I am tending to the solution that the US should just pull out. This will potentially have very bad immediate consequences like Drum says. But in my mind this just increases the importance of a Baker-lead consensus decision on pulling out.

I think Digby's thoughts are important here as well:

I hope people understand that James Baker and Robert Gates are in the Bush family business not the "wise old sage who will do what's right for the country" business. Indeed, their entire lives have been devoted to bailing out Bushes.(And they haven't always been successful. Jimmy may have pulled one out for Junior in Florida, but he was called back, much against his will, to get Poppy re-elected and failed.) Their job is simply to try to save Junior from ignominy and that is not necessarily what is in the best interest of the US or Iraq.

It is clear that no matter what this country does now in Iraq, it is impossible to "fix" in any substantial way. We didn't just break the pot at the Pottery Barn, we blew up the whole neighborhood. Going in was, as James Webb wrote back in 2003, "the greatest strategic blunder in modern memor" the war's execution has been the greatest series of tactical mistakes in modern memory --- so much now that it's impossible to see a way out that even leads to some kind of authoritarian stability, much less democracy. And it's very, very easy to see how it can lurch out of control in a dozen different ways.

James Baker and Robert Gates and Joe Lieberman aren't magicians. And they are not going to let anybody say they and Junior "lost Iraq." Don't get your hopes up about these "grown-ups." They are just looking for a way to keep Bush (and in joe's case, himself) from looking like a loser --- and real withdrawal (as opposed to cosmetic) is not going to accomplish that. Everything they do for the next two years will be to save Bush's face and the Republican party, period.

I'm sorry to be so cynical, but I lost any hope that the Bush administration was capable of doing the right thing a long time ago.

Anybody who's waiting breathlessly for Jim Baker's recommendations is either a fool or a tool.

2: To the extent I'm waiting for them, I'm waiting for the effect on what's within the range of acceptable Washington opinion. It's not like there's some overlooked silver bullet in the vicinity.

Managed civil war and a deal in principle with Iraq's neighbors. That's the best I can come up with, and I think that has a reasonable chance of extending the war into new countries.

I was a little leery of clicking that "read more" link...

Have the Republicans proposed anything to fix Iraq, or are they too busy deriding any strategy that isn't 'stay the course' as 'cut and run'? I mean, seriously. Unless they're proposing that we just stay in Iraq forever, we're going to have to leave at some point, and prudence would suggest maybe planning how.

They've made having the discussion itself a sign of cowardice.

Sorry, Labs. No one's fooled.

(a) No. (b) Yes, for any definition of success I find comprehensible. (c) Pretty much. There are, I am certain, tactical considerations requiring that we cut-and-walk-slowly-away-continuing-to-look-big-and-scary, rather than actually cutting-and-running, but that's a difference of weeks to a few months, not more.

Fuck, Clown-pwned.

one question is: "does staying there just drag out X amount of death/destruction over a longer period of time?"

another is "could some aircraft and missiles prevent large set-piece armies from forming and keep the destruction on a somewhat smaller scale, or does it require troops out in the actual neighborhoods?" This is assuming we now are locked into a 'state of Chaos', qualitatively distinct from 'state of policeable order'.

another is "what power centers in Iraq gain and which lose politically if US stay in Iraq" and are those ones we want to help soas to achieve a stable non-evil regime as quickly as possible.

I have no idea what the answers are to those questions though.

There's pulling out and there's pulling out. Iraq is in for a terrible time either way, but I'm clinging to the hope that there might be *some* way of pulling out that minimizes the disaster. One thing they haven't tried yet is saying, "OK, we'll be gone in exactly a year, no matter what. You have that amount of time to pull together a consensus that will have to survive after that."

The benefits:
a) Reduce legitimate suspicions about long-term U.S. ambitions in the country, thereby making it easier for the U.S. to work with parties involved in the political process.
b) Perhaps focus the political process in Iraq in a helpful way?
c) A planned exit helps the U.S. save face. If the South explodes and the U.S. actually has to retreat (a real posibility), it'll look a lot worse.
d) Perhaps would temporarily sap some of the nationalist-driven violence in Iraq (though it wouldn't do address sectarian violence).

Drawbacks:
a) Bush administration not disciplined enough to do it. If they started to make real progress in Iraq and things settled down a bit, they'd be right back to trying to secure a permanent place in the country.
b) If it doesn't work, they're well and truly fucked.

Would 20,000 troops have a serious positive effect on the situation?

I thnk that the addition of 20,000 troops would add an element of hilarity to the war. 200,000 troops probably wouldn't win it either, but that move would be plausible enough to be lacking in hilarity.

