

So for me "Success" is a word best used to describe the political - and only the political - outcome of the surge.

 

[pgwenthold]

What do you base this glib assertion on?

The fact that no one is placing any pressure on the Iraqi government to do anything. For example, when McCain admits that he is willing to stay for a hundred years, it doesn't quite motivate the Iraqi government to get their act together and start running the country. Why bother, when the US will do it and foot the bill.

Second, the fact that there have been no consequences established for not meeting benchmarks set. Goals without consequences are not going to get anything done.

I say that nothing is being done because the US has been adamant that the Iraqis don't have to do anything.

The idea is still in force, what has changed is the timeline, and the optimistic assumption made in Washington that such a "stand up" could happen on a short timeline. Rebuilding an institution, like an Army or a Police, force is not done overnight.

However, it will NEVER happen unless there are consequences if it doesn't.

There seems a moral reluctance to let them fall now and again, and bleed, get scabs, pick at them, and try again.

Which I think is misguided. You have to take the training wheels off at some point, and when that happens, there are going to be accidents.

Granted, those accidents hurt worse now when violence is subsided, but I was saying this same thing a year ago when violence was high. If you are going to have accidents, at least make them productive.

If you tried to sell this perspective to a Kurd, would he buy it?

If you tried to sell your perspective on this to a Sunni tribal elder, would be buy it?

If you tried to sell this perspective to Moqtada al Sadr, would he buy it?

DR

Actually, probably the best part of my perspective is that none of the Iraqi factions would buy it. That's because it will actually force the Iraqis to quit playing, step up, and create functioning state of their own. That takes a lot of work and, more importantly, some compromise, which is responsibility that none want to accept.

It's time to stop waiting for them to stand up, and start insisting that they do. You can't do that and carry them at the same time.

 

[SonOfLaertes]

It's time to stop waiting for them to stand up, and start insisting that they do. You can't do that and carry them at the same time.

That's exactly the point - this administration won't force the issue until they are out of office, so they can pretend that any negative consequences are the fault of the new administration. They will be perfectly content to maintain a year of "positive developments".

Mark my words, though - if the Repubs lose the White House the Faux noise machine will subtly switch over to demanding resolution and accountability.

 

[leadcork]

Interjected thought: Could Iraq's failure to form its "new government" possibly related to the oil apportionment bill now in parliament that, among other points of disagreement, puts 80% of all existing oil & gas reserves and 100% of all unproven reserves into private (outside oil companies) ownership? I think I might chaffe at that, were I an Iraqui puppet.

 

[davefoc]

That's exactly the point - this administration won't force the issue until they are out of office, so they can pretend that any negative consequences are the fault of the new administration. They will be perfectly content to maintain a year of "positive developments".

Mark my words, though - if the Repubs lose the White House the Faux noise machine will subtly switch over to demanding resolution and accountability.

Fox News will probably hedge their bets with a two pronged attack.
1. Demand accountability from the new administration to reel in the corruption, violence and the out of control spending.
2. Blame all problems on the new administration as they move to extricate the US from this mess.

The two approaches are not completely compatible but I don't think Fox will care that much about any inconsistencies there.

Even if one agrees the basic notion that the war was justified and necessary, the Bush administration handled the occupation with surprising corruption and incompetence. The one news organization in the country that might have had the credibility to go after the Bush administration for this and to put pressure on them to do better was Fox News. Instead they played the role of partisan cheer leader for the most corrupt and incompetent administration of my life. Pandering to their base was the safe, profitable approach, but the country and their base paid a high price.

 

[davefoc]

Interjected thought: Could Iraq's failure to form its "new government" possibly related to the oil apportionment bill now in parliament that, among other points of disagreement, puts 80% of all existing oil & gas reserves and 100% of all unproven reserves into private (outside oil companies) ownership? I think I might chaffe at that, were I an Iraqui puppet.

I think this is a good question, that I don't know enough about to provide an answer to.

