« Jesus! | Main | Two Words »
Leaving Iraq
David Adesnik wonders whether John Kerry will leave Iraq in a precipitous manner. I think it's misleading to frame this as a question about US domestic politics. The left-wing of the Democratic Party doesn't have enough influence to make anyone do anything, as the past twenty years of history have pretty clearly shown. Certain concentrated interests on the left can exert power over certain narrow topics of special interest to them -- unions on trade, African-American leaders on affirmative action, feminist groups on abortion policy -- when the interests on the other side are diffuse. The war in Iraq isn't like that at all, and Kerry's policy will be determined by the usual mix of what he thinks is right and what he thinks will appeal to voters at or near the median. Far more important in this context will be the results of the Iraqi elections, which are scheduled for far too soon after Inauguration Day for a Kerry administration to have any real influence on them.
The vote is likely to be farcical as a procedural matter, but the upshot will be some sort of coalition of the Kurdish parties with the leading non-Sadrist Shiite parties. Either way, however undemocratic the composition of the new government will be, it will be a lot closer to a democratic regime than anything else on the table, and the opinions of its leaders will constrain American options. Kerry promises to clearly disavow an interest in a long-term US military presence in Iraq through the construction of permanent bases, so its reasonable to assume that unlike a Bush administration a Kerry administration won't try to put a thumb on the scales when Iraqi leaders deliberate over when they want to ask us to leave. Thus, most likely we will be asked to leave, not immediately, but to start producing a schedule for departure. Iraqi leaders will want more US assistance in the form of money and goods for their government and less in the form of legitimacy-undermining American troops running to-and-fro around the country. Over time, the Iraqi government should defeat the Sunni insurgency since a Shiite regime would have a larger population base, a larger source of external financial support, legal claim to the oil fields, and a certain amount of sympathy from other states around the world simply in virtue of being the official Iraqi state.
Now will the resulting, victorious Iraqi government be a democracy? That strikes me as doubtful. It's initial creation will be through a deeply flawed election. The tendency is for multiethnic states to have trouble consolidating democracy. The tendency is for oil-rich states to have trouble consolidating democracy. The tendency is for states not surrounded by democracies to have trouble consolidating democracy. The tendency is for warfare to undermine liberal and democratic norms everywhere. And the pattern in the Arab world is for "emergency laws" passed to cope with temporary crises to stay on the books forever and ever. Ideally, though, if we get some kind of non-totalitarian, consociational, quasi-sovereign country with the formal properties of parliamentary democracy (like contemporary Lebanon) that would be a basis from which a process of reform, liberalization, and democratization could be launched over time.
This is basically the National Intelligence Council's optimistic scenario -- "tenuous stability" -- and it really is achievable if we (a) aim for it, rather than for the creation of a quasi-colonial platform for US military power and oil companies, and (b) avoid provoking another regional conflict that would tend to tear the fragile Iraqi state apart.
October 20, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83433de8c53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Leaving Iraq:
Comments
A stable Iraqi government is not going to happen without a stable Iraqi civic infrastructure. That infrastructure is currently under complete US ownership (see Naomi Klein's Harper's article). After the 1991 war, Iraqi's built up their entire country, and now those same tasks are being done by American companies and contractors, leaving the Iraqi people complete out of employment and making them want to pick up guns - and then be so desparate for money that they'll trade the guns back since they can't get any work save training to kill any Iraqis who get out of line.
If a Kerry administration can excise those corporations from running the free market (that failed in Chile and Argentina) in Iraq and spend money getting Iraqi people working especially in civic minded projects (rebuilding entire cities) then stable government should naturally follow. Of course that's a big hope as well, but it seems slightly more plausible, cost efficient and safe.
Posted by: dstein | Oct 20, 2004 10:21:07 AM
Whereas the right wing of the Democratic Party has the power to run errands of the Republicans. The Democrats who supported Bush's doomed war know now that they were wrong, useless, and worthless during that debate, but they are unashamed. It's the people who were right about the war who are wrong about everything.
Adesnik should vote for Bush. The Democrats don't need him and the twelve people who care what he thinks, and having him in the Democratic Party would be harmful.
Posted by: Zizka | Oct 20, 2004 10:24:14 AM
I think that the Galbraith plan, as outlined in the NYRB, is a workable and likely plan. This is the plan that envisions an independent Kurdish state and some form of partition between the Shiites and the Sunni. The resiults of the elections will push the Kurds further towards outright independence, while giving the radical Shiites more power. Perhaps some deal can be brokered that allows Turkey to accept an independent Kurdish state in exhange for concessions that give them a greater chance to join the EU.