Something that I am ignorantly wondering about, in terms of whether it's possible or whether it's ethical (or sort of immoral and monstrous).

Is there any way for us to pull out and let the civil war happen, while making promises of reparation and alliance to 'whoever's in charge when the dust settles'? Our presence seems to be prolonging the chaos by maintaining the civil war in a state that kills people but doesn't settle anything; can we promise that "Once things are stable enough that we can give you non-military aid without it being destroyed, we will"?

6: Didn't you get the memo, Cala? Bush's strategy isn't "stay the course." It's "adapt to win."

12: that would be my uninformed guess. If it's right, well, McCain is in even worse shape than I thought.

12, 15: Yeah, and AFAIK, 200K is outside the realm of the possible without a draft. (And not quickly within the realm of the possible with a draft.)

a) No, there are no realistic values for n that make this work. There are some funny, made up values, like a googol-plex.

b) Well, duh, yes.

c) This is the wrong way of framing the question.

The first thing we have to do is start talking about "the least bad" option for Iraq.

Second, we have to recognize that while our troops hold back total explosions in violence, our policies now also hold back total healing.

Putting 1 and 2 together, I get that the question we should be asking is "what is the least bad way to withdraw from Iraq?"

My general sense is that soft deadlines are better than hard deadlines, because we can use soft deadlines to force the parties of the civil war to the negotiating table. Roughly: "reign in your death squads or we leave by the end of the year."

Clearly the only possible resolution to this is the commission of hara-kiri by all of the senior members of the administration who played any role in starting this thing.

What we need to do is raise troop levels such that (the number of U.S. troops) = (the number of Iraqi citizens * 2). Each Iraqi citizen will have two U.S. soldiers personally assigned to him or her. These two soldiers will guard their assigned citizen 24 hours a day, taking turns in 12-hour shifts. This will put an end to the violence.

13: That's what I meant in #4. I think we can do more than that: we'll have a broad sense of the parameters of a political deal, and we'll arm the various sides until they come to a deal within the circumscribed area.

It is monstrous, but I can't think of a better solution.

Roughly: "reign in your death squads or we leave by the end of the year."

This is not an attractive strategy either, since the ones with the current upper hand think, "Excellent!" And then start ramping up death squad activity. There isn't any good option. There's going to be a horrible, atrocity-filled civil war, it's going to spread past Iraq's borders, and we will be blamed for generations.

You can thank Antonin Scalia and the great state of Florida for this unmitigated disaster. Well, that's where you start, anyhow. The list of people getting Thank You cards is a very long one.

20: I'm very dubious about our capacity to successfully pick, or create through military aid, a winner -- doesn't this always end up with horrible puppet governments that collapse when we stop pumping support into them? I was thinking of completely stepping away "We don't care who wins, but once someone has control, we'll help rebuild your sewage system and send medical supplies and textbooks and electrical engineers."

but once someone has control

1. It won't be anybody we like, or who likes us.
2. I sincerely doubt Iraq will continue to be a unitary state.

But do the pessimists really think that there isn't much difference in how the U.S. leaves? Is there really no way at all to mitigate the disaster? Should they really just leave tomorrow?

Says this pessimist: how the US leaves only matters to the US.

22: I don't think we'll pick a side. I think we change sides as one or the other side gets too strong militarily. If the Shiites are suddenly sweeping through the Sunni, we'll start giving the Sunni intelligence. And if the Sunni seem too strong, we'll help the Shiites. And, yeah, I think the end result will be fucked up, but the end result is going to be fucked up anyway.

I think the least bad option is to turn it over to some consortium of powers which does not prominently include us. Whether it's the UN, or some ad hoc condominium, doesn't matter. Right now, any bad actors can claim we were bad to them first, and so they won't deal with us; afterward, this claim has less plausibility.

Everyone in the US seems to be discussing what is the best policy FOR THE US in iraq; not what is best FOR IRAQ.

Anyway, 18 is a good start; those who f##ked it up will not mend it.

If the Shiites are suddenly sweeping through the Sunni, we'll start giving the Sunni intelligence. And if the Sunni seem too strong, we'll help the Shiites.

In other words, we'll play the same role we did during the Iran-Iraq War, perpetuating the killing fields in the pursuit of "strategic balance". And the end result will be everybody on every side (and all the spectators) hating us.

Every time I start talking about this, I just get angrier. I really don't think there has been a worse foreign policy fuckup in the history of the United States, and that's an unbelievably high bar to clear.

