One of the first victims of war and civil illusion is the inaccuracy and emptiness of words and their meanings, as Thucidydes keenly described. Recent debates about what to do in Iraq have raised the question of simply leaving the place. Unfortunately, the conservatives have been able to seize on this idea and spin it their way to make it sound like anyone who advocates such a position is "cutting and running."

John Murtha exploded much of the neo-conservative spin on withdawing from Iraq. While they tried, very few Republicans with stature were willing to brand Murtha as a coward and someone who'd run away from a fight if he thought it could be won. Yet, the perception still persisists among many, Republicans and Democrtas, that just leaving Iraq is not a viable option, since it would be admitting defeat or some such view.

I suggest that this confusion about what exactly a withdrawal from Iraq would mean is simply one of hype and not of substance. Within war strategy it is not unknown to make what is called a "tactical retreat." This usually occurs when one's troops are in a situation of imminent defeat OR stalemate. I think the latter is true of what's happening in Iraq right now. There's a stalemate with the insugents--most likely, as Murtha says, because the presence of US troops itself is what is feeding the insurgents.

If this is a "war" on terror--as imprecise and nebulous as that phraseology might be--then a tactical retreat must be an option. This is especially true and reuired in a situation where the commanders have obvously executed a war strategy that is wrong and detrimental to both the life of the troops and the overall strategy of the war.

Bush and Co. flubbed terribly this war; we should simply suck it up like men/women and admit the errors in military judgement (or whgatever other pejorative term term you want to call it), and get the troops into place where they can be more effective. At the same time, this space will provide the commanders and leaders time to develop a much better and more informed plan to win this "war." Again, as Murtha notes, this would include diplomacy, the forgotten tool of war by the Bush administration.

It seems to me that the logical arguments about pulling out have all been upside down.

The question should not be, "Will things go bad in Iraq if we leave?"
The question should be, "Will staying in Iraq make things any better?"

Let's face the hard facts.
We will eventually leave.
We can't stay forever.
We won't stay forever.

No one can credibly predict what will happen when we leave, but we can precisely predict what will happen if we stay.

More US soldiers will die.
More Iraqi civilians will die.
More international terrorists will be recruited.
More US tax dollars will be squandered.
More US military capacity will be squandered.
More US diplomatic goodwill will be squandered.

This analysis by Rosen is refreshingly frank in admitting a number of things that US policymakers will not:
1. that the Kurds will secede
2. that the remaining Iraq of Sunnis and Shi'a has no chance of becoming a secular democracy that provides women with Western-type civil and political rights
3. the Iraqi civil war is already underway

It has one major flaw however, in its analysis of the role of the US in fueling the civil war. Rosen, like many, is arguing that the US is the major cause of the Sunnni-Shi'a conflict, and as the US withdraws, Iraqi nationalism heal the sectarian wounds and they will be able to compromise. Surely the Sunnis are acting strategically in what they ask for.
Sunnis want the US to leave not because this will eliminate the sectarian strife. They want the US out because this is the only way they will be able to have even a shadow of a chance to fight their way into a real place in a government that will ultimately serve not to provide basic services for all, but primarily to distribute oil revenues to those Iraqis fortunate enough to cut in on the distribution. And Sunnis will continue to fight, whether the US withdraws or not, because like in most oil producing states, especially in the Middle East, the available opportuniites are mostly restricted to being cut in on oil revenues.

The democrats are perhaps making a critical strategic rhetorical mistake by embracing this view--it leaves them open to the charge that their cutting and running policy led to the Iraqi civil war. They would be much better served by a more restricted statement that the US military has done all it can, that this is now an internal Iraqi political problem, that has NOTHING to do with the US. This stance is plausible, fits with the view that our real national security goals never should have been defined in terms of the wildly unattainable goal of stable democracy in Iraq, and does not leave them nearly as vulnerable to the "your policy caused the Iraqi civil war" that will inevitably accelerate when we leave.

A "theocracy" is fine as long as the people can democratically throw out and elect new leaders. In that sense it is not a theocracy. Thus, Rosen misuses the word and contradicts himself. Is he implying that Iraqis want dictatorship by unelected religious leaders (as in Iran) or is he implying that Iraqis want an elected government that are also good muslims. That is a huge difference. He also argues that Sunnis and Shia will join together once the Americans leave and then he says most Iraqi's want a "theocracy?" Isn't this a contradiction. He implies that Iraqis want democracy and theocracy at the same time.

In general, I agree with Rosen's points, however, he assumes in the article that the Shia/Kurd led police/military forces have the ability to "stand-up" against the insurgency at this point. In contrast, other Democrats, such as Pelosi and Kennedy have been arguing against this very point (i.e. that the Iraqi forces are inadequate or only one battalion can fight independently).

I bet the truth is somewhere between Rosen and the Democrats. That Iraqi's are almost ready to stand up to the insurgents after we leave. Once they are ready, we should leave.

I'm in the middle of Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article, "Up in the Air" (Dec 5). Excellent as usual. He portrays Bush as insulated, living in his own bubble of irreality. Quoting a "former defense official":

"He [Bush] doesn't feel any pain. Bush is a believer in the adage 'People may suffer and die, but the Church advances.'" He said that the President had become more detached, leaving more issues to Karl Rove and Vice-President Cheney. "They keep him in the gray world of religious idealism, where he wants to be anyway," the former defense official said.

I'd add to the list Ray Takeyh's op-ed in today's Newsday--linked over at Washington Realist, making the case, in part, that the continued U.S. presence prevents Iraqis from taking the hard decisions they themselves have to make about the country.