Posted by: Michael A | Oct 20, 2004 10:28:25 AM
Far more important in this context will be the results of the Iraqi elections, which are scheduled for far too soon after Inauguration Day for a Kerry administration to have any real influence on them.
I don't think that Matthew understands the plan in Iraq. The January elections are NOT the elections we should be most interested in. They only elect a group that is to write the permanent Constitution.
They IMPORTANT election will be those that take place after the the permanent Constitution is written -- the elections for a permanent government. Those are scheduled to take place in late 2005.
And it is blindingly obvious that Kerry will have cut-and-run by then. Not because he has "given in" to the left-wing of the party. But, rather, because HE IS the left wing of the party. First sign of trouble, and Kerry will abandon Iraq just like Clinton abandoned Somalia.
Posted by: Al | Oct 20, 2004 10:35:50 AM
As far as cutting and running goes, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the priority of the next President, whoever he is, won't be getting us out of Iraq honorably and expeditiously. The question of "who will leave Iraq" is a wash; the real question is who is more qualified to put the pieces together in Iraq in a way that will enable us to leave on the best possible terms. I think Bush's record proves he is not a viable choice.
Also, it seems to me that an election to determine the body to write the constitution is, in fact, quite important. If an Iraqi constituency feels disenfranchised and excluded from the constitution-framing process, you can forget about that constituency supporting the constitution and the ensuing government.
Posted by: Handle | Oct 20, 2004 10:47:36 AM
I think Kerry's Iraq policy will be dictated by facts on the ground.
With Bush out of the picture, the uniformed leadership will (at long last) be able to speak honestly (about the situation over there, and Kerry will be free to follow their advice. They may say we are doing more harm than good and should withdraw ASAP.
Posted by: grytpype | Oct 20, 2004 11:00:55 AM
Handle,
Thank you very much. I couldn't agree with you more except for your assertion that Bush is not the right man for the job. Iraq must be stabilized and we must move out of the country in a planned methodical manner, not a wholesale pull out. Finally we have reached a point where we are discussing practical goals with a common picture from both sides. Please, Al and Handle, continue.
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 20, 2004 11:02:03 AM
I think it's much more likely that Bush will pull out precipitously if things get too bad. He is likely to redefine success, declare victory and bug out. Whoever is President, I just hope there's some option other than bug out or stay forever.
Posted by: erasmus | Oct 20, 2004 11:07:26 AM
"The vote is likely to be farcical as a procedural matter, but the upshot will be some sort of coalition of the Kurdish parties with the leading non-Sadrist Shiite parties."
I'm not so sure about that. Certainly it's what the U.S. is aiming for at the moment, but it looks like Ayatollah Sistani is pushing for a more genuinely democratic alternative:
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/559
Of course, the unifying platform of that alternative is likely to be demanding a U.S. withdrawal from the country, but Sistani has a pretty good track record of getting what he wants.
Posted by: Swopa | Oct 20, 2004 11:12:27 AM
First rule of thumb: anything blindingly obvious to Al must be untrue.
Second rule of thumb: Matthew should stop wasting his time reading, much less responding to, the jejune commentary of one David Adesnik. People who live in fantasy worlds aren't worth the time of proud members of the reality-based community.
statement of fact: there is no bush policy on iraq other than to keep the mess from collapsing in the next 13 days (the first success of bush in iraq!). there is zero reason to believe that bush, whose administration has underestimated the needs for iraq at every single frickin' turn, won't cut and run if necessary politically, nor, frankly, is it the job of the president to continue to prosecute a war that has no public support (i'm talking prospectively now).
Posted by: howard | Oct 20, 2004 11:13:17 AM
I believe (and hope) that Kerry will start getting out of Iraq in January 2005. 'Stabilizing Iraq' and 'getting out of Iraq' is exactly the same thing.
If Bush is re-elected by some miracle, I believe he'll escalate with disastrous consequences. It'll be the Nixon/Vietnam thing all over again.
Posted by: abb1 | Oct 20, 2004 11:19:38 AM
Perhaps some deal can be brokered that allows Turkey to accept an independent Kurdish state in exhange for concessions that give them a greater chance to join the EU.