1. It won't be anybody we like, or who likes us.

Can we affect that through bribery? Credible promises of extensive humanitarian and infrastructure aid, to be cashed in when Iraq is stable enough (in however many pieces) for there to be some point?

some consortium of powers which does not prominently include us

Unfortunately, no such consortium exists that is even remotely up to the task, nor that would be willing to take the job.

The situation is hopelessly fucked, and I for one am pissed off because, pace Drum, I really do believe that more troops with a more clearly defined mission in the early days might have managed not to make a complete hash of things. If we'd deposed Saddam and then immediately made sure to provide infrastructure and stability (which would have meant imposing martial law, probably, but doing so while making sure everyone had water, electricity, and a chicken in their pot) we *might* have been able to create a peaceful transition to someone we'd have found acceptable after training our replacements. Note that this is, of course, grossly imperialist, but hey, it was the best option once we'd decided to go in.

It's too late for that now, though, even with a ton of troops; things have gotten too far out of hand, and putting a bunch more troops in isn't going to stop the civil war. But I do admit that I'm not thrilled with the idea that having destroyed a country, we're going to just go "oops, our bad" and leave. I say get Syria and Iran and Egypt (Lebanon?) and whoever else into a room with us so they can tell us if there's anything we can reasonably do. We probably have to accept that even in the best-case scenario we've completely screwed the women of Iraq, who will likely end up with much more repressive laws than they lived under when Saddam was in power. Not that the Bush administration will care about that, but I do. It's maybe remotely possible that with the help and advice of Iraq's neighbors, we *might* be able to replace Saddam with another strongman, or carve the country into three parts and beg the UN to put troops at the borders in perpetuity to try to prevent civil war.

But I don't think either of those are likely. I think we'll end up coming up with some face-saving way to pull out and say we're leaving it in the hands of Iran and Syria. The American public isn't going to know or care if that's like leaving the fox to take care of the henhouse.

And of course I could be completely talking about my ass. Middle east foreign policy is not something I actually know much about.

And the end result will be everybody on every side (and all the spectators) hating us.

Yeah, but that's going to be true in all cases. And some of the spectators--the ones, like Iran, Turkey, Syria, etc., who will set the terms of the end result with us--won't hate us as much as they once did. I suspect the Kurds are going to really, really hate us, though. (Did you know that there are something like 30 mil. Kurds in contiguous land, and that the Kurds are 20% of the Turkish population? Terrifying.)

Can we affect that through bribery?

Possibly, though I suspect the general preference among most Iraqis would be for us to just stay the fuck out of the equation forever.

Credible promises of extensive humanitarian and infrastructure aid

Given the bang-up job we've done with that so far, how much credibility will any American promises carry? I'm not just trying to be contrary here, honest. I don't think it has fully sunk in on most Americans just how completely we have screwed the pooch here.

Yeah, that's the problem. I was thinking of a shiny new administration in '09 having shiny new credibility, but we're probably 'perfidious Albion' for a generation, now.

we can't "turn it over" because noone else is going to send in a few hundred thousand troops. Our options are just throw the whole thing up in the air and let it land where it does, or keep holding on to whatever influence we've got.

Iraq is caught in an intensifying cycle of bloody revenge. It reminds me of street gangs writ large. Has there ever been much success at stopping revenge cycles? They have to stop eventually, but they seem to take a long time, and what's often involved is either a horrible, atrocious event (i.e. Rwanda) or a new enemy.

That said, pulling out truly is anti-American.

That said, pulling out truly is anti-American.

What could that possibly mean?

I have to believe that the neocons saw this coming all along, and they want it. Hell, I saw it coming (as did just about all the rest of us traitors). They want the decades-long regional conflict. They want to draw Turkey and Syria and Iran into a wider war. They want us to stay and draft ourselves to do it. They've made their own reality, all right.

What could that possibly mean?

I think he's slamming Catholics.

You people are insane.

We knew that, but why specifically?

supposedly one reason the French and Germans were against this war was that French and German companies had oil contracts with the old regime which would ripen in the event that sanctions were lifted.* we refused to honor the contracts, natch.

what if we promised to honor those old contracts? Or, what say, promised China or anyone else a whole heap of oil rights? Leave none for ourselves. Any chance we could get serious UN involvement? Perceived legitimacy goes a long way.

True, this would be auctioning off stuff that isn't ours. But that would be the least of our sins, at this point.

*Caveat: I know nothing about anything.

obvs. you'd know if you were American.