On the one hand it seems impossible that any American administration, no matter how corrupt and incompetent would attempt to prolong this conflict to force schemes on the new Iraqi government designed to benefit American oil companies while American soldiers are in harm's way.

On the other hand, it looks like the administration has been meddling in this process for quite awhile and it does have a track record of pro-oil industry policies.

So I don't know, but I think it at least plausible that in fact the administration is taking actions to benefit oil companies at the expense of reducing the chances for peaceful resolution of the conflict.

 

[Puppycow]

I'm very impressed with the level of discourse in this thread.

I wish I had time to respond to all of the points.

What worries me about Iraq, is that I don't believe the government, which is very corrupt (ranking near the bottom of the barrel in the whole world), cannot stand on its own or rule the country effectively without resorting to extreme thuggery. The basic problem is that we cannot conjure up competant and acceptable Iraqi leaders. At least not without a multi-decade commitment. (Tom Lehrer put his finger on it. Thanks Darth.)

But there may be a huge opportunity cost to that. What if our troops are needed elsewhere in the world sometime in the next decade or two?

 

[Puppycow]

MOTO moment.

DR

We ask them if their name is Charlie, and if they say 'yes' we shoot them.

 

[headscratcher4]

There are a number of long-term issues that were intentionally or otherwise overlooked in our rush to war and to overthrow Saddam...an undoubtedly bad man.

1. The Administration clearly thought in terms of a unified Iraq that while more democratic, looked and operated much as it did under Saddam. By that I mean "secular," Sunni dominated and more or less Western Looking. Indeed, they guy they originally wanted to run the post-Saddam show, Chalabi, while a Shiia, was thought to be a very pro-Western, secularist.

2. The Administration thought that the Shiia could be controlled. They seemingly didn't count on the "majority" population actually figuring on ruling in a post-Saddam Iraq. On top of that, ruling in a manner that was frought with potential pay-back for all of the slights and discrimination the Shiia had suffered under Saddam.

3. The Administation has never come to grips with the fact that Iran is going nowhere. They share a long boarder with Iraq. They have been trading partners and influenced each-other's culture for a thousand years. They have been marching through each other's country for a thousands years. The majority Shiia in Iraq would, of course, look to Shiia compaitriots and co-religionists in Iran for guidence, trade, help, support, etc. And, Iran will still be there when we leave -- if ever.

Now we can hope for change in Iran, economic collapse, democratic reform/uprising, but it seems -- like Cuba -- any real attempt to militarilly confront the Iranians would, IMO, rally the populace to the government. We could blow a lot of things up, but it wouldn't ultimately solve our problem nor would it make Iraq stable or the foundation for a burgeoning democratic movement in the Arab world or the Middle East.

4. The surge works for the moment only because we are putting our troops inbetween what seems like a natrual and inevitable (hopefully I'm wrong here) civil-war that seems likely to bust up the country (and that is when the fight over oil will really begin). The politicians have no real inducement to find peace with each other...their real goal is, IMO, to find the best, most profitable, most powerful posssition for themselves and their constituencies. Given the disparity in the constituencies -- the Shiia and Kurd need for revenge AND to assert their dominion over their parts of the country -- the Sunni sense of entitilement and now discrimination, the interduction of radical Islam as a cultural alternative to radical Baathist facism and on and on. These factors combine to force all politicians to an extreme.

The Administration looks for a Linconl or Washington to rise above the frey. They Killed Lincoln, and Washington emerged in a country of more or less unified purpose. IMO, any political leader that is effective at holding out the olive branch will be killed. Any leader who is opposed to corruption either came through the corrupted ranks, or isn't a leader or in the country.

Bush has put us in an untennible situation. We loose if we stay. We loose if we go. So, in a loose loose situation, I say we go. Let them fight their civil war...kill each other, it isn't like we're getting the oil now anyway. Let's deal with the winners after they re-create, by force, unified states. BTW, that is the situation WE cued up. Saddam, for all of his evil, held the place together...something that we once supported. The only way a unified state will exist is by force, IMO, and it won't be pretty.

