Last week, at The Guardian’s Comment is Free, I asked the left what its solution is to Iraq, arguing that “just as you cannot abandon the Iraqis to this mess we got them into, you cannot abandon policy to those who made the mess.” Some, quite predictably, dismissed this.
But not Brian Whitaker, Middle East editor of The Guardian. In a long and, predictably, thoughtful response on the third anniversary of the start of war, he argues that I’m right to challenge the left to offer its solutions, but he fears there is no solution short of waiting out 15 years of war.
Tempting as it may be to suggest that those who got us into this mess should get us out of it, Jeff is basically right. If we leave it to them the chances are that they will only lead us deeper into the mire, so it’s reasonable to ask opponents of the war (and anyone else, for that matter) how they would proceed from here.Demanding to know how they would actually solve Iraq is a different matter, however. The question implies that a solution does exist, if only someone could come up with the necessary bright idea. What this demonstrates, I fear, is that the hawks, even liberal ones like Jeff, are still failing to understand the real nature of the conflict, otherwise they would see that there is no solution.
If this sounds like a way of evading the question, it isn’t meant to be. Patients may demand a cure from their doctors, just as Jeff does with Iraq, but sometimes the doctors can’t help. Once we have got over that hurdle and admitted that there is no known cure for Iraq we can start to think rationally about what to do next.
One of the items on Whitaker’s lines on his to-do list is to initiate “criminal proceedings against Bush, Blair and their cohorts” to give “a strong, clear signal.” And, preditably, he brings the matter back to Israel and the Palestinians. That is quickly reaching the level of cant.
Otherwise, I find Whitaker argument unpleasant but compelling:
The US-led invasion unleashed ethnic and sectarian rivalries that the Ba’athist regime had kept bottled up – brutally – for decades. Assuming that Iraq does not totally disintegrate (though that is a distinct possibility), we can reasonably expect the war will take between 10 and 20 years to run its course. A midway point between these two figures would be 15 years – the length of the Lebanese civil war, which is quite a useful comparison….The Iraqi war will end when the parties involved have fought themselves to a standstill, either through exhaustion or by reaching a stalemate. That doesn’t necessarily mean the underlying issues will be resolved by fighting but the power struggle will eventually shift – as it did in Lebanon – from the military to the political sphere.
Though the shift may still be a decade or more away, any framework of political institutions that can be preserved in the meantime will be useful when the time comes. For that reason, if no other, we should try to keep the parliament and some semblance of a government running, but let’s not pretend there is a democracy in the making.
As the war takes its tragic but now inevitable course inside Iraq, our first concern must be to stop it spreading beyond the country’s borders. In particular, we must do everything we can to prevent Iraq’s internal rivalries – between Sunni, Shia, Kurdish etc – from infecting the rest of the region. This is an increasingly urgent problem.
More readers added their responses at Comment is Free. Among them, Leon Green suggests: “The United Nations in my view is the answer. Hand over control (with the Iraqi ‘government’ on the steering group) to the UN.” James Hamilton responds:
1. You are going to need a very large number of peacekeepers, probably in the hundreds of thousands, and you are going to have to train them in their work, which will take 2-3 years …2. If the UN is going to be running Iraq’s assets in trust, then it is going to have to undergo considerable reform itself to avoid any hint of a repeat of the Oil For Food fiasco….
3. You might not like the record of “western” superpowers, but you would probably admit that they’ve made a better fist of Afghanistan than the Russians did, and that the continued state of Chechnya is an argument against looking to non-Western powers for better consequences. …
Read the rest at Comment is Free, including many who argue that I set the wrong rule. I said that just getting the hell out of there is not the answer.
Here at Buzzmachine, there were more comments, some with venom, which I wish wouldn’t happen but I’m not so unrealistic as to assume that’s possible. But Andrew Tyndall has a wise response:
Imagine militias escalating current death squad activity into all-out sectarian warfare. Image if the Shiite militias of the Interior Ministry start fighting one another on faultlines such as maximal-vs-regional power, or various degrees of clerical control.If those dangers are realistic, then the current US policy of arming and training local army and police forces is a recipe for disaster. All that does is make all potential sides in such civil conflict even more skilled at killing.
Yet that policy — arming and training — is announced as the essential pre-requisite for withdrawal….
If the cause of the violence in Iraq is resistance against foreign occupation, then the principled thing is for the occupier to leave.
If the cause is sectarian vendettas, then the principled thing is for the occupier to step into the middle.
If the cause is terrorist cells seeking to disrupt civil society, then the principled thing is for the occupier to help arm and train the government.
If the cause is warlordism, then the principled thing is for the occupier to help defuse and disarm all factions, including those operating, for the time being, under government colors.