But, seriously, never-quit, win-against-all-odds are ideals that are pounded into us. Admitting defeat, pointing out that victory is impossible - these things will never sit well with many Americans. No matter what.

Were I a Democratic Politician, what I'd begin saying is "we've already paid our debt to Iraq. We don't owe them anything. We've given them money and provided 3 years of security at the cost of our sons. It's time for them to stand up for themselves, and quit sucking at America's teat." And move from there.

Paid our debt to the Iraqis? Not in any moral sense we haven't. I doubt acting further on our sense of moral responsibility will do the Iraqis any real good, but, man, "sucking at America's teat" would get a politician stoned in a just world.

Any chance we could get serious UN involvement?

The UN doesn't have a standing army. It only has whatever troops the member nations are willing to donate. If you were in charge if Country X, would you be willing to commit a bunch of (or any) troops to Iraq to be IED fodder? The second question is: why would the various insurgents view a UN force any differently from a US one (other than viewing them as being less well-armed and less likely to shoot back)?

Pretty blue berets?

Michael, I love you, but thank God you're not a Democratic politician.

But, seriously, never-quit, win-against-all-odds are ideals that are pounded into us. Admitting defeat, pointing out that victory is impossible - these things will never sit well with many Americans. No matter what.

Good. If I were the Dems, I'd set up committees to get a "full and true accounting of the Iraq fiasco." I'd have releases every other week noting that it's worse than the Administration had let on. And, in the end, I'd say that unfortunately, it's impossible to unscrew the pooch, that we have a portfolio of other issues to deal with, and that we were going to have to let the Iraqis settle their own problems. And if Americans think it's unconscionable that we gave up, they can and should beat the fuck out of their local Red population.

49. Almost certainly true. It remains that it's very difficult for me to conceive of America stomaching a pull-out.

"Pull out and pray" is a time-honored American tradition, Michael.

I think having the Iraqis vote on a pull out is a good idea.

Sometimes I wonder about Kevin Drum:

A pullout now would almost certainly touch off a full-scale civil war, the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and the eventual establishment of a Shiite theocracy.

Let's see: most informed observers have concluded that evidence points to the occupation as fuelling the violence, but Drum advises we should ignore them and proceed from the assumptions of conservatives who have been consistently wrong about everything Iraq-related from day one... why, exactly? Why is it that the sort of people who confidently predicted democracy and ponies should be listened to now that they're confidently predicting that their disastrous blunder could only be the least of possible evils?

Hundreds of thousands have already died, with no sign of a let-up in the carnage. And Iraq already has a civil war, one of whose participants is a heavily-armed foreign military with full freedom of maneuver, overwhelming air dominance, no idea what the hell is going on and an advanced case of battle fatigue. And that's a situation that's supposed to be worth prolonging because the alternatives are too horrible to contemplate? Come on.

Of course the question is how you define "now." Obviously it's just polite for the US to phase its pullout over a few months in order that whatever local allies it has left can get the hell out of the country before they're strung up. But beyond that, it's hard to see what the reason could possibly be for prolonging the agony. Except for domestic politics, of course.

44: so what we need is a plucky band of second-string soldiers who battle against the odds until on the last play of the war Rudy sacks al-Sadr?

Well, you're correct that it will play very poorly in the Red states, but it's what they're going to get one way or another. There hasn't been a poll in two years that hasn't had a solid majority favoring troop withdrawals. The game is exactly as Tim frames it: Bush lost this war early on and decisively. Now, just like always, the Democrats have to clean up his mess.

Apo/SCMT in '08!

"why would the various insurgents view a UN force any differently from a US one (other than viewing them as being less well-armed and less likely to shoot back)?"

Because it would represent the entire world, however imperfectly. There is something to that. And I think we underestimate the effectiveness of other nations' potential armies at our own future peril. Europe and China are both big, rich places.

The willingness of other countries to devote troops might depend on what real financial incentives there are, if any.

Dr. Slack; the consensus that said our prescence fuels the violence also said that a pullout would lead to civil war, IIRC.

Apo, mate, I know, but my gut feeling on this is that people are unhappy to be there, but they'd also be unhappy to leave and watch Iraq decimate itself.

but they'd also be unhappy to leave and watch Iraq decimate itself.

Tell those people to send me a letter; I'll be happy to help them figure out how to enlist.

Yeah, the first paragraph of Michael's 59 is correct, which is why the situation is so fucked. As long as we're there, we (and our proxies, e.g. Iraqi police) are the primary focus for unrest and violence. Once we're gone, various factions will start to fight each other instead.