Bush will let that blood, he hopes, be on the hands of his successor. He is an utter failure as was his understanding of the situation and his management of it.

 

[aggle-rithm]

.... the money can't be used to fix potholes or fund NASA, or secure our border or any number of other things.
I'm not too crazy about that either.

Let's cut education funding. With a less educated populace, there will be more cheap labor to fill potholes.

 

[headscratcher4]

Lets talk money...we're over a trillion in Iraq now, were spending billions every month to sustain that effort and to fight terrorism. I note that we spend a triffle of that on meeting human needs. Hezbolah and Hammas succeed in Lebenon and Gaza because, first and formost, they deliver services. They feed people. They operate schools. They provide doctors. They provide housing. Yes, they infuse every inch of that with radical Islamic, anti-US rhetoric. They are popular. We are not. People are dying to support them. They are willing to die to undercut us. We supply bombs and support regimes that support oligarchy and aristocracy and help to keep their people poor. What if we were using our outlay here to build hospitals, schools, etc? What if we were building schools in Pakistan to provide education that parents seek for their kids in the Madrassa? If we're going to wreck our economy to fight terrorism, we have to fight its roots...and that can't be done with guns, IMO.

 

[egslim]

On the one hand it seems impossible that any American administration, no matter how corrupt and incompetent would attempt to prolong this conflict to force schemes on the new Iraqi government designed to benefit American oil companies while American soldiers are in harm's way.

Why does that seem impossible? Call me cynical, but I find it very easy to imagine a politician who cares more about the return on his invested political capital than about the lives of faceless soldiers neither he nor any of his close relations is likely to ever get to know.

From a historical perspective the idea that soldier's lives are valuable is a relatively new concept.

 

[Puppycow]

There are a number of long-term issues that were intentionally or otherwise overlooked in our rush to war and to overthrow Saddam...an undoubtedly bad man.
[snip]

Well put. A good summary of the situation. (Pet peeve: the opposite of 'win' is 'lose.' The opposite of 'tight' is 'loose').

 

[Darth Rotor]

There are a number of long-term issues that were intentionally or otherwise overlooked in our rush to war and to overthrow Saddam...an undoubtedly bad man.

Bush and his team assumed a unifiable Iraqi population. (Or appear to have done so.)

I like your Iran Cuba comparison, seems to fit.

Bush has put us in an untennible situation. We loose if we stay. We loose if we go. So, in a loose loose situation, I say we go.

Your spelling of the word lose is rather loose, but I get your point, HS.

Let them fight their civil war...kill each other, it isn't like we're getting the oil now anyway. Let's deal with the winners after they re-create, by force, unified states. BTW, that is the situation WE cued up. Saddam, for all of his evil, held the place together...something that we once supported. The only way a unified state will exist is by force, IMO, and it won't be pretty.

Let 'em play was also the correct COA in Bosnia, but that didn't come about either.

Bush will let that blood, he hopes, be on the hands of his successor. He is an utter failure as was his understanding of the situation and his management of it.

Yes, there will be a change, and yes, he didn't do "a heckuva job" in Iraq, the way his cabinet officers allegedly did in other circus actsarenas.

Not too impressed, myself, with the temp pool looking to fill his vacancy.

DR

 

[anticonspiracy911]

So you would have us leave and allow the slaughter to continue?

Could a situation like that make things any worse than they already are? Please don't slide down the sunken cost error in decision making.

 

[Puppycow]

Things don't seem to be going too well on the political reconciliation front:

Some Sunni Muslims won't salute Iraq's new flag
By Leila Fadel and Hussein Kadhim | McClatchy Newspapers

* Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008
BAGHDAD — Officials in Iraq's mostly Sunni Muslim Anbar province are refusing to raise Iraq's new national flag, which the parliament approved earlier this week.