That seems a bit unlikely. Hurrying up the negotiations for accession is not an option (especially not when the current EU "plan" for having Turkey join seems to be to wait some 15-20 years while the country gets up to specs and hope for that the current controversy surrounding the issue will have dissipated by then) and it would likely be impopular with just about everyone in the EU aside from the Turks, and possibly not even them depending on how much they are opposed to an independent Kurdish state.
I have no doubt that an ideal plan from the EU's point of view would be for Turkey to drop its Kurdish area altogether and let it join with the Kurdish state or such, as this in one fell swoop might pave the way for taking care of a lot of the things that still appear scary about Turkey (lack of minority rights and human rights abuses, some of its undemocratic features concerning the government and the military's status, the risk of "adopting" a Kurdish insurgency into the EU's borders, and for that matter to some extent Turkey's prospective influence due to its size), but I don't think I need to note that the Turks are unlikely to feel that membership is worth that...
Posted by: G. Svenson | Oct 20, 2004 11:23:39 AM
As far as I can tell there are four basic options, two of which are extreme and unlikely: complete precipitous withdrawal, or major escalation (more troops, pacifying and occupying the country).
In between it seems like the priority is pacifying "red zones" (and, perhaps soon, the Green Zone) to accelerate reconstruction, humanitarian assistance, and the civic infrastructure needed to hold nationwide elections for a constitutional congress. I believe we have to options here: do it with soldiers and marines, or let Iraqi forces do it. Thus, the next president's choice breaks down to attacking insurgent-held areas with U.S. forces or delay, hopefully building up an Iraqi force that consists of more than peshmerga, and letting them get a grip on insurgent-held areas. Both choices with the objective of creating conditions on the ground conducive to putting Iraqis back to work on reconstruction and letting them organize for elections.
Tough job for any administration. I think Bush's missteps and planning negligence have made the job immeasurably harder that it should have been, but we're stuck with what we got now.
Posted by: Handle | Oct 20, 2004 11:26:59 AM
Handle,
Very good breakdown of the situation. The problem I have seen is the proposal that the Iraqi troops be trained faster; You short cut their training and you will send them out unprepared to do the mission they are being asked to execute. That is one of those shortcuts that will draw us in longer and deeper.
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 20, 2004 11:38:09 AM
Kerry promises to clearly disavow an interest in a long-term US military presence in Iraq through the construction of permanent bases, so its reasonable to assume that unlike a Bush administration a Kerry administration won't try to put a thumb on the scales when Iraqi leaders deliberate over when they want to ask us to leave.
Matt: I certainly defer to your expertise in this area, but, it seems to me the incentives for either a Kerry or Bush administration are overwhelmingly against a long-term presence in Iraq, if for no other reason than domestic policy concerns. Body bags ain't popular with the American people, and we already have bases in the Middle East in other places.We're moreover not likely to be spurned by any Iraqi government in our efforts to buy their oil.
After initially missing the boat with too few forces, it seems to me that the Bush administration (and a future Kerry team) comprehends the "legitimacy undermining" nature of the U.S. occupation, and, even if a large quantity of reinforcements were available, they wouldn't be sent. So, the principal question in this campaign with regard to Iraq is: will the withdrawal/Iraqization process be orderly, gradual and deliberate (allowing time for the continual build-up of domestic security forces, and for the construction of legitimate representative govenment) or will we high-tail it out of there.
I confess to not seeing too much daylight between the two candidates on this score.
Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Oct 20, 2004 11:39:55 AM
See Juan Cole. I think Ayatollah Al-Sistani's electoral coalition will put the U.S. in an untenable position and we will finally be forced to leave shortly after January--precipitously, ignominiously, hastily. It will not be President Kerry's doing.It will be all of Bush's mistakes cumulatively coming together, and President Kerry's ability to recognize reality on the ground that will propel us to finally leave.
Charles
Posted by: charles | Oct 20, 2004 11:42:45 AM
"Over time, the Iraqi government should defeat the Sunni insurgency since a Shiite regime would have a larger population base, a larger source of external financial support, legal claim to the oil fields, and a certain amount of sympathy from other states around the world simply in virtue of being the official Iraqi state."
Of course it hasn't really happened in Sri Lanka yet and if it was obvious we needn't have bothered getting rid of Saddam.