But Tim, the scary part of your 50 (from an incredibly selfish partisan perspective) is that if/when we leave and the country becomes a fucking mess, it'll be because we, the Dems, fucked it up. We won't have the cover that the Rs have with Afghanistan (i.e., another war and a forgetful population).

58:
Very few countries have the logistical capabilities to support open ended commitments in faraway lands. Especially not the PRC.

61. Actually, from what I've been reading, this is becoming the case, anyway. Sunnis and Shias used to band together to fight us, but nowadays they're madder at each other.

59: the consensus that said our prescence fuels the violence also said that a pullout would lead to civil war Not so AFAIK. The consensus that a pull-out would necessitate civil war comes overwhelmingly from the representatives of the US, members of the 'Coalition' or those (like Talabani) dependent on them for personal security. That sentiment is not characteristic of those (among them the majority of Iraqis) who see the US presence as fuelling the violence.

Once we're gone, various factions will start to fight each other instead.

They started fighting each other a long time ago. The 100+ bodies a day showing up on the streets of Baghdad aren't the result of firefights with the US Army.

I'm really unconvinced that our troops are the primary focus for violence now. Have they figured out how many Sunnis were kidnapped from the Ministry of Education this morning? 100? 150? I also heard on the radio that some 100,000 are leaving their homes (for destinations within Iraq or outside the country) per month. Already it seems like it's safer to be an American soldier than an Iraqi waiting on line at a police recruiting station.

Our presence used to be a provocation for the insurgency, but I don't even think that "insurgency" applies anymore. Iraq is in a sectarian war, and I'm not sure how relevant our presence is to the momentum of that war.

pwned.

62: The point is that we define the problem as we'd like. It's not "if/when" the country becomes a mess, it's "the country is a mess, Americans will die as a result, and we will try to minimize the blowback."

We're going to have to send in McDonalds. We've got to make these people lazy and fat. It's the only way they'll stop fighting.

61: Agree with 64 that they're already fighting each other. The choice is between Iraqis vs. Iraqis and Iraqis vs. Iraqis vs. US Army fighting everyone. I'm just not seeing how the first option is supposed to be inevitably more destructive.

71. We're definately putting a damper on the violence. We kill some of the worst offenders, the presence of US troops, when they're around, prevents violent outbreaks. Things would be worse if we left.

72: That means we never get to leave, though. The situation is worse now than it was a year ago, which was worse than two years ago. It will be worse in a year than it is now.

73 -- guess you should have thought of that before you went and invaded, huh?

I'm also not sure I really buy the contention in 72. Sectarian violence is the more current and more hyped story now, but the fighting between US troops and insurgents is still a constant. US troops still have to initiate violence of their own (cf. the recent failed push to try to pacify Baghdad); it's not like they're just refereeing the conflict. And unless something has radically changed, US troops still seem to have basically no intel about what's going on around them. This makes them the most heavily-armed and least-informed faction in the civil war, not a brake on civil war.

66: I should have said "will be freed up to dedicate all their resources to fighting one another."

72 is silly. We kill some of the worst offenders, and that creates more. Things probably will be worse when we leave, but they're going to get worse if we stay, as well.

I'm still for trying, desperately, to figure out if there is anything we can do to stabilize the situation even slightly, and if so, for sticking around. Which I know makes me a hawk by leftish standards nowadays. Tis American naivete--there must be *something* that we can do to make things better! My point is only that I'm not arguing for an immediate pullout myself, even though I don't think our presence is at all helpful, either.

73. One of the issues here is that the Iraq War doesn't directly cost most of us anything. It's paid for on credit, and fought by other people. If continuing the war meant a draft (after a national call to enlist) and some raised taxes, people might think about the whole "let's just keep on keeping on" idea a little harder. And I wish I had a pony.

I'm sorry for the pedantry of 77.

We kill some of the worst offenders, and that creates more.

I'm not sure about this. What I meant was that we kill (with permission!) some of the worst sectarian killers. Sure new ones pop up in response to greater sectarian violence, but it would be very weird if culling out some of the most ruthless, most organized didn't have an effect.

I am frustrated by repeatedly hearing people say that the Iraqis aren't doing enough to stablize the country, that the government there isn't standing up to terrorists, and bla bla bla. They have been thrust into chaos since the invasion and now there are a lot of pundits and politicians who see how increasingly fucked up things are getting over there but of course it's THEIR fault because they're not "standing up for themselves".

Slack, of course I can't be for sure, but my suspicion is that when we leave, Iraq will look more like Rwanda.

would be very weird if culling out some of the most ruthless, most organized didn't have an effect

The hydra effect?

