Abandoning Iraq?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in The War On Terrorism, The World, WarThe Washington Post gives us all an earful today.
“The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.”“What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground,” said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. “We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we’re in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning.”
This is both good and bad news. The good news is that they’re acknowledging that what they said before was wishful thinking wrapped up in powerful rhetoric to stir emotions and support. However, that’s also the bad news.
More bad news is that all of the sources for this story will only talk under condition of anonymity. That means they’re covering their asses. Of course the official company line will probably not own up to these things, but it’s almost too late for them not to. Once leaks like this starting appearing in the dam, the flood of information isn’t far behind. And that’s also why the messaging hasn’t been lining up as of late. I wrote about this just yesterday.
Now, is this article the end-all be-all? Absolutely not. But it’s telling because their are multiple anonymous sources on this one.
And let me offer that while there is a lot of “good” news out of Iraq, we all need to start accepting the realities on the ground. Whether you think the war was just or not, Iraq is going to be some sort of Islamic Republic and no amount of stories about troop movements or schools being built make that go away. And to be honest, the most important stories are ones like this because these talk about the lasting, over-arching effects of our involvement in the Middle East, which is why Bush & Co. went in to Iraq in the first place.
“We set out to establish a democracy, but we’re slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic,” said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. “That process is being repeated all over.”U.S. officials now acknowledge that they misread the strength of the sentiment among Kurds and Shiites to create a special status. The Shiites’ request this month for autonomy to be guaranteed in the constitution stunned the Bush administration, even after more than two years of intense intervention in Iraq’s political process, they said.
I urge you to read the whole thing, absorb it and realize our credibility as a nation depends on being honest with ourselves about what can be achieved.
This entry was posted on Sunday, August 14th, 2005 and is filed under The War On Terrorism, The World, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 14th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
Unfortunately, it was never a realistic expectation that a post-Saddam government would be a US ally. The merits of kicking Saddam’s ass (and there were many) were always tempered by the question of who would replace him. I shuddered when I first heard the phrase “Iraqi democracy”- all I could imagine was a freely elected theocracy. I’m just surprised that the Administration couldn’t see it coming. Guess someone would’ve had to listen to Sec. Powell- but that didn’t happen. They convinced themselves that beating Saddam would result in a pro-democracy, pro-US successor- based on faith, not on the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
August 14th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
Add complete ignorance of American history to this administration’s sins. In our own revolutionary war there was never complete alignment of interests, to the extent that a large minority decided to flee the country along with the Brits. Once they were gone we had a fighting chance at creating a working government.
Now we waltz into a country where a minority has held sway over a majority-those lines being defined by a 500 year old schism-and we expect to be greeted with flowers? To say nothing of the fact that we set up the Kurds in their own autonomous region, and now they are supposed to give that up (and share oil revenues) with the groups that stood by while Saddam gassed them?
Democracy exists where there is an alignment of major interests sufficient to allow compromise where there is conflict on minor issues. If there is no alignment there can be no democracy, just an ever changing set of oligarchs (if you’re lucky) or dictators (if you’re not).
The Bush administration is a perfect storm of benighted ignorance combined with religious and economic fundamentalism. Neither Jesus nor Adam Smith can help you if you’re too stupid to learn fom history.
August 14th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
It’s not about credibility and saving face as a nation. In the eyes of some you have none and never will. It’s about a way of life. Our very existance depends on how united we stand against a common enemy.
The problem with the West is that we are all too eager to argue amongst ourselves. We are getting too soft and our enemies know that, they are gaining strength from it.
I mean why did we invade Iraq in the first place? Some say it was oil, others say it was a knee jerk reaction after 9/11. Others say a war boosts the US economy. If anybody really thought we could convert these people then they are now getting a wake up call.
The thing is we can’t just walk away now. Pulling out the troops will just hand over Iraq to Iran and Israel will intervene anyway. They will not sit back and let Iran build the bomb. If we leave them all to get on with it what do you think will happen? Do you honestly think they will leave you alone. For sure you will get a respite but for how long and how many more teeth do you think the enemy will have by then. Israel will be gone, will you stand back and watch them become extinct? How will that make you feel? Rightly or wrongly we created Israel and gave them hope. But they are not welcome there.