Posted by: Jack | Oct 20, 2004 11:57:32 AM
I agree that elections are the name of the game here, although I am thinking that a reasonably successful election (i.e. one without widespread attacks on voters and that is not transparently fraudulent) will be a major step towards a face-saving exit for us. An election that gives substantial representation to Sadrists and Sunni fundamentalists would be embarrassing to Bush, but if Kerry wins our election, who cares?
The question is if credible, effective elections can be held without first using force to break the grip of insurgents in the north, central, and south provinces. If not, is it counterproductive to attack with US forces?
Posted by: Handle | Oct 20, 2004 11:59:54 AM
Neither Bush nor Kerry will have the option of cutting and running, whatever exactly that is. Nor has Kerry given the slightest indication that a permptory withdrawal is in his plans. Kerry has consistently talked about "winning", and even increasing troop levels. He hopes to be able to attract some foreign troops to help with the job, but if they are not forthcoming he will probably increase US troop levels anyway.
One very significant difference between Bush and Kerry on Iraq is, as Matthew mentioned, that Kerry is at least willing to disclaim publicly the goal of a permanent US military presence in Iraq. If Kerry can make a credible promise of an eventual US withdrawal following the establishment of a broad-based and stable Iraqi government, it may draw at least some of the energy off of the insurgency, whose raison d'etre is the need for violence to *force* a US wuthdrawal.
Bush was handed an opening in the debate to make the same commitment and pointedly refused to take that opening. The stubborn, inflexible, faith-driven Bush is still committed to his original aim for Iraq - a friendly and stable American client state chock full of a US military bases, providing an an intimidating US regional presence and serving as the logistical hub of US military operations in the Middle East. This is now a bizarrely unrealistic goal, but Bush gives every impression of sticking with it.
The biggest difference between Bush and Kerry, whether we're talking about Iraq or any other foreign policy issue, comes to this: Kerry is an intelligent and deliberative realist, willing to listen to expert advice and to tailor and revise plans to fit changing conditions in the real world, and Bush is a fanatic and moron, who disdains expertise, restricts his information to the reverberations inside his own self-imposed echo chamber and, like a wild animal, is driven more by the instinctive and irrational promptings from his poorly-informed "gut" than by higher cognitive processess. Since Bush has shown no ability to formulate realistic plans, or even to revise his aims downward in the light of changing realities which he obtusely refuses to recognize, we can expect more of the same criminal bungling in a second Bush administration, both in Iraq and elsewhere.
My own inclimnation is to think that it is a terrible mistake to mount a big military effort - as Bush seems ready to do - to "pacify" the Sunni no-go areas with force. This will only prompt more violent and more widespread resistance to the US presence. The US should focus its efforts on preserving some semblance of peace in those regions whose residents and leadership actually *want* the elections to take place - particularly in the Kurdish north and Sunni south. They should make it clear to the rejectionists in the Sunni heartland that elections are going to take place, with or without significant Sunni participation, then withdraw their forces and leave it to the sheikhs and less fanatical militias in the no-go cities to make the moves necessary to pacify their own communities and neutralize the more doctrinaire and rejectionist elements, if they want any part in the future governament of Iraq. If they can't do this, and if the elected constitution-writing Assembly thus ends up with a minimal Sunni presence, then so be it. We can help the Shiites and Kurds consolidate a state and establish security in their own regions, and then leave it to them to decide what to do with the recalcitrant Sunni fundamentalists and jihadists in the middle of the country.
The best way to diminish the power and influence of the violent Sunni jihadists in the eyes of ordinary Iraqis is to refuse to provide them with the military provocations that feed their propaganda. Hopefully, once the residents of Anbar province and Ramadi and Samarra realize that there *will be* and Iraqi state, and that they are going to be left out in the cold, with no power and all the Iraqi oil wealth locked away from them in the Kurdish north and Shiite south, unless they can suppress the jihadist violence, they will take matters into their own hands. This is what seems to have happened to some extent in the Shiite regions, where it mainly is the moral power of Sistani rather than US force that has helped to weaken Sadr's Mahdi army.
Unfortunately, Bush's idiotic Iraq adventure likely means we're in for decades of violence and struggle in Iraq, probably with varying degrees of on again, off again US military involvement. We've opened a pandora's box of violence in a vital, oil-rich region of the Middle East, a region surrounded by nervous states, vital to the plans of foreign powers and attractive to foreign profiteers. It is much easier to open the box than to put the furies back inside.
