To talk about the war with neocon supporters. Andrew Sullivan rightly castigates Uncle Jimbo, Bill Kristol, and all the other actors in the theater of the absurd:
“perhaps you could provide some convincing evidence that the U.S. can invade a country, topple its regime, leave immediately – and expect a lasting, positive outcome.”
Leave immediately? Does Max know what year it is? But maybe he could ask Bill Kristol the same question. Kristol and Kaplan argued for the war thus:
As other countries’ forces arrive, and as Iraq rebuilds its economy and political system, that [75,000] force could probably be drawn down to several thousand soldiers after a year or two.
Several thousand after a year or two. We are now in year six with 150,000 still there. You’d think that people who had made such confident predictions might show a little humility at this point. But let me remind Boot that there was no mention before the war that we were there to secure oil supplies as he now argues.
In fact, that very idea was regarded as a left-wing smear. Nor were we told that we would invade and occupy a country indefinitely in order to “protect our interests” in the region. We were told there was a terrible threat to our security; and this was untrue. And then we were told that leaving would be a terrible threat to our security. And now we are told that a commitment to leaving by 2011 would be a threat to our security. It is not unreasonable for people to ask when the neocons will ever feel it is safe to leave – or if leaving was ever their intention in the first place.
Look: the good news is that for reasons I didn’t see, Iraq is now in a much better place than almost anyone foresaw a year ago. The better news is that even those of us who have argued about this for years can now agree that we have a better chance of getting out now without catastrophe than we did at any time in the past five years. No one wants to foment chaos there. And extricating will be tricky and require pragmatism. But I do not think I’m being unreasonable or reckless in hoping that we can finally bring closure to this debacle after eight years at a cost of up to $3 trillion, hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths, and approaching 5,000 dead Americans and tens of thousands of Americans severely injured for life. If that is “leaving immediately”, or a “precipitous withdrawal”, then heaven knows what Max Boot thinks is empire.
This is where I just cannot follow the worshippers of Gen Petreaus down this particular rathole. First , based on current numbers year to date-Iraq is still a very unsafe place. Its a place where on average, 30 Americans and over 550 Iraqis die each month. So yea its improved over the previous year, but that still sucks by any definition of the word sucks. However, if in fact, the Iraqis are starting to function as an autonomous power looking out for their own interests, which are not aligned with US ones by the way, then why should we oppose that? Does the word client state come to mind?
Except there has not been a client state in the middle east for a long time. Even Israel does not dance to our tune all the time.
Sullivan is right. It makes you wonder if the neocon’s ever had any idea of leaving in the first place. Which means Scot McClellan may have been right-they just said any old thing to sell the war. “We will not stay there one day longer than we have to” was just pap for the masses?
Enquiring minds want to know.
I read today this situation in Iraq has improved so much Bush II has decided the troops can be withdrawn- just in time for the election. Coincidence I’m sure.
There is however a caveat to the withdrawal. The troops withdrawn will go instead to Afganistan. Another success for the Bush plan.
Interesting also the Iraqi government is making noises it wants the troops out. Again coincidence?
Certainly hope the agrements to secure the Iraqi oil are in place before withdrawal or the whole episode will havebeen for naught.
There is consideration in DOD as to whether or not the pace of withdrawal can be speeded up.
The troops that were scheduled to be deployed to Iraq will be diverted to Afghanistan IF those troops are not needed in Iraq.
The Canucks, Danes, Brits and the 32,000 Americans are doing the fighting while the other NATO/ISAF forces are “safe” in the north.
NATO is a shell. It has enormous economic power and yet has emasculated its military over the years. It can’t even find the few helicopters that NATO needs in Afghanistan. Its a disgrace.
But there maybe one SMALL bright spot here.
While the Pashtuns are very tribal and ISI is working against American/Afghan interests, the Taliban/Al Queda are depending more and more on non Arabs to bolster their forces.
Because the tribes, inherently, mistrust outsiders there MAYBE an opportunity to exploit this with the NW tribes.
By the way. Max Boot’s last book on small wars was pretty good. I like Robert Kaplan too.
Of course the question could be asked-if I were a NATO country, increasing my presence there makes sense why?
Which gets back to the communications aspect-Bush basically ignored closing the deal in Afghanistan (not that the Afghans are doing a lot to help themselves) to have the war in Iraq. Iraq would have waited and the conflicts could have been executed in sequence-not in parallel.
My fear-the pace of withdrawals will be timed to best bolster McCains chances.
Two reasons. Having your troops in combat does increase their combat capability. OF COURSE, that usually means that there will be soldiers who are killed and maimed. Back in the day the eupehmism was “bloodied”
But there is something to be said for combat veterans, especially if NATO or EU troops are deployed to other “hot” spots. Their collective experience would be invaluable.
Poppy..it affects Europe too. While the fields are not being destroyed now with more combat troops there and alternative crops there maybe a chance to diminish the flow.
General Crook and T.E. Lawrence, both had the right idea…to use indigenous forces to fight your battles. For the time being however, the Afghans, except for their special forces are not capable, NATO is trying to build an Afghan Army that would meet NATO standards, with mixed results. till that day the fight is left to the few.