79: What I meant was that we kill (with permission!) some of the worst sectarian killers.

a) I think what B was getting was "and then their families join the fray."

b) Anyway, you know this... how? One of the central stories in three years of Iraq has been the US not knowing who the worst sectarian killers are, and in many cases unwittingly enabling them. Do you know something we don't?

82: Fair point. You could make the point that capturing and killing the worst of the worst--the Husseins--didn't make things better.

To bring in a concept from another thread, I think being a ruthless and well-organized killer is, like being an op-ed columnist, not that uncommon a skill set. You'd have to kill a whole lot of pundits before the supply of commentary dried up.

So…draft the pundits?

Anyway, you know this... how?

It was in the NYT a couple days ago. Some column mostly about Moktada al-Sadr. Part of the column addressed how, b/c of the political situation, the army actually asks permission to go after "rogue" militia leaders, which Sadr sometimes grants.

Hydra, shmydra. Organized violence at least has the benefit of being organized. And it's not like in a power vacuum there aren't plenty of people who are perfectly capable of joining existing organizations or forming their own, the more so if the situation that's been created is one where your alternatives are be a sheep or be a wolf.

Not to privilege the real over the symbolic too much, but this has been a disturbing day. I found out that a friendly acquaintance of mine was recently brutalized by a stalker. And now I've just read this piece about the massacre at Beit Hanoun . And I have to say, man, people can really do some awful, horrendous things when they put their minds to it.

As far as the Iraq pullout goes, I'm confused about why this can't be handled analogously to other wars in which there isn't/wasn't a clear winner. Get the belligerants together, without preconditions, and start talking it out. Obviously it's not a great solution, but there just doesn't seem to be a great solution to be had. As many of us here have pointed out, there is folly in relying to completely on otherizing your enemies. We're in the position where at some point, we will have to recognize al-Sadr's forces, and the other various paramilitaries, as legitimate partners in remaking some kind of country from the ruins of Iraq. Whether that's now, when there's still a lot to salvage, or later, after everyone is completely disgusted by everything and just wants to go home, is up to our solons on the Potomac. Needless to say, I'm not terribly optimistic about them doing anything useful. I only hope the leaders of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will have some way of impressing upon the imperialists the point that further violence serves no one.

Holy crap, that's horrible. I hope your friend recovers.

Wow, I hadn't clicked through yet -- yes, best wishes to her.

87: the army actually asks permission to go after "rogue" militia leaders, which Sadr sometimes grants.

So, you basically have a situation where one militia leader is authorizing US Army hits on other militia leaders. Great. That kind of illustrates my point, I think.

89: Holy shit. I'm sorry, I hope she will be okay. And I hope the fucker that did it spends as much time in prison as the judge is allowed to give him.

89: Shit, that's insane. Sympathies to your friend, hopefully she gets some justice.

89: Crap, both links are awful news. Hope your friend pulls through, and her attacker gets locked away and never hurts anyone else.

It'd also be nice to think there's a chance he could stop being such a sick fuck with the right kinds of help. And that the killing stops in Israel and Palestine . And a pony.

Y'all guys are such fucking optimists. And that is not a joke. The worst foreign policy mistake or implementation in American history is some serious fuckup.

Jordan and Syria are internally fragile. They are going down Lebanon is looking very shaky.. When Israel is surrounded by failed states with terrorist training camps...or whatever amorphous insanity persists west of Baghdad etc there will not be a big enough wall.

Iran is not Iraq. They are both much smarter and more determined. "Persian Empire" (s) is a serious legacy. I don't know to what degree nationalism or Shiism drives, but they really don't like those arogant fucks on the Arabian Peninsula. Saudi oil facilities are vulnerable, worked by Shia.

This is so much worse thanyou think. When Scowcroft and Bush say "For God's sakes, don't kill Saddam" it isn't oil margins they were worried about.

I could be wrong. But I think most likely America will be back in the Middle East in a decade with millions. Or start tossing nukes. I really think one of those two will happen.

I think most likely America will be back in the Middle East in a decade with millions.

Millions of...?

Soldiers, presumably. He's been talking about this for a long time.

So, you basically have a situation where one militia leader is authorizing US Army hits on other militia leaders.

Sorta. Sadr is like the founder and CEO of the militia. But he's apparantly getting more comfortable these days with his political power, and therefore not as big on civil war. He's been denouncing/throwing out the more violent members of his militia, and sometimes we kill then.

And it's not like we have an option to not cooperate with Sadr. His people are in all levels of government and law enforcement.

