I’ve been criticized in the past for suggesting that the core of our policy in Iraq ought to be “we won’t quit.” (and I’m very pleased that Bush seems to be doing at least one thing right, as in his speech he said that “We will never give in, We will never accept anything less than complete victory.” I kind of liked that…)
To those who’ve been gently (and even not gently) critical of this view, let me offer this L.A. Times story as some explanation of why I keep holding fast to my position:
Some Insurgents Want a Deal, Politician Says
Some Sunni Arab insurgent groups linked to Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party are putting out feelers for a negotiated end of fighting in exchange for a timetable for a U.S. pullout from Iraq, a former government minister asserted Saturday, amid fresh signs that upcoming elections have altered the country’s political climate.
…
“They are eager to start talking, and the United States should take that initiative and start moving,” Samarrai said.
Political solutions are inevitable, he said. “Nobody can crush anybody with weapons alone, and everybody knows that. We have to start talking. Let everyone sit and solve it, for God’s sake, because we are dying here like crazy.”
Samarrai acknowledged Saturday that the groups he was referring to — Sunni nationalist and “patriotic” groups, many linked to Hussein’s former regime, army and security services — form just a part of the insurgency. The U.S. believes they are responsible for the bulk of roadside explosions, car bombs and ambushes targeting coalition troops and security forces.
Note that I absolutely support negotiations, as I absolutely supported negotiations with the Sinn Fein…but negotiations with a clear and bright line – political disagreements, yes; violence, no.
I don’t trust these guys one bit. What will keep them from restarting thier terror campaign the minute the US pulls out?
We will need to maintain a small, but lethal rapid reaction force in Iraq for decades. Maybe is a stategic base somewhere out in the desert.
We can never completely leave Iraq.
Well that’s great news, because if these guys are willing to talk– they must really be desperate.
This is the classic end to a civil war — one group grumbles and gives up violence (while crossing fingers) while the other group threatens continued action if the violence doesn’t go away. Over time, both groups cool off.
Throwing AQ into the mix changes things. One could easily imagine peace-without-peace, where the violence continues but nobody is sure who is doing it. I would advise caution here. Perhaps one of the conditions of parole would be an active effort to stop the rest of the violence, but that is usually hard to do. I would also suggest caution that the Iraqi leaders don’t give up the farm in an effort to sue for peace. A seperate Bath/Sunni region (a little Iraq inside of Iraq) would be a mess that would take years to unravel. Another Fallujah.
I’ve heard that the American way is to “negotiate first, then make a deal” where the Arab way is to “make a deal first, then negotiate” — there are some cultural issues involved with reading and acting on reports like this.
What they are asking for is not entirely unreasonable. This is the deal we should offer: we arent going to set a timetable based on real dates. We will set a timetable for our withdrawal based on political and military metrics. When certain things happen (or dont happen) we will draw down X amount of troops from Iraq. For instance should violence fall below a certain number of attacks in a given city for a certain amount of time, we will withdraw a proportionate amount of those troops and replace them with IA. A nationwide schedule can be created down to the last US troop leaving. Of course if those goals are reversed it will be simple enough to return enough troops from nearby Kuwait, and since we are talking about a timeframe of years anyway, the IA will be much stronger anyway.
So basically we do what we are planning on doing anyway, but turn it into a negotiated settlement. Its win/win.
I said anyway a lot in that post, i realize that.
There was a story on alleged negotiations in the Sunday Times (UK) back in June, but the slant was considerably different: for one thing, the attempt by the U.S. to get the insurgents to stop aiding Zarqawi’s forces was rejected outright (“Our response was that we will never abandon any Muslim who has come to our country to help us defend it.”). The conclusion the insurgents drew from the negotations was also disturbing:
“It looks like the Americans are in big trouble in Iraq and are desperate to find a way out,” the commander said. “Why else would they have rounds of negotiations with people they label as terrorists?”
How much those two views have modified will have much to do as to whether negotiations have a future or not.
“I’ve been criticized in the past for suggesting that the core of our policy in Iraq ought to be “we won’t quit.” (and I’m very pleased that Bush seems to be doing at least one thing right, as in his speech he said that “We will never give in, We will never accept anything less than complete victory.” I kind of liked that…)”
Why should this be our policy?