"The new flag is done for a foreign agenda and we won't raise it," said Ali Hatem al Suleiman, a leading member of the U.S.-backed Anbar Awakening Council, "If they want to force us to raise it, we will leave the yard for them to fight al Qaida."

Iraq's new flag:

 

[davefoc]

Why does that seem impossible? Call me cynical, but I find it very easy to imagine a politician who cares more about the return on his invested political capital than about the lives of faceless soldiers neither he nor any of his close relations is likely to ever get to know.

From a historical perspective the idea that soldier's lives are valuable is a relatively new concept.

This is a question that I've thought about, but on which I probably have nothing useful to say.

There are a variety of overlapping issues that I am curious about but don't understand. At the base of this issue is trying to make an estimate of what other people think and that judgment has to be clouded in unknown ways by one's biases and experiences.

FWIW, I have a much more cynical view about the motivation of politicians today than I had seven years ago. But, I still doubt that a primary decision maker in the Bush administration made a calculated decision to squander the lives of American soldiers so his buddies could get rich.

My view right now is that Cheney was the key decision maker involved in the process that led to the Iraq war. I think Bush's role was not key. I see Bush as a lazy, simplistic individual that is easily manipulated. I think he is highly dishonest but not very cynical in the sense that his decision making process is not driven strongly by his own self interest (although he very well may make decisions and take actions for the purpose of reinforcing his narcissism).

I see Cheney as an individual that sought the power to make policy and as an individual skilled at playing to Bush's narcissism to achieve the power he wanted. But I don't see Cheney's motivations as purely cynical either. My uninformed guess is that Cheney's actions were driven by two factors:

1. Cheney was consumed with the idea that preventing a terrorist attack was the most important goal of the presidency and he was willing to sacrifice competing goals for the pursuit of what he thought was the safest path.
2. Cheney is what I would call an industrial aristocrat. He believes in a class system in which the industrialist haves and the government work to do what is best for the country while helping themselves along the way. I suspect that he is not introspective enough to examine how his deep seated biases with respect to this might lead him to make decisions that were unlikely to be in the American interest if they were in the interest of the industrial aristocracy that he saw himself as a leader of.

ETA: There is something else going on with Cheney besides the two things I listed above. I suspect he is less empathetic than the norm for humans. I would put his enjoyment of shooting birds with his canned hunting trips and his involvement in overriding Rice's efforts to stop the Israeli bombing of Lebanon as two examples of actions that strike me as unusually callous.

But in the end, while Cheney's biases are unsavory from my point of view, I think he made decisions that he thought were in the American interest.

 

[headscratcher4]

Not too impressed, myself, with the temp pool looking to fill his vacancy.

DR

Indeed...when it comes to Iraq especially. But their options have been limited. Even those who would pull us out ASAP (something I favor) realistically will be foreced to do it over many, many months if not years. McCain will have us there for a 100 years. In the interim, we have squandered much of our military might, not to mention or economic treasure, for a position that is unsustainable.

Bush has wrecked the military through this adventure -- not because they can't do the job, but because the planning, execution and on-going folly of the mission -- waste the resource. The next president will have to deal with a substantially weakened US -- economically and militarilly -- in a world where the global challenges are growing.

Not a good situation. Not a one of them is really ready to step into that...but than who is?

 

[Kerberos]

ETA: There is something else going on with Cheney besides the two things I listed above. I suspect he is less empathetic than the norm for humans. I would put his enjoyment of shooting birds with his canned hunting trips and his involvement in overriding Rice's efforts to stop the Israeli bombing of Lebanon as two examples of actions that strike me as unusually callous.

Speaking of Cheney, hunting and apropos the genius of Tom Lehrer:

"I always will remember,
'Twas a year ago November,
I went out to hunt some deer
On a morning bright and clear.
I went and shot the maximum the game laws would allow:
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow."

http://members.aol.com/quentncree/lehrer/hunting.htm (might contain sound)