He's been talking about this for a long time.

bob, Scowcroft, or Bush?

100 was Stanley.

98:Bob (me) has been talking about this for a long time, since 9/11, actually. There are a lot of things involved in my...desire? acceptance? of WWIII (IV) none of which have much to do with terrorist threats (directly) or rampaging islamofascist dhimmitude.

Just forget it.

99:"and therefore not as big on civil war. He's been denouncing/throwing out the more violent members of his militia"

How do I put this? Sadr is not quite Sistani's Mini-me. But Sadr deeply understands that if he can gain/keep the approval of Sistani, and join the constituency of Sistani to his own, he can control the Shia part of Iraq (to what degree it can be controlled. Hakim is closer to Iran, and would like an independent South, so has less incentive and less smarts about Shia internals.

Gilliard thinks Sadr comes out on top. Sadr has astonished me. He even has decent relations with the Kurds.

Both Sadr and Sistani have directly threated Saudi Arabia.

So I just read this post and comment thread (lots of criticism, a bunch of pointless Israel-Palestine fighting, only one person asking where the troops are coming from). Also, it doesn't explain why most of the actors involved would behave the way Greg wants them to, but I really don't want to (though I do, at present) believe that our best option is uncontrolled civil war with however many more hundreds of thousands (!) more dead. I don't have a point, I'm just depressed.

For instance, enforced partition with multi-national occupation strikes me as immoral (can't partition without Iraqi consent, which doesn't exist; the actual process of partition itself causes larges numbers of deaths what with all the refugees and internal ethnic cleansing), impractical (multi-national, ha!), and unlikely to solve anything (what happens when this multi-national force which will never exist leaves?). But it doesn't seem worse than anything else. So, like I said, depressed. Isn't there a hilzoy post somewhere about how despite how bad it will be, we have to withdraw immediately? Anyone know where I can find that?

Experience in other places and history dictates that a rough troop: insurgent ratio of 10:1 is required to control the insurgency (at least when it is localised). Technological superiority does not help very much. Also, a military force of this sort should also have the will to sustain regular casualties for extended periods of time (years). All this is predicated on the ability of the military presence to establish a modicum of support in the local population.

I suspect that unfortunately, the situation in Iraq allows for none of these options to be practicable. I also doubt that an initial, large troop deployment would have helped significantly. At best it may have delayed the present sectarian conflict by a year or two. The truth is that as far as the US is concerned, its best short term option is to withdraw. Of course, this would mean that the civil war in Iraq would not stop, and there would be consequences for US policy in the future, but I dont think there is any other viable option. Finally, it is a pipedream to expect that the US can hope to persuade other countries to provide a fig leaf to cover its withdrawal, and take on the burden of managing this civil war.

Thanks all for the sympathy. It's disturbing to think about how close any of us might be to something terrible happening, even though we know that those things happen every day, everywhere.

On the other hand, I just went to my first neighbohood organization meeting last night, and it went pretty well. The folx involved with that want to put up a new community center in our integrated, working-class neighborhood, and it looks like there's a good chance of that happening. I guess I take some optimism from that, i.e. that even though people around here have a lot of problems, most of which the government and the corporations exacerbate, sometimes you can do a little bit to ameliorate them.

What's unfortunate about the Middle East is that, due to the oil, there's always going to be bulls being set loose in one china shop after another. So even if you take some Jewish Israeli kids and some Palestinian kids and put them in a summer camp together (as a relative of a comrade of mine does) thus making some positive progress, however incremental, all it takes is some asshole in London or New York deciding he needs a bigger spread on his oil futures and all that good work gets erased.

I still don't see why more multilateral talks couldn't happen, assuming that the political climate here allowed for it. All of that "we don't negotiate with terrorists" shuck has mostly fallen by the wayside.

it is a pipedream to expect that the US can hope to persuade other countries to provide a fig leaf to cover its withdrawal, and take on the burden of managing this civil war.

This, absolutely. Both parts. Other countries have no desire to walk into this bloodbath, and hope at the same time to teach America a lesson about hubris and the limits of military power.

The NYT adds a comment.

96: Has it right. We'll either be in the M.E. for decades with lots and lots of troops, we'll nuke some cities, or the Israelis will do the latter when they get scared enough.

Or someone comes up with a pocket-sized fusion gadget capable of powering an SUV and fueled by politician's B.S.

"it is a pipedream to expect that the US can hope to persuade other countries to provide a fig leaf to cover its withdrawal, and take on the burden of managing this civil war."

