Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Iraq Agonistes
I cannot decide whether to join in with all the hyperventilation over our withdrawal from Iraq (Ex. A, Ex. B) and ink a deal with Regnery for A Victory Lost: How Obama Defeated the United States in Iraq, and Murdered Puppies or take the time to defend the administration. The former would probably be a lot more fun, but some lingering sense of responsibility leads me to do the latter. Anyone who reads this blog knows that I have disagreed with the Bush and Obama Administrations pretty regularly on issues related to Iraq and Afghanistan, but I thought the Bush Administration did things pretty well regarding Iraq from 2006 onward and that the Obama Administration was correct to complete the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in compliance with the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration.
Let me just say a few things in response to some of the criticism of the Obama Administration by its neo-conservative critics (many of whom I respect and largely agree with on other issues).
1. Iran did win the Iraq War -- but in March of 2003, not November of 2011. If we were trying to contain Iran, knocking off that regime's mortal enemy in 2003 probably wasn't the hottest idea. A democratic, Shia-majority Iraq was always going to be friendlier with the regime in Tehran than a Sunni Arab-minority regime. You can still support the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 for any number of reasons, humanitarian or strategic, but you cannot then also complain years later about how Iran is empowered. Of course Iran is empowered. That was an obvious, easily-predictable risk we ran from the beginning.
2. Iraq is a sovereign nation, right? By our design, right? Well, if you are going to bust the Obama Administration's chops for not staying in Iraq, you then have to explain to me how we were supposed to stay in Iraq over the objections of the Iraqis themselves. My stance on staying in Iraq has always been that it was worth discussing -- so long as Iraq's leaders were willing to explain our continued presence in Iraq, in Arabic, to their constituents on live television. Anything else would be perceived as a continued occupation, exposing remaining U.S. troops to continued violent attacks. My college buddy Yochi Dreazen, who served as the Wall Street Journal's bureau chief in Iraq for two years at the height of the war, returned recently and discovered a massive disconnect between the debate in Baghdad over U.S. troops in Iraq and the debate in Washington over U.S. troops in Iraq. While we Americans were arguing over whether or not we should stay, the Iraqi voice was clear: they wanted us to go. I want to hear the administration's critics respond to the united opinion of Iraq's elected leaders and populace: are we to keep military forces in Iraq over the objection of the Iraqis themselves? If so, how is this not a new occupation? And does this Iraqi sovereignty we fought so hard for now not matter because of the threat posed by Iran? Because the one thing that drives me nuts about these criticisms of the Obama Administration is that they never allow space to discuss Iraqi sovereignty -- which matters in 2011 in a way that it did not in 2006.
Now, these are just the ways in which I would respond to the critics of the administration, who otherwise raise good points about U.S. interests, the threat posed by transnational terrorist groups, and Iranian influence in the region. Overall, though, I was convinced by the arguments made by Doug Ollivant, one of the men who worked on the Iraq staff of the Bush Administration's National Security Council. Read his essay -- which I am now posting for the second time -- and tell me why he is wrong.
I think you hit the nail on
I think you hit the nail on the head about honoring our agreements. Credibility is one of those critical commodities in international affairs, and America's took a serious beating over the past decade. We AGREED to be out by 2012, and we need to be.
Any future agreements we make will be viewed in a lens made of our past actions. If future partners see that we break our word when it suits us, they will be hesitant to make any treaties with us. If we honor our agreements, even if there is a national interest to break it, then we are more likely to see better cooperation in the future.
And we need cooperation. America can't be the world policeman by itself. In military matters, we've already been overextended, and the military is getting cuts in the near future. We won't be able to undertake major military operations solo for extended periods. Economically, the world is becoming ever more intertwined, and America needs to be seen as a reliable and honorable partner in order to secure trade agreements. As nice as it would be to be completely self-sufficient, it's simply not possible in the modern world.
It's really pretty simple.
It's really pretty simple. And consistent. Anything, anything at all, that the Obama administration does is, by definition, wrong. (Also, anything that it doesn't do. Equal opportunity blaming here.) Exactly why it is wrong will vary, depending on what it did, but being wrong is not optional.