I suspect whomever is elected in the US, there will be a more or less permanent US presence in the north. The Kurds want autonomy at least, and outright independence at best, and will likely *want* some sort of permanent US assistance to protect them from worried, hostile states to their east and west and Sunni mujahedeen coming in from the south. And as Seymour Hersh has reported, the Israelis have also been working with the Kurds.
And how is the security of Iraq's south to be protected? How long will it be before they have sufficient trained and armed force to provide their own security? It seems likely that southern Iraq will be a scene of US/Iranian conflict for some time, whether direct or via proxy, as both states struggle for influence.
The Galbraith plan discussed by Michael A. is interesting. I discussed that plan, and some less sober variations of it, in an essay a few weeks back:
http://newcenturyjournal.blogspot.com/2004/09/three-state-dis-solution.html
Posted by: Dan Kervick | Oct 20, 2004 12:47:23 PM
I agree with the overall conclusion, but I would disagree with this:
Over time, the Iraqi government should defeat the Sunni insurgency since a Shiite regime would have a larger population base, a larger source of external financial support, legal claim to the oil fields, and a certain amount of sympathy from other states around the world simply in virtue of being the official Iraqi state.
I think the Sunnis are winners. They fight much nastier and they fight to win. Plus, they're the overwhelming majority in the Arab world. The Shi'ites have a victimization complex that stems from the martyrdom of Ali and Husayn. The Gulf States have a lot of people with money in them who will back the Sunnis. Likewise, Sunni governments have more clout and leverage points with America than do Shi'ite governments.
Posted by: praktike | Oct 20, 2004 1:03:15 PM
I think the Sunnis are winners.
Why should anyone care whether the Sunnis beat the shit out of Shiites or Shiites kick the shit out of Sunnis?
What's happening now is that they are joining forces and beating the crap out of Americans. And that is, indeed, unfortunate.
Posted by: abb1 | Oct 20, 2004 1:18:18 PM
What Howard said.
Al's contempt for what he imagines Kerry's policy will be allows him to evade any discussion of Bush's actual policy disaster. Smart move, Al!
Whoever takes over in January is going to have a hell of a mess to deal with. Bush will presumably make things even worse. I have no idea what Kerry will do -- Bush's strategy, like Sharon's, seems to be to the "facts on the ground" method of screwing things up so bad that they're unfixable. But let's get Bush out of there. We don't need two, three, many Iraqs.
Al, you ignorant slut -- Kerry is not the left wing of the party, I am. Kerry and Edwards have been careful not to encourage us doves and half-doves too much. I expect to hear from a lot of angry doves during Kerry's first term in office.
Al's tack here may be his way of setting up an attack on Kerry once he's won, and thus a concession of defeat. Al probably isn't as dumb as he pretends to be, and may be aware that the poll numbers aren't as good for Bush as they seem.
Posted by: Zizka | Oct 20, 2004 1:21:21 PM
Nah, the guy is anti-war. He's still anti-war, gotta be. He voted against the Gulf-1. I believe there will be a major policy change in Iraq. No more bombings of the cities. US troops out - Muslim troops in. Saudi troops in the Sunni areas, Paks in Shiite areas or something like that. End of story.
Posted by: abb1 | Oct 20, 2004 1:57:13 PM
Zizka-
Love the commentary, and coming from a dedicated career soldier it may be hard to believe, but I really appreciate the liberal left. You guys act a sanity check (even though sometimes it is just to make sure you are completely pissed off). But you cannot write off the actions in Iraq as a failure so quickly. I, and most people I know, realized going in we would be there a while and that it wasn't going to be easy. The problem I have is I don't want the work that we have done there to fall to ruin by a hasty and uncontrolled pullout. Your commentary and that of others on this site seem to lead me to believe that there are many on the left who are dedicated to wrapping things up, and moving out in a controlled manner, ensuring the Iraqi security is able to do it’s job. Uncontrolled rants of outrage that Bush lied to the American public and took us into an un-winnable war do nobody any good. Here’s where we are, how do we move ahead. I believe we are moving in the right direction now. The realistic proposals I have seen from the left are the things currently being executed. So how would Kerry do it any better? Radical policy changes would only derail progress that has already been made.
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 20, 2004 1:58:52 PM
Progress? Jees. What would a catastrophe look like, I wonder.
Posted by: abb1 | Oct 20, 2004 2:13:43 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