Funny how nobody ever dares to mention the Norquistian reason for staying in Iraq:

If we spend enough money over there we will finally be able to cut entitlements over here.

If you think that scenario hasn't been seriously discussed in shuttered rooms of select government and corporate officials, you still don't understand just how deeply Mammon and his minions have seized your country.

Maybe Joe has different standards? Is Sunni Iraq so different than Ramallah during the Intifada?

"The preponderance of power now lies with the majority Shiites and the Kurds, and the Sunnis know this." ...Nir Rosen

"Readers and colleagues often ask me why a Shiite majority and the Kurdish Peshmergas couldn't just take care of the largely Sunni Arab guerrillas. The answer is that the Sunni Arabs were the officer corps and military intelligence, and the more experienced NCOs, and they know how to do things that the Shiites and Kurds don't know how to do. The Sunni Arabs were also the country's elite and have enormous cultural capital and managerial know-how. Sunni Arab advantages will decline over time, but they are there for this generation, and no one should underestimate the guerrilla leadership. If the Americans weren't around, all those 77 Hungarian T-72 tanks that the new Iraqi military now has would be in guerrilla hands so fast it would make your head spin." ...Juan Cole, Monday

In this morning's Los Angeles Times there is an article about the northern Kurds having had signed a contract for oil exploration with a Norwegian company. The exploratory drilling, or "spudding", has already began. They DID NOT seek permission from the Iraqi "government", nor did they involve them in the contractual negotiations. An aide to the prime minister commented that "we have have to see if the constitution allows this", or something to that effect.

There IS NO poltical solution to the Iraqi debacle, UNLESS the motives and intentions of the Bush Administration are DISCARDED, and the animosities and differences between the Sunni/Kurd/Shiite factions are mediated by ARABS that understand the animosities and differences beyond the superficial lip service that the assholes in Washington pay to the various, cultural, ethnic, and religious factions in Iraq.

Just watch Monkey Boy bloviate for more than five seconds and it becomes obvious that this whole thing is WAAAAAAY over his powers of comprehension. Trouble is, those that ARE intelligent enough to understand the nuances and needs of the various factions of the Iraqi people, such as the satanistic Cheney, are more interested in exercising their megalomaniacal power than they are in seeking a long term solution to the needs of all the Iraqi factions.

Truth is, if this bastard Cheney and his butt buddies thought they could get away with it there would be 10,000 Haliburton billboards checkering Iraq, all erected on the mass graves of the troublesome Iraqis that dared oppose the invasion and occupation of their soveriegn nation. Cheney would make Hitler look like a grade school bully if he thought he could get away with it. And he STILL might figure out a way to murder a few million people. After all, he's still got three more years to work at it.

Some believe its a question of who will get the T-72s if the United States leave Iraq alone. I do not. Instead, I assume the Iraqi's will figure it out for themselves...given that the current Administration has not been able to figure it out for them. It is time for our Republic to stop riding the Dragon. If that is even possible now. Dragons have a tendency to come back and bite you when you try to let go of the bridle.

then go see what Sen. Reid is doing about it www.giveemhellharry.com

"....Cheney would make Hitler look like a grade school bully if he thought he could get away with it. And he STILL might figure out a way to murder a few million people. After all, he's still got three more years to work at it...."

What gives? Such comments are outrageous. You obviously have a total misunderstanding of Hitler if you believe that Cheney or any American political figure compares to Hitler.

i too read that article - actually the first time i ever picked up an atlantic monthly. not only did i find his argument rational, i have now become a regular atlantic monthly reader.

... And then there's the eminent--West Point-required reading--Israeli military historian, Martin van Creveld's recent article, "Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War," who calls this war "the worst military blunder in over 2,000 years".
Read the article at: http://www.forward.com/articles/6936

BTE van Creveld also says that Bush should be impeached for leading the US into this war on faulty premises and lies and his gang (Cheney et al) tried.

The debate over the war, and now the authorization of going to war, has trickled down into a he said she said nasty debate. Both sides are attacking the others stance and opinion so much that I feel like it’s an election year once again. Regardless of who said this, and who agreed to that, we are in the position we are in. This debate is supposed to be about establishing a purpose for our continued presence in Iraq and establishing a sound criterion for our victory\exit strategy.
However, it now appears that some politicians have turned this into a votes grab by trying to state their opinion, and stance, on the merits of the war, and their pretense for agreeing to go to war.
Raymond B
www.voteswagon.com

"....Cheney would make Hitler look like a grade school bully if he thought he could get away with it. And he STILL might figure out a way to murder a few million people. After all, he's still got three more years to work at it...."

What gives? Such comments are outrageous. You obviously have a total misunderstanding of Hitler if you believe that Cheney or any American political figure compares to Hitler.

Posted by sloanasaurus

I'll tell you what gives. Cheney is a God damned evil abomination. THATS what gives. Whats "outrageous" is his actions, his statements, and his apparent SEPARATION FROM REALITY. His comments about "last throes" alone ought to give anyone pause about the guy's SANITY. But his advocation of TORTURE is beyond all reason, and puts him right in the same rubber room of history that Hitler and Idi Amin belong in.

Go ahead, Sloan, lets hear your defense of TORTURE. Tell us about how "they chop heads off" so its all right to sodomize them and pile them five high in a naked heap on the floor. Tell us how PROUD you are that our soldiers and our intelligence agents are washboarding people, or hanging them from their wrists until they HEMORAGE AND DIE. Tell us how wonderful it is to be dropping willy pete on kids and