This applies to foreign policy and actions, not just domestic policy and actions. So leaving Iraq is wrong, irrespective of the actual merits of being there, and irrespective of the desires of the Iraqi people and government. The good news is, staying would have been wrong, too -- probably because it was running counter to an agreement made by the Bus administration. Which means that the administration has the freedom to do whatever they believe (rightly or wrongly) is the correct thing to do; if you are to blame no matter what, might as well do what you think is right.
As someone who never hated
As someone who never hated Bush and never liked Obama, I'm dumbfounded at the anger over this. To me, this is the real mission accomplished. Saddam is gone and a new regime is in power. They no longer need us. Why stick around? I guess I'm not partisan enough to be outraged.
It is Oct 31, remember
It is Oct 31, remember these?
This is fun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wCo7UKb2eU
Most people know this one better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yh_4m_06c4&feature=relmfu
Really, Iraq is one of things that Obama got right. Then you always have to look around cause with this administration, if there is an action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It is the reason that I have a problem with administration, they go both directions at once.
US is getting out of Iraq, just wish America was not leaving an army of 10,000 diplomats and contractors behind. It is the invisible army. Obama is about regions not countries, the gulf is being staffed up.
It is slight of hand with OB1. Still I am happy that the troops are out. Now if we can just stop bleeding green cash.
Are we sure all of the
Are we sure all of the Iraqi's want us out? What about the Sunnis and Kurds? What about the secular Shiites like Allawi's party? Hell, even Maliki wants us to stay, he just isn't saying it publicly. The only group that I'm sure is totally opposed to our presence is the Sadrists. Well, maybe some of the SCIRIs as well. Much of Anbar and the north is having a collective "oh, crap" moment right now.
1. Was given to understand
1. Was given to understand that the Iraqis wanted the military trainers to stay on.
2. If not, we were wasting our time negotiating on the SOFA, anyway.
3. Point is moot. We're out of there.
4. Sounds like another instance where we had less influence on the matter at hand than some of my better connected friends led me to believe.
5. A martial stand down that the present administration takes (and deserves) credit for. Who can object to that, for Christ's sake?
6. Just hope the whole house of cards doesn't flop down at some inconvenient, later date -which is irrelevant to the circumstance of the withdrawal.
V/R JWest
.
This is a great post. Simple
This is a great post. Simple as that.
It's like that line from Good Will Hunting: "you
dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a fuckin'
education you coulda' got for a dollar fifty in late
charges at the public library."
And they should have added reading Abu Muqawama.
Nicely put, Thank you. Post
Nicely put, Thank you. Post more often, if you wish.
I've always argued the you
I've always argued the you break it you bought it justification for why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan shod have been fought better, certainly by the Bush administration.
But the point that Ex makes is valid, if no-one wants you there then you have nothing to gain by expending more blood and treasure.
Keep the bases, try to contain Iran as much as you can and get the domestic house in order.
And make sure each and every vet is taken care of to the fullest extent.
As always, a liberal will
As always, a liberal will make a big pretense of intellectual objectivity.... and then support the Democrats anyway. Maybe you're fooling yourself with that pretense, but you're not fooling anyone else.
As I said, it is regional not
As I said, it is regional not about Iraq. The troop levels and spending in the gulf has increased, it has nothing to do with combat troops anymore the conflict has matured.
A letter to Congress.
The US is supporting about a 11,000 man army in the Horn of Africa, they call it AMISOM http://amisom-au.org/ . Recently, Kenya troops moved into Somalia. The US denies that it is directly or indirectly involved with the Kenyan action. This year the US gave Kenya $24M in military assistance, per the US census report on military aid, that is a very large increase in AID to Kenya as compared to previous years. CIA drone bases have been built in the Horn region, the latest was in the Seychelles Islands http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-drone-base-in-e... .
I can go on, the point is that is a lot of spending.
It is just not the Horn of Africa
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/170479.pdf .
The US State Department is required to report to Congress http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2010/index.htm
For all that the US is doing to stabilize the world. US Corporations are really getting a benefit with the cheap access to labor and selling markets in the countries that the US is stabilizing.
If the US keeps this anti-terrorism effort going, the people getting the most economic benefit should pay that cost.
The highest tax rates for Corporations should be on offshore profits! It is the Corporation's choice to operate offshore and American citizens should not bear that cost.