Maybe it's a pipe dream, but isn't it, you know, worth trying? By giving up the oil rights, we would be giving up the only thing we really hoped to get out of this adventure. That may be lesson enough in hubris. The very act of begging for help would go along way towards satisfying the need for come-uppance. Or it might. And in exchange for taking over, these countries would stand to gain a possible windfall, if they were ever able to get the pipelines working. Without any culpability for having started the mess. If we have no other option, isn't it a bit silly to dismiss the idea?

From the NYT link:

Before considering troop reductions, General Batiste said, the United States needs to take an array of steps, including fresh efforts to alleviate unemployment in Iraq, secure its long and porous borders, enlist more cooperation from tribal sheiks, step up the effort to train Iraq’s security forces, engage Iraq’s neighbors and weaken, or if necessary, crush the militias.

We've been trying to do all of these things for three years, and we're further behind than we were when we started. I just don't see what anybody expects to change in the next year that's going to make any of these goals realizable. Levin's quote is even worse:

"They have got to reach a political compromise in Iraq. The leaders have got to make concessions involving power sharing and resource sharing or else this insurgency and the violence continues to spiral."

Except they don't have to do any of the above, we just wish they would. And in more cases than not, I doubt they even can. Too much of America is still in the "failure is not an option" mindset. Not only is it always an option, it's the most likely outcome of a foreign occupation. We haven't even been able to foster a functioning democracy in Haiti, a tiny island just off our coast with which we at least share some cultural markers. The idea that we're going to do it in Iraq, where we don't understand the society and most, if not all, of its neighbors have a vested interest in the project failing, is the truly naïve one.

By giving up the oil rights, we would be giving up the only thing we really hoped to get out of this adventure.

What oil rights? Don't the rights still belong to the Iraqis? And given that, why wouldn't other countries just wait for things to play out, and then make deals with the winner? That minimizes their exposure to anger over "colonial" exercises of power, and still gets them the oil. I don't really think the Iraqi factions are attacking us for being American so much as for being in their neighborhood with guns

It's the Iraqi's oil, but who is going to extract it? It takes a lot of investment to acheive that, and the way it is typically accomplished, if I remember correctly, is through a foreign oil company of some kind. If we were to stick around until such time that oil could be extracted safely, that would be an American oil company.

Sure, European companies could wait and make a deal with the Iraqis to extract their oil, but then, who wins that contract? There would have to be some sort of auction. Whereas if the potential bidders come to an agreement ex ante, they are in a better position to get favorable terms from the putative rights holders, Iraqis.

Whether those terms are worth getting stuck in Iraq indefinitely, I don't know, probably not. The idea would have to be, those countries would get the oil coming out faster if they got involved. But obviously that didn't work for America.

Maybe there would be no takers, but given the position we are in, it seems like something worth bringing up.

more realistically, it was something worth bringing up three or so years ago. at this point, you're all correct, we probably have nothing to offer.

Hey, everyone should read this superb post over at Making Light. A comprehensive summary of the situation in Iraq, and particularly of why it doesn't make sense to talk about American defeat or full-scale civil war as things that might happen in the future. They've already happened.

I think that Bob is right in that if we leave now we will be back later either with nukes or with overwhelming force and a no prisoners attitude. Stay the course may make more sense in the long run.

I think Bob is wrong, actually. About both the overwhelming force and the nukes. The latter just isn't practical, since people can't pump oil for you if you vaporize them. The former assumes that the economic, military and political means will be available to send overwhelming force back into the Middle East -- hardly a foregone conclusion after the Iraq debacle and with the ongoing softening of America's "hyperpower" position. The prospect of Israel trying to do something crazy is somewhat likelier, but also not inevitable, particular after the recent Lebanon catastrophe.

If you're looking for a likely flashpoint for WWIII, some kind of conflict with China would seem a better candidate, it seems to me.

This is a good post on the subject.

Michael says "But, seriously, never-quit, win-against-all-odds are ideals that are pounded into us."
Noone's actually denied this, so it must be true, but has it ever occurred?* British history is full of battles againt heavy odds, but my understanding is that teh US military won't engage unless it has a minimum 3:1 force ratio against the enemy.

* OK the Alamo. But you lost that.

has it ever occurred?

Maybe the Revolutionary War?

The French won the RevWar.

Does the Confederacy count as the US? (I mean, no, from my point of view, but the post-Confederate South is a significant input into US culture.)

I think the Confederacy lost, LB.

Sure, but battle by battle there's a myth of the outnumbered but heroic Johnny Reb succeeding against the odds.

Oh, gotcha. I'm not sure that's entirely a myth.