Until every Westerner, every Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Seikh and none believer is out of the middle east, they will not rest. They have said it, we have heard them say it, how much more proof does the world need until they take it in. 911 came before Iraq and Afghanistan, and its just another excuse to the enemies of the West to continue their quest for world domination.
This is not about politics, this is about ideology. In the UK we have let the liberal classes convince us to let people into our country, supposedly fleeing persecution. We have welcomed them, housed and fed them, we have even changed our laws at the expense of our own people and what has happened, they throw it back at us and bombed us. Deep down they have a belief that their way of life is superior and purer than ours. They just don’t integrate well and don’t want to. It has been like this for thousands of years, its not a new thing. These people glorify in death.
Iraq was not as hardline as Iran and in hindsight should have been left alone and probably acted as a bridge between Israel and Iran. Saddam Hussain believed in nothing but his own power, he kept most of these fanatics in touch. Unlike the Russians and the Chinese, the Islamist will never embrace democracy because it does not go hand in hand with its core beliefs.
Yes we have made mistakes and Iraq should never have kicked off but it did and thats history now. But what it has shown us is how motivated our enemies are when we get just a little too close to what is going on. A bit like a hornets nest really.
The Atom bomb in their hands levels the game a little and its the end of our ways for sure. We may have made up the WMD as an excuse to steal the oil and gain a new ally in the middle east, and that may just happen if we stay and don’t let Iran bully us out. Iran building the bomb is real and not fantasy. If you believe once they have it, they will not used it then that’s your choice. Recent events like the be-headings, 911 and the London bombings should be evidence enough of how motivated and brutal they are. Were as we have shown responsiblity and a maturity whilst in possession of the bomb, the same can be said of the Russians, the Chinese and the North Koreans for that matter. Why? Because their way of life can integrate with ours. During the cold war the Russians clearly loved their children enough to want peace, the Iranians arm theirs and tell them to go out and kill.
The question I would ask of the US is has it the stomach to finish what it started? Your enemies don’t believe you have and will press on. And reading these forums convices me more and more of that. Forget all the politics and put it to one side for a moment and think how lucky you are to have the freedom to build this website and argue amongst your fellow citizens in a peaceful and democratic way.
August 14th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
[[Added]] Of course the US is far enough away from the middle east to be able to withdraw all troops world wide, close its borders, kick out those it suspects of wrong doing and try to build on its many mistakes. While its doing that it can build a big spaceship, land on the moon, build a big station and let the rest of us get on with it.[[/added]]
August 14th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
I’m inclined to agree with Jon Gallagher on this, but what’s the solution Jon?
Its easy to refect on the past, but what’s the solution?
Jon Wright adds that you can always withdraw from the world and become totally insular and start again.
August 14th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
If the US were to withdraw from the world, both the US and world economies would collapse. The US does a huge amount of importing and exporting, and we have become dependent on it, as has the world. That’s globalization smacking this idea down….
August 14th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
… but what’s the solution Jon?
If we pull out, it will be a profound victory for our old enemies, Al Quaeda, and for our host of new enemies in Iraq, some of whom, like Chalabi, were erstwhile friends. If we pull out we run the risk of destabilizing the region so badly that our access to MidEast oil will be threatened if not eliminated, and suppliers like Venezuela will be emboldened to take away our access. If we pull out there will be a solid threat established against Israel, and the nascent democracy in Lebanon.
But I see all these thing happening if we stay too. Remember that we embraced Chalabi, who was in bed with the Iranians (disturbing mental image that), and most likely revealed to the Iranians that we were listening to their comms. We raced past known, documented and mapped weapons depots because we didn’t have the manpower to guard them; now those explosives are vaporizing our troops. We experimented at creating a libertarian utopia with limited taxes and run by the right sort of people, rather than rebuilding sewers and power lines. We disbanded the Army, putting trained soldiers on the street with other unemployed folks, now we have IEDs combined with ambushes for medics and rescuers. And when the Iranians finally had an election, our procurator shook everyone’s hand in the middle of the night, then got the hell out of Dodge, with at least 9 billion dollars of Iraqi funds unaccounted for.