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/taxreform/
Free Market does not mean a free ride to do business in a cheap labor market. Lets make the American Corporate tax rate 5.25% in America and 20% non-deferrable off shore.
On topic: Those resources
On topic: Those resources need to be optimalized at this moment, sp it was right pulling out now in my opiniom. from a Risk kind of view. Armchair general and all that. I just reread Stalingrad by Beevor...
Off topic: Are the US and ISrael leaving the UN? Thats pretty interesting... http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-to-mull-sanctions-o...
Here is the Bolton
Here is the Bolton response:
"If Obama was a stronger leader, then we would have been able to stay in Iraq and protect it from Iran. Since he is a weak, incompetent and disorganized leader, the Iraqi government is kicking him out and the Arab nations are laughing at us."
The real question is, how do you counter this line of argument?
If I had to read between the
If I had to read between the lines, pulling combat troops out of Iraq may have had something to do with peanut butter.
You're laughing.
Resources are spread like Skippy and it is not getting cheaper. http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/story/2011-10-14/Peanut-pinch-...
This is what I am really talking about; you have to love the GAO. The money spent on these reports makes the QDR look cheap.
http://www.legistorm.com/showFile/L2xzX3Njb3JlL2dhby9wZGYvMjAxMS84/ful41...
The above is dated in Aug 2011. Reports are always are in arrears. The information was on the table when the combat troops were unplugged. Bottom line, resources are getting thin. US just sent Advisers to Uganda, they will need equipment. Equipment is being given to AMISOM and other African allies. US is still playing in Libya. Obama is going to look really bad a year from now if Afghanistan does not show improvement.
The question is, how much do Contractors cost? The way that Washington plays, as long as it comes from a different budget ......
How many contractors can you give diplomatic immunity?
Off Topic: Fnord, UN? That one must have hurt someone in the Administration.
how they do that.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P156FVfq0aQ&feature=related
Thanks, Abu, I keep asking
Thanks, Abu, I keep asking this myself. There are indeed a lot of Americans who are really disconnected on this issue. Just recently had a frustrating debate with an Army O-4 student of mine who was insistent that Iraqis across the political spectrum wanted us to stay and that at best, more forceful diplomacy (meaning what, exactly??) would have resolved the SOFA issue, or at worst, this guy suspected the real story is that Obama used the SOFA issue as a smokescreen to force a withdrawal despite the Iraqis pleading with us to stay behind the scenes. Good to see that many others with on-the-ground perspectives in Baghdad don't see it that way.
Visitor: US and Israel alone
Visitor: US and Israel alone outside the bubble with Euro-russian-chinese-indian play? thats nearly impossible??
BTW... I am reading up thread
BTW...
I am reading up thread that Iraq kick the US out. Lets clear the air. Iraq wanted the military to stay (Crap, would you kick your Sugar Daddy out?). The issue was the Iraq government did not want to give the US military immunity.
If the available level of advisers is thin, the number that want to be second guessed is zero. They know better, it is a rough game and they play for keeps.
I don't blame either side for the decision, the US stepped on its dick too many times.
It is about resources.
Fnord on November 1, 2011 -
Fnord on November 1, 2011 - 5:37pm
It is not impossible if you can not see daylight between Israel and the US. Obama has to do it, he has no choice. It would be a scandal here in the US. It goes way beyond the Lobby.
milprof on November 1, 2011 -
milprof on November 1, 2011 - 5:36pm
Army O-4 student of mine who was insistent that Iraqis across the political spectrum wanted us to stay
That is too large a union, that is where the O-4 failed. It would be like saying that across the political spectrum Americans want Obama to have four more years. We all know that statement to be false. The question is and always is what is the popular split and finally what happens in the electoral college which can be completely different.
Obama gives us examples every day of government wanting something that Americans don't.
POTUS has educated me.
Saying that Iraqis wanted the US to leave is to say they wanted the US to stay, resoundingly. There are many ways to look at the problem to prove or disprove the negative.
I really do not care what the Iraqi's think, I am more concerned with what America does next. That is more important. Iraq is yesterday's news.
Obama never wanted war in Iraq, he is willing to wage war on the whole region and is.