Well this is the horns of a dilemma!
Robert Feinman says:
If you assume, as I do, that the goals of the invasion were:1. Establish permanent bases in Iraq to replace those lost in Saudi Arabia
2. Install a client government that will agree to favorable oil deals
3. Intimidate surrounding Arab states
4. Limit China’s ability to purchase mid-east oil
Then future US policy is clear.
1. The permanent bases are almost complete. Murtha’s misunderstood suggestion about withdrawal wasn’t from Iraq, but just to the bases.
2. The client government is still a work in progress.
3. Arab states have become more compliant, especially Syria and Libya
4. China is now making oil deals in much less favorable places because of lack of access to prime oil nations….
There’s much more.
We can’t end the war now. Leaving doesn’t end the war. The solution, whatever it is, is not as simple as a bumpersticker.
The point is, this is what we must be discussing now: future tense over — not instead of — past tense.
To find the solution to Iraq, ask yourself “When should a nation forfeit its sovereignty?”
Don’t see the connection? That’s because nobody who should have asked the question before the war in Iraq ever asked or answered — not at the United Nations, not at the Arab League, not in any bilateral discussions. Why not? It’s the elephant in the room.
Until you can justify basic society’s minimum requirements, you are not in a position to suggest a solution to Iraq, much less find the courage to demand it.
Iraq forfeited its sovereignty approx 16 years ago when it attacked kuwait. unfortunately it was not dealt with at the time – had it been, we would be in a much better place. and the reason we stopped? – because of the UN. this will all fail because of the attitude (and this includes GWB) that we can only do one thing at a time. the US needs to be dealing harshly with Syria & Iran. unless we become tougher and more ruthless – this will all be for nought. there are white hats and black hats in this movie. we better all decide where we belong.
How’s this for being ‘future’ oriented? We can leave Iraq now — something I’ve advocated for three years already — at the present cost of ‘only’ 2300 American military personnel, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, and hundreds of billions of dollars, or we can leave in the future, hanging on to the skids as the last helicopter takes off from the Green Zone, with thousands more dead and billions more wasted.
That’s my pragmatic, future-oriented solution to the current impasse, pace Santayana…
As to the conlict spreading beyond the borders of Iraq, has this not already happened considering that insurgents have come from all parts of the middle east to fight in Iraq? While beyond geographic borders the violence may only constitute a trickle, the war on terrorism ie the muslim brotherhood has begun; and borders dont apply to a nation’s greatest wartime asset (soldiers). And with the considerable dissent apparent amongst muslims, it seems that widespread sectarian violence is only a step away as the entire middle becomes increasingly unstable. Bush went in to create stability, the result has been escalating chaos. The solution then? A responsible solution doesnt exist as has been mentioned. Its time then to cut our losses, continue to coldly ingnore their losses and get back to seeking our national interests in more productive ways.
jeff –
Thanks for the compliment.
Listening to the President’s press conference this morning, it seems that his policy in the event of civil war — if one gets started, US troops leave — is the exact opposite of yours.
You demand that if a real civil war gets started, the only “humanitarian, that is liberal” response is to stay and fight. The President cites that as the only circumstance that would justify an early withdrawal. Until now, he has opposed such premature withdrawal under any circumstances until victory is achieved.
We always knew the President was no liberal (except in his Keynesian economic policies). By your lights this makes him no humanitarian either, I suppose.
All we need now is a civil war and George Bush and Rory O’Connor can be on the same page.
Hallelujah!
Jeff –
I may have mischaracterized your position.
I represented you as advocating the necessity of the US military remaining in Iraq in the event that a civil war breaks out…
…upon rereading your post I understand you as saying that the US military must remain in Iraq lest a civil war break out.
These are not contraditory positions. But they are not identical either.
So for the sake of argument, take Brian Whitaker’s Lebanon-style scenario: what would be the humanitarian and liberal course, in your view?
My apologies for the sloppiness, regards — Andrew
>this is what we must be discussing now
Too bad you didn’t want a discussion *before* going to way.
Too bad you didn’t want a discussion when they faked a photo op of Saddams statue being taken down by Chalabi’s cohorts at that time you just wanted to gloat.
Too bad you didn’t want to have a discussion when Shrub said “Mission Accomplished” at that time you just wanted to flex you liberal warmongering muscles.
Too bad you didn’t want to have a discussion when Saddam was captured as if to think that would solve all the problems.
Too bad you didn’t want to have a discussion when the Abu Grahib pictures were released instead you wanted to excuse the sad and pathetic behavior as just something that goes on in a war.
Too bad you didn’t want to have a discussion when the fake constitution was passed thinking that would solve all the problems.