We completely lost this damned war when the administration wouldn’t put enough boots on the ground, and compounded it by trying to run reconstruction with a Kiddie Corps. Now we are desparately trying to spin up enough Iraqi troops to keep an LZ clear as the last helicoptes leave Baghdad. So bug out now, or wait to clear the 2500 KIA barrier? Do you think it will be any better then?
You already have people ready to blame Iraqis for forfeiting “what the Bush administration and America’s armed forces have given them” and starting to mutter about being stabbed in the back. Do you think additional months or years of troops losses will make anyone more “reasonable”?
In my worst case (yet most likely) scenario, Iraq is going to fall into three squabbling sections, Turkey will invade Kurdistan, the Saudis will extend protection to the Sunnie middle, and Iran will control the South.
So all of the lives we’ve expended and the money we’ve spent will gurantee Iranian control of about half the Persin Gulf oil reserves. And there won’t be a thing we can do about it. And we may be spending our time now training and arming the people who will bring all this about.
Maybe if we pull out now Iran won’t feel as pressured to restart its nuclear program. Doubtful since the one lesson any country can take away from the United States’ actions since 9/11 is that we won’t invade anyone posessing nuclear weapons, no matter how wacky and murderous (see Kim Jong Il).
August 14th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
Like PowerLine says, Bush ain’t leaving Iraq as a failure, no matter how many NYT articles claim it is.
“Islamic” was taken out of the title of The Iraq Republic according to the BBC, more on this as it is actually passed, or not.
Iraq’s liberated future is in the hands of Iraqis. And, as is so often the case, the liberals who want lots of human rights for women, for instance, are unwilling to kill their enemies to get those rights. The enemies of human rights seem to have no such compunctions. Very asymetrical.
The US Vietnam mess was, to a large extent, because in 1956 the US did NOT accept a Communist general winning a free and fair election; more anti-communist than pro-democracy.
If democratic Iraq becomes theocratic Iraq, is that a failure? The Bush-haters will say yes; but it’s always been a failure for them.
If Iraq splits peacefully, that will not be a failure. If there’s a civil war for a split, which the Sunnis seem to be threatening, it will be a failure.
But Iraq will lose, not America. (Just as Vietnam lost, not America.)
August 14th, 2005 at 11:26 pm
Well, what about the people who don’t hate Bush, but still think it’s a failure? Condemning the left for not liking this president’s policies doesn’t prove your point. And starting off the comment by quoting PowerLine to back up an assertion that Iraq isn’t a failure doesn’t really help your cause.
Listen, my problem is that it feels like we’re just abandoning these people, and I think that’s wrong. We shouldn’t be pulling the troops out, we should be adding more. I believe more boots on the ground would make a difference, but nobody is talking about the possibility because it would be hugely unpopular politically.
And as far as the Vietnam comment at the end, well…I’ll simply ask that you don’t put your head in the sand. We have to be honest about our actions and our history, otherwise our credibility will be destroyed.
One last thought.
I don’t think killing people to get more rights for women is something that most liberals would agree with, no. However, there are many different ways to achieve that goal. War is not the only answer and you’re treating it as such here.
And by the way, it’s not our duty as a nation to secure the human rights of every single person in this world. It’s our duty to protect our own people and our own interests. And personally, I’d rather be securing our borders than trying to get more rights for Iraqi women.
August 15th, 2005 at 9:35 am
I’ve always thought the goal of a united and democratic Iraq may have been a bridge just a tad too far. I would have settled for a peaceful Iraq, either as a single nation or three separate ones, that we can be reasonably sure will not turn out to be just as bad, or worse, than Saddam’s Iraq. Even America’s own democracy took decades to develop and mature, and even I, a hawk on Islamic supremacism if there ever was one, am not keen on a decades-long occupation of Iraq.
We may yet see a peaceful Iraq(s?) emerge in the coming years, in spite of that goal being undermined by the determination to forge democracy (as others here have already pointed out). Long before there were Islamic supremacists vs. infidels, there was “perfect” vs. “good enough” – the oldest rivalry of them all. That rivalry has played itself out once again in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
August 19th, 2005 at 5:28 am
More troops … is what we had in Vietnam, and it failed. Less troops means more Iraqi responsibility; even responsibility without as much power and authority as desired.
We don’t know what works best in the mid term.