There's no way to counter
There's no way to counter Bolton's argument because it's not an argument.
"As always, a liberal will
"As always, a liberal will make a big pretense of intellectual objectivity.... and then support the Democrats anyway. Maybe you're fooling yourself with that pretense, but you're not fooling anyone else." As always, a conservative will counter a thought out argument with an ad hominem, not bothering to address said argument.
To all, My confusion by all
To all,
My confusion by all the hoopla is that the arrangements that we are now executing were signed, sealed and delivered by the Bush administration.
Shouldn't the ire or anger flow in that direction?
jim at ranger
"As always, a conservative
"As always, a conservative will counter a thought out argument with an ad hominem, not bothering to address said argument."
It's not an ad hominem attack if his partisanship is relevant to the argument, which in this case it is, since he introduced the issue of his partisanship and his supposed intellectual independence in the first paragraph of his post.
Try again.
"the arrangements that we are
"the arrangements that we are now executing were signed, sealed and delivered by the Bush administration.
Shouldn't the ire or anger flow in that direction?"
But... but... I thought this administration was going to represent a *decisive change* relative to the criminally irresponsible and incompetently executed policies of the preceding administration. If Obama does exactly the same thing as Bushitler, what is a good progressive supposed to think (or more accurately, feel, since emotion not thought is the hallmark of the Left)?
"The transition from
"The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq."
- President Bush (aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln announcing the end of major combat operations in Iraq, May 1, 2003)
The Libyan and Yemen mission
The Libyan and Yemen mission is still growing. The tactics in Somalia are looking more and more like a "surge" every day.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/world/africa/planes-are-flying-arms-in...
First you send in AMISOM, then you surge with Kenyan troops to move the bad guys out. More AMISOM troops are on the way.
Fight , Talk , Build...where have we heard that before? Guys the strategy has a fingerprint. US taxes are supporting AMISOM.
This doesn't bother Americans that want to get out of Iraq? Libya? Afghanistan?
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S HANDLING OF US PUBLIC OPINION ON IRAQ
The point you make about Iraqi sovereign governmental decision-making as determining whether we stay or go is COMPLETELY CORRECT. What is NOT CLEAR is why the Obama Administration is unable or unwilling to use obvous point in its public battles with policy critics. It is rather easy to CALL THESE CRITICS OUT out on the basis of A] ignorance of Iraqi rights as a sovereign nation, B] hypocrisy about the fact that we were supposedly aiming at an Iraq that was free and able to make its own decisions and C] DOUBLESPEAK about just who is competent to judge the Administration's Iraq policy. Obama should ask rhetorically just WHO decided it was a great idea to knock out IRAN'S only serious competitor in the region and then BEMOAN Iranian influence on the predictably Shia-majority dominated government that replaced Saddam. The President's opponents can't get away with having it both ways.....war hawks but rejecting the obvious outcome of liberation wars. SO WHY DOESN'T OBAMA , in this election environment, use these points to throttle his attackers and discredit the so-called experts who are now lobbying to attack Iran? THIS I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND!
.
Again, it's interesting
Again, it's interesting watching you hackishly give a group of policymakers credit for something that they did not plan to occur - and in fact spent most of their capital on the issue opposing. You know the Obama Administration was pushing hard to leave a relatively strong military presence in Iraq.
LOL-fuckin-lol. hai, father
LOL-fuckin-lol.
hai, father of proselytizers, the daughter of wisdom just stopped by to tell you I TOLD YOU SO.
America got NOTHING out of 10 years, trillions of dollars, and thousands of dead american soldiers.
The Iraqis DEMOCRATICALLY voted our ass out.
Sure Maliki and Alawi would have to loved to keep sukking the anti-terrorism tit, but their electorate wouldnt let them.
While Panetta was on his begging tour Muqtada collected 2.5 MILLION sigs to expell the american invader occupiers.
That is democracy for you.
:)
and check out A-stan. we still have 90k troops there and the talibs are bombing the american embassy in Kabul.
As soon as we fold our tents there they are gunna roll into Kabul and dip Karzais head in tar and put it on a pike.
I have been reading a lot of Julian Assange lately...how much do you think al-Jazeera's publication of the Iraq docs inflamed anti-American sentiment in Iraq?
Add your comment