Thomas Friedman writes:
When it comes to Iraq, September will be coming early this year — like now.
Democrats, and a growing number of Republicans, are determined not to wait until September for the president to report on whether the surge is working. The American people have had enough. They want out. As we move into the endgame, though, the public needs to understand that neither Republicans nor Democrats are presenting them with a realistic strategy.
Obviously, President Bush’s stay-the-course approach is bankrupt. It shows no signs of producing any self-sustaining — and that is the metric — unified, stable Iraq. But the various gradual, partial withdrawal proposals by many Democrats and dissident Republicans are not realistic either. The passions that have been unleashed in Iraq are not going to accommodate some partial withdrawal plan, where we just draw down troops, do less patrolling, more training and fight Al Qaeda types. It’s a fantasy.
The minute we start to withdraw, all hell will break loose in the areas we leave, and there will be a no-holds-barred contest for power among Iraqi factions. Our staying there with, say, half as many troops, will not be sustainable.
As evidence for his thesis, Friedman cites the strategy the British persued in Basra. They “slowly receded into a single base at Basra airport.” The result? “The void has been filled by a vicious contest for power among Shiite warlords, gangs and clans, and British troops are still being killed whenever they venture out.”
What, then, can be done? Well, according to Friedman there are only two possible approaches / plans: a total withdrawal or “all in.” The downsides of the “all in” approach: Iraqis will continue to kill each other, American troops suffer more than the Iraqi forces, the Iraqis will never learn to work with each other, because they know that - in the end - the Americans will be there.
The downsides of the “total withdrawal”: massive slaughter. If you think what we see now is bad, wait until what happens if the US withdraws all its forces from Iraq. Quite a downside of course, although the Democrats will argue - domestically - that they cannot be held responsible because it was “Bush’s war” and because the Iraqi government did not do its part. Of course, the only people who will agree with the Democrats are… Democrats, or at least only Americans. Trust me - I’m speaking as a foreigner here: if the US withdraws from Iraq and if that will result in genocide / mass ethnic cleansing, the world will blame the US.
Every country in the Middle East will blame the US. Every European country - except for the British - will blame the US. Every South American country will blame the US and so on and on.
According to Friedman, the withdrawal plan has four advantages:
But getting out has at least four advantages. First, no more Americans will be dying while refereeing a civil war. Second, the fear of an all-out civil war, as we do prepare to leave, may be the last best hope for getting the Iraqis to reach an 11th-hour political agreement. Third, as the civil war in Iraq plays out, it could, painfully, force the realignment of communities on the ground that may create a more stable foundation upon which to build a federal settlement.
Fourth, we will restore our deterrence with Iran. Tehran will no longer be able to bleed us through its proxies in Iraq, and we will be much freer to hit Iran — should we ever need to — once we’re out. Moreover, Iran will by default inherit management of the mess in southern Iraq, which, in time, will be an enormous problem for Tehran.
Thus, Friedman favors setting a deadline or a withdrawal date. However, he also wants the UN - “not the US” - to lead a last-ditch effort “to get the Iraqi parties to resolve their political differences.”
Good idea Tom. I am sure that this terrific plan will work. I mean - if the US would have tried this, if only the US would have initiated a major diplomatical effort to get the Iraqis to unite! Why, o why, didn’t Bush think of this? Why Tom Why?
Of course, Friedman’s plan is not exactly bullet proof either (much like the ‘plans’ proposed by the Democrats, Republicans and the White House). Instead of admitting that he really has no idea what to do, however, Friedman thinks of a solution that will greatly increase the anti-Americanism in the world and will result in - in his own words - “more ethnic, religious and tribal killings all across Iraq. It will be one of the most morally ugly scenes you can imagine — no less than Darfur. You will see U.S. troops withdrawing and Iraqi civilians and soldiers who have supported us clinging to our tanks for protection as we rumble out the door.”
Perhaps Friedman should answer my charge: that a premature withdrawal will greatly increase anti-Americanism, that Iraq will become a breeding place, even more than now, for terrorists (and terrorism), that the entire world will hold America responsible and that America’s image will suffer a major blow. Friedman does not deal with how the world will perceive this, nor does he take something else into account: America’s enemies will laugh their asses off. The world will not fear America’s military might as much as it once did. Other countries in the Middle East will know that - no matter what happens - America will not attack, and if America attacks, she can be defeated - not by a normal, traditional standing army, but by guerilla warfare, or terrorism.
America will be the world’s only superpower, but it will not be considered to be as powerful as the world once perceived her to be. Furthermore: America’s legitimacy will suffer a major blow.
What gives Friedman?
[...] Read more at my own blog. [...]
Michael:
So, what’s your plan?
As far as I can see there is no good answer. It’s easy to poke holes in every alternative because there is no good answer. Cancer or heart disease, pick one.
I favor the idea of letting the surge go on for a while, and then to withdraw, say, half of the US forces in Iraq. Keep many thousands of forces there, who have to protect America’s main interests, prevent Iran from taking over, and prevent mass genocide from taking place.
Friedman’s claim that there are only two options:
- “all in”
- “all out”
Is, in my opinion, not correct. Friedman seems to think that it is either grand success (long run), or grand failure. There is, however, also something in between: damage control.
The American people can be as tired as they want to be, but they supported this war from the get-go, they’d better take responsibility for the mess. Yes, not just Bush, also the American people.
