The flypaper that is Iraq
Along with Juan Cole, Patrick Lang is the most knowledgable and astute observer of Iraq, especially on military matters. Here is a snippet from (Advice for the Democratic Party) his take on the questions left for Congress by General Petraeus and Ambassador Croker, above all the question of withdrawing troops:
Nevertheless, we are stuck on the flypaper of Iraq. In my opinion a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, abandoning the protean mess that is the Iraqi government would result in such a disastrous situation that we can not afford to do that.
Some of the consequences?
- A rump state of Iraq in the south in which whichever Shia faction wins will become a satellite of the Iranian government. That government, if not dealt with through a prolonged and aggressive combination of diplomacy and potential military force will continue to act as a major sponsor of Islamic zealot movements and their terrorist manifestations. Iran will also take up a major role as arbiter of alignments and activity in the region.
- Kurdistan will become one of the saddest of experiments in national popular sovereignty that I know of. Would Turkey and Iran continue to tolerate the Kurdish aspiration to achieving something as close to independence as they can manage? I doubt it.
- Would the wide variety of Sunni Arab groups that are revolting against the takfiri jihadis coalesce into a integrated part of a renewed Iraq? Probably not, and among all the little de facto city states, sheikhdoms, etc, the surreptitious support and participation of the Sunni “neighbors” would continue. This means continued war indefinitely in Sunnistan.
- Would the jihadis find a way to re-establish themselves somewhere in Sunnistan? Probably.
What does that add up to in terms of the ultimate political effect of the war on the Democratic Party?
I predict that If you are seen to be the instruments of such a collapse, then you will be blamed for a catastrophe in which thousands of American soldiers will have died. The public will wrongly think that they died for nothing. The public will not blame Bush, Cheney, the AEI crowd. No. They will blame you. You will carry that can for many years.
Petraeus recommends a gradual withdrawal from this disaster. You don’t want that? Have you really thought this through?
If you want to do something useful, pass resolutions tying up the president’s freedom of action in regard to Iran. Make him come to you for permission to strike them. Show some real courage.
Read the whole thing: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/
UPDATE: For those who have not been following the run-up to the war in IRAN! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296450,00.html
UPDATE: Petraeus on Iran: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091201133.html?hpid=topnews
UPDATE: Barnett Rubin an Afghan expert points to one of the consequences of the extended stay in Iraq and its fall-out in Afghanistand and Pakistan. It is, of course, not just a military problem, but a diplomatic one as well. The Bush Administration definitely suffers from ADD. Here is Rubin’s recent post on “things fall apart.” http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/09/collapse-of-legitimacy-in-pakistan.html
I don’t read Lang very much, so I don’t know whether he’s addressed this elsewhere, but if we shouldn’t precipitously withdraw from Iraq (and who but some on the fringe are proposing that?) and we shouldn’t gradually withdraw, then…what?
I share Grant’s puzzlement. And the puzzlement originates, I suspect, in the subtlety of how Lang subtly transforms the issue of how to extricate ourselves from Iraq into the issue of how the Democrats — hapless as usual — can exploit the situation politically. It’s all about perception: you musn’t be seen, he warns them, as the party that made all those American soldiers die for nothing — which, in point of fact, they have, if you except, of course, the Bush’s Administration’s hubris.
As for getting Bush to seek permission to strike Iran, doesn’t that presume that striking Iran is a legitimate option? Have Lang and the Democrats learned absolutely nothing from the Iraq invasion?
How do you get free fron flypaper?
It strikes me that Turkey and Iran and maybe Syria will be tied down somewhat by future-Iraq or its daughter or pseudo-daughter states.
Is that good for the US, for Muslims to be fighting one another? Maybe in some minds that makes sense. Clearly, Cheney knew what the US was getting into, and he promoted going in anyway.
Maybe the R’s think they’re just going into a sort of political hibernation till 2012, or perhaps 2016, only to revive and lurch a little more toward a police state or whatever later on.
The Catholic perspective suggests we not look at future consequences for moral actions, no matter how distasteful. What’s the right thing to do to disentangle from flypaper?
Oops — used subtlety or its variants twice in one sentence. Guess I need that second cup of coffee after all.
Lang, I believe, does favor a gradual withdrawal. He has had several long posts on force protection, i.e., protecting troops as they head for a border (probably Kuwait), through militia territory. If I have him right, he does not favor deadlines announced to the world. And he probably favors a residual force to protect the Kurds.
His comments on the Dems probably arise from questions raised about what they should do (cf. Juan Cole’s post 9/11) and how they should respond to being left to devise the U.S. surrender in Iraq. He is no fan of the Dems as far as I can detect. A former military (Vietnam) and DIA (Middle East) guy, he expresses a healthy skepticism (if not contempt) about most politicians, though he is a fan of Warner and Webb (and he lives in Virginia). He is opposed to any war with Iran and this post advising Congress to pass a resolution requiring Bush to seek approval is, I suppose, an effort to put an end to that idea, or at least the rumor of that idea, which is all over the place. Lieberman’s questions to Petraeus yesterday about going after the Quds forces in Iran were a direct invitation to Petraeus to sign on. He wisely avoided the bait.
We citizens don’t know half of what’s going on (or maybe not even 10 percent). Lang and Cole and some others at least keep our noses to the sewerage system!
Todd Flowerday: The flypaper situation in Iraq presents, it seems to me, unprecedented challenges to our moral thinking. We go and the Iraqis spend the next ten years avenging themselves on one another; we stay and the chaos and sectarian struggles continue.
The Fordham Center on Religion and Culture has organized a public forum for next Tuesday, September 18, at Fordham, Lincoln Center: “Exit or No Exit? The Morality of Withdrawal from Iraq.” You’re welcome to come and see what are panelists have to say on the subject: Michael Walzer, Jean Elshtain, Sohail Hashmi, and Gerry Powers.
Todd Flowerday: To disregard consequences is to eschew politics. It’s one thing for an individual to disregard the consequences of his or her own deeds to himself or herself. It is immoral to disregard the consequences that deeds have for others. This is of particular importance in the realm of politics. I have no hesitation in saying that Catholicism does not call for a “politics” that disregards consequences.
Pardon me, friends; I should have been more clear in my reference to consequences. I meant that negative political consequences for an (American) individual or party should be far down the list of moral considerations. Maybe off it entirely. Will a Dem president or congress get tagged with blame? I couldn’t care less. The Dems are nearly as much to blame for helping to cede the declaration of war to an executive branch run amuck. We need to do what is right, not what is politically expedient.
A person makes a mistake, then apologizes, losing face, as it were. The Twelve Steps might give us some clarity. Morally, we should be in the position of making amends where it is possible to do so. Sometimes, the offender has done so much damage that direct amends are impossible. We might be in that position in Iraq, especially if civilians are going to continue to get slaughtered whether we stay or go.
Does a pullout mean we stay long enough to finish whatever schools, hospitals, or other civilian projects we’ve started? I would think yes. Do we add to troop levels for a new project of pacification. Probably not.
Bernard,
When the United States finally freed the slaves in the 1960′s Lyndon Johnson said truly that the Democrats would lose the South for decades to come. Ted Hesburgh could not believe that there were no Protestant Ministers who would support civil rights for black people. While politics has its usefulness, morality must trump when it is life and death and human rights. In this case a Catholic should have the democrats stay the course. Culpability can be argued later.