In rebuttal, I suggest you “read this.”:http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_11_13_digbysblog_archive.html#113199610289038819
(Scroll down to the middle paragraphs beginning with a quote from Bush’s speech you approvingly refer to.)
Here’s the money quote: ‘”This is the very heart of the neocon view of this issue. The United States has behaved like a bunch of bed-wetters for decades in the face of this horrific threat.”
And “[Podhoretz] traces our wimpification all the way back to 1970 when a couple of diplomats were killed in the Sudan by the PLO. If we’d nipped that damned Palestinian bullshit in the bud by dropping some well placed nukes where they were most needed (The USSR), the world trade center would be standing today. We’ve never been tough enough for these guys.”
Is this an accurate understanding of your thinking?
A couple of things to consider.
a. We all know that at some point, there will need to be withdrawal, it’s simply a matter of when (2 decades from now? 3 years from now?)
The reason is because this defuses a lot of the nationalist sentiment that is driving the insurgency.
Of course, this has to be balanced by the fact that the US is currently helping hold up a government that has been elected, and that is a wonderful thing. We can’t just leave, and it would be deeply irresponsible to do so.
“Since we seem to be following better counter-insurgency strategies now”:http://www.liberalsagainstterrorism.com/drupal/, hopefully things will improve on a town by town basis.
(It goes without saying of course, that it would be better to have more troops, to staff these garrisons).
b. “Here is the case for leaving Iraq sooner”:http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200512/iraq-withdrawal, but of course, you need to be an Atlantic Monthly subscriber.
Me? I sure don’t know, and it would be good if others recognize that there are good arguments on both sides, and genuine experts on both sides. As Praktike often says, if Sistani isn’t actively saying the U.S. should leave, then we should stick around.
c. Irregardless of what we should do now, I keep tilting at the windmill over here, in insisting that the Bush administrations march to getting us into Iraq – the intelligence case, and the case sold to the public – “was based on falsehoods and misleading information”:http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007556.php
“here as well”:http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007001.php.
Is anyone here yet willing to consider this, even as a possibility? Or do you have omniscience regarding this question?
(And again, we are in Iraq now, we can’t go backwards to 3 years ago. But if misleading happened, the appropriate people should be held responsible.)
_Is anyone here yet willing to consider this, even as a possibility?_
I certainly think its possible that in making the case for war, some aspects may have been exaggerated. Notably, Kevin Drum expressly refuses to say that his contentions would affect whether “the overall weight of the evidence was sufficient to justify the war.” In other words, the so-called suppressed information may not be material to the big questions.
So why spend time on the immaterial? JC, you say you want to hold people accountable. Fair enough. But what time frame? When did Congress investigate the sinking of the Maine, the true causes of WWI, or whether FDR had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor? I think Joe Lieberman is right: “Those aren’t irrelevant questions. . . . But the more they dominate the public debate, the harder it is to sustain public support for the war.”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/13/AR2005111301062.html
Which is ultimately my suspicion. The timing of much of the criticism is intended to hurt the Iraq War while its still going on for the best political advantage. The President does not appear to have any remaining domestic policy. The only way his critics can get even is to make the Iraq War a quagmire.
P.S. I am interested in reading the Atlantic Monthly piece, which I believe is prefaced as a thought experiment, but my copy arrived by snail mail yesterday and I prefer to read the old-fashioned way, beginning on page 1.
“Is this an accurate understanding of your thinking?”
I think there is a fair bit of wiggle room between taking on terrorist sponsering states and entities, and initiating nuclear apocalypse. At least until Iran has a sufficiant arsenal for the job. There is in fact a legitimate point buried in that bit of demagogery: the longer we wait to confront a regime like Iran, the more devastating the confrontation will be.
“So why spend time on the immaterial? JC, you say you want to hold people accountable. Fair enough. But what time frame?”
More importantly, to what end? Bush isnt running for re-election, and certainly not this year. Congressional elections are next year, but who do you hold responsible? The Democrats on the Intelligence committee that voted yes? Or the Republicans on the committee that had the same information and voted yes? The only outside chance for making a sea-change is impeachment, and there is simply no chance this will happen (nor any evidence it should- and no im not going to argue about that, ive read the Senate findings).
There seem to me to be two reasons to fight this fight right now: 1. It feels good to say ‘i told you so’. 2. To impede the war effort. I think this one is the realm of the anti-war, bring em home left, some of whom seem to think more body bags and defeat are the best way to end the war.