Too bad you didn’t want to have a discussion when the iraqi election was held. You instead chose to live in a fantasy world thinking the election would solve all the problems.
Too bad you didn’t want to have a discussion when we reached a 1000 soldiers being killed or when the 1500 mark was reached or when the 2000 mark was reached. You just chose to ignore those bodybags and instead chose to chastise the people demonstrating.
Now you want to have a discussion?
Go ****** yourself.
Why are we judging the outcome of the war using the same overly optimistic time frame as Bush? Sure, Afghanistan was quick, but every other tyrant in the ME went to school on that one. Saddam simply ran away and opened up the field of battle to every political or religious gang in the region, ala Lebanon. We left Lebanon after we got bombed, but we have to stick this out until one country makes it to consensual governemnt, when Iraq’s own military and institutions are strong…maybe five years?
It seems we have now corrected our mistakes and are fighting correctly. The Golden Dome bombing was another futile incitement to civil war, which probably will not happen now that the populace knows these people are barbarians. They don’t want war any more than the Lebanese did; unfortunately, we left the Lebanese to it.
Read Ali’s take at http://afreeiraqi.blogspot.com/2006/02/civil-war-is-it-close-and-is-it-really.html
Oh, and Thomas, you forgot the Handshake of Death photo with Rumsfeld and Saddam in your list of sins.
Andrew,
I meant what I said in the first post: I’m asking more than answering. I’m not sure. I do believe that cutting and running now is simply irresponsible. So what is responsible? What’s possible?
JEff, your premise that ‘cutting and running now is simply irresponsible’ may be mischaracterisation. ‘Cutting and running’ being redefined as ‘allowing the citizens of Iraq to manage their own affairs’, which they are better able to do than us foreigners, might work better. Then if you review ‘irresponsible’ and find a better description might be ‘laissez faire’, we get to the solution that is all I can see as workable.
Two very brief points: If anyone has the moral authority to point the way out of this debacle, I think it is the troops on the ground. Let’s listen to what they have to say.
Second point: As long as the United States feels it necessary to police the world or to unilaterally influence events to its favor in any of a number of sovereign nations, we are going to have problems like this. Hence the way forward is clear (at least to me).
In the process of being “responsible” we may have to re-visit the issue of selective service. The volunteer armed forces are stretched very thin and if we are going to go for the “long hard slog” maybe a few “responsible” citizens in this country should think about doing their fair share. And speaking of fair share, the fifteen year slog is going to cost something green as well. Are liberals willing to pony up the dough for this? We already know that conservatives will never raise a tax for this (mis) adventure, let alone for something like universal health care. The question of how long we will continue this is going to come down to this last issue…money. John and Jane Q are not going to fork it over for a bunch of Arabs. Does anyone here remember how the US responded to the Khmer Rouge when they entered Phnom Penh and ran that country into the dumper. Screwed it up royally then made a wide-eyed bugout…we did. Our CEO is already setting the stage for this by saying (yesterday) that the decision to withdraw from Iraq will not be made in his term. He is leaving that for the next president. I reckon the plan is to limp to 2009 and declare Mission Accomplished II. In any case, we Yanks have done this war on the comparitive cheap. If asked to really make a sacrifice the country will balk. In that case…may have to let Mother Nature take its course. Sorry Iraqis…don’t leave the light on.
Jeff – there’s no point having this discussion so long as you are unable to free yourself from the fundamental belief that while what we are doing now may not be working, there is, somewhere, a “solution” that will make everything alright. You can’t say that you are honestly open to suggestions unless you are also open to the conclusion that nothing we do will help the situation. Even if that is ultimately the wrong conclusion, there can be no confidence that it is not until you have rationally considered the possibility, which you are clearly unable to do.
There is also no point having this discussion so long as the current administation is in charge. They are simply not competent to design or administer any effective policy. The one guarantee we have is that whatever this administration does will be the wrong thing, executed badly.
That is why the only sensible course to advocate is immediate withdrawal.
Hmmm …. yeah; and just look what GWB ended up installing in Iraq. Ironic, isn’t it?
[...] How do I think it should end? How should we fix this? I do not know and I am afraid I don’t see anyone today who does. I will still say — as I did in the Guardian’s Comment is Free some months ago and as the paper’s Mideast editor said more intelligently than I — that we on the left have a responsibility not to abandon the people of Iraq and to have a plan, not just for leaving but for finding some path to peace. That the White House is now apparently considering recruiting Syria, occupier of Lebanon, and Iran, who too recently was at war with Iraq, to get them out of the mess they made is either painfully ironic or just pathetic. But I won’t presume to understand the politics of the region sufficiently to prescribe a path myself. I just wish our leaders on any side would and could. [...]