I’m with Michael on this one. Yes anti-americanism will increase, but it will fade as we continue on in a more superpower fashion in the future. We’ve already lost face around the world and we’re going to lose more but the fact remains we will still be around when the dust settles and Iraq as it is now is an entity that can not be dealt with until it settles once and for all who is in charge.
Once Iraq becomes a nation again, with a central gov’t that actually wields authority, we and the UN can begin to work with it, and not until then. Withdrawal is going to be ugly and the Bushies will be pointing the entire time saying “we told you so” but thats the way it has to be. Time to put pride aside and do what has to be done.
For what its worth I and many americans are terribly ashamed of the plight our gov’t has foisted upon the people of Iraq because of shortsighted and ignorant policies. Its the worst decision this country has made in a long time and I hope our next generation of leaders can work with other nations to limit the bloodshed and suffering.
FYI, I meant I was with Michael Reynolds.
Also read MGVD’s post, and I’d like to add one of my many reasons for being angry at Bush was that altho we did support the war initially, we were very much misled about Iraqi nuclear programs and ties to Al Queda. Had both of those things been true I feel the war was justified and many of us based our inital feelings about the war on the claims of the Bush administration. What is a citizen to do when the people calling the shots simply lie in a fashion that the rest of us can hardly research and confirm?
Sam: I understand your reasoning but, again, it is irrelevant whether you feel that Bush lied or not. The world does not care about what Bush says. besides, the world will also say “we had the same info you had, but still we considered the risk of going to war to be too great. you could have understood that as well, instead you chose to use your power. you broke it. you’re responsible.”
“Misled… ties to Al Qaeda… nuclear weapons…” the US told the world the same, but the world did not reach the same conclusions the US reached. In essence you could say, that the American people proved - to the world - that they are more willing than other peoples to go to war. That’s how the world has judged America.
O no, you will be held responsible. Make no mistaek about it.
And the blowback will fade away? I am sorry, but that is a … ludicrous statement. Trust me as someone who lives in Europe and who has studied anti-Americanism quite much: it will not ‘fade away.’ It will only get worse and worse. It will be used against the US for decades.
In my opinion, there are a lot of contradictions in terms of US policy that emerge when dealing with the middle east. Take for example, the notion that America’s presence is an attempt to spread Democracy throughout the region. The present strategy seems like a rather bloody way to go about it. Why not instead focus on those we have friendlier relations with like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? /sigh…. I’m not a fan of my government when it acts inconsistantly and irrationally.
However, I’m against some of the reasons you stated for keeping troops in the region, namely the part where we keep Iran from taking over.
By no means am I in favor seeing Iran seize hold of the region, but I think the ensuing battle upon a full withdrawal would lead to an end result far from that. The tension (territorial, cultural, and economic) in this region has been building for many many years, and I think the people may need to fight it out amongst themselves to see where they stand.
Would it be terrible? Of course, all war is. But if one of the reasons we decide to keep our troops in harm’s way is to preserve traditional boundaries when times have obviously changed, I’d rather see a full withdrawal, because in my opinion, that goal is entirely unsustainable… asa well as not the US’s responsibility.
Michael:
We have a very hard time stopping mass slaughter and ethnic cleansing with 160,000 men in place. In point of fact all we can do is move the violence away from where we happen to be and into some place we aren’t. How do you think we’ll do it with fewer?
A rump force of men in Iraq just ensures us a front-row seat for whatever follows — while ensuring that we continue to take casualties.
And as a political reality, once we admit that we are no longer pursuing “victory” but merely supervising a civil war the public will demand a complete withdrawal. The last thing anyone will want to watch on their evening news is video of innocents being murdered before the gates of US bases.
Friedman is right: in or out. And unfortunately we don’t have the men for an “all in” call so it’s going to be an “all out.” Maybe not until inauguration day January 9, 2008, maybe sooner, but not later.
Friedman is a warmongering fool who never faces any consequences and always says things will be better in six more months.
He should be ridiculed, fired, and publicly humiliated for his role in this disaster.
Umh, you do realize that the situation is what it is, also because of what the US did right? Not just now, but for decades.
Michael Reynolds: I understand your reasoning, but again you have to think “what will be worse?” I am not saying that 75,000 troops will bring peace and stability. Of course not: all they can do is some serious damage control, showing that the US is still involved, etc.
This is going to sound harsh I am sure but: the world could not care less. I mean - the world blames America for the situation in Iraq today. So, when we are talking about terrorism and anti-Americanism, I can say that while I understand that the American people reason like you do, the world reasons quite differently.
The world looks at it ilke this: 3500 Americans killed vs tens or even hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. America started this war. Without america’s decision to attack Iraq, no Iraqis would have been killed in sectarian violence…
The American public should try to look at the big picture - and politicians should do so as well.
—–
Michael van der Galiën:
Umh, you do realize that the situation is what it is, also because of what the US did right? Not just now, but for decades.
—–
Now wait a minute. I think it’s justified to attribute a large part of the current instability in the region to US involvement, but if you’re going to argue that the US is responsible for the climate of the entire region then I think you’re overlooking a lot. For one, you’re overlooking other influencing powers like the UK and China who’ve had a hand in Middle Eastern power dynamics over the years. For two, you’re marginalizing the people of the Middle East themselves. There has been substantial foreign involvement, but these people are not the sums of their international influences. There is a deeper cultural dimension to the current tension in the Middle East that underlies any outside political influence.
If you want to talk about the West’s influence on the region, and the US having a primary role in that, then I think that’s fine. But I don’t think it’s valid to make the overgeneralization that only US policy has caused all of the hate present in the Middle east right now.