The Iraq Campaign

By Cernig

Fareed Zakaria has a long-ish op-ed in Newsweek that certainly bears reading, in which he gives his opinion on what Obama should be saying about Iraq. Mostly, it's very close to the mark as he puts words in Obama's mouth - for instance this:

"In six months, on Jan. 20, 2009, we will have a new president. But it is not clear that we will chart a new course in the ongoing war in Iraq. Senator McCain has promised a continuation of the Bush strategy—to stay in Iraq with no horizon in sight, with no benchmarks or metrics that would tell us when American troops can come home. In 2006, when levels of violence were horrifyingly high, President Bush and Senator McCain said that things were going so badly that if we left, the consequences would be tragic. Today they say that things are going so well that if we leave, the consequences would be tragic. Whatever the conditions, the answer is the same—keep doing what we're doing. How does one say 'Catch-22' in Arabic?

"I start from a different premise. I believe that the Iraq War was a major strategic blunder. It diverted us from the battle against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan—the people who launched the attacks of 9/11 and who remain powerful and active today. We face threats in Iraq, but the two greatest ones, as General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have testified, are Al Qaeda (which is wounded but not dead) and Iran. Both are a direct consequence of the invasion. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before 2003, and Iran's influence has expanded massively since then.

...We have to look at the situation we're in now and ask, what can we do to create the best possible outcome at an acceptable cost? Economists warn us not to dwell on 'sunk costs' and, while painful, we must move beyond the mistakes of the past and focus on the possibilities of the future.

But this:

"It is encouraging to see the Iraqi government act against Shiite militias in Basra and Sadr City, which sends a signal that they will be equal-opportunity enforcers of the law."

Is wishful thinking at best and stupidly accepting a well-spun tale at worst. And this:

"More needs to happen. Militias remain powerful in many parts of Iraq. The Sunni tribes that have switched sides must have their members enrolled in the armed forces and police (a process that has moved very slowly so far). Constitutional discussions that have been postponed again and again need to take place soon."

Really is hoping for a pony, truth be told, no matter what the US threatens to do or not do. And that's the great, gaping hole in the entire thing - the dichotomy that means American foreign policy is stuck in a tar-pit of its own creation.

Maliki has, from neccessity and probably a goodly deal of both Bush administration *and* Iranian steering, become a grand master of the ever evolving promise. He'll just keep shifting the goalposts and saying reconcilliation is just around the next corner, so don't withdraw just yet. Those who keep thinking that "we broke it" means something akin to "we own it" instead of "we should pay for it and get the hell out of the shop without breaking anything else, letting the owners run their own business as well or badly as they
wish" will fall for it.

Unfortunately, a large segment of the "Very Serious People" foreign policy set seems to want to embrace "we own it" as a philosophy, perhaps merely because it justifies them telling US politicians what they should be telling the Iraqis to do and then being able to blame the Iraqis when it isn't done. Consequently, as a result of bi-partisan pressure, the American people have largely accepted "we own it" even if they don't really want it in its broken state. The "we own it" meme keeps getting in the way, for serious policy thinkers and the public alike, of getting the hell out of the shop.

Meanwhile, Frank Rich examines how the Iraq issue will likely play out politically in the presidential elections and he too is generally on the mark. McCain is hamstrung by "his role in facilitating the fiasco in the first place" and the American public no longer care about the fairy tale that we're winning the Surge so we must stay to see the Iraqi political Surge happen .

That Mr. McCain makes an unpopular and half-forgotten war the centerpiece of his campaign may simply be a default posture — the legacy of his Vietnam service and a recognition that any war, good or bad, is still a stronger suit for him than delving into the details of health care, education, tax policy or the mortgage crisis.

Even so, it leaves him trapped in a Catch-22. If violence continues to subside in Iraq — if, as Mr. McCain has it, we keep “winning” — it will only call more attention to the internal contradictions of a policy that says success in Iraq should be punished by forcing American troops to stay there indefinitely. And if Iraq reignites, well, so much for “winning.”

However, he too seems to think US politicians should be seeking "leverage" over Malki and the Green Zone elite in pursuit of the latter making reconcilliation moves they don't believe are in their own interests. The only successful leverage must come from Iraqis themselves, and it cannot come while the US is still trying to run their shop for them to the benefit and desires of America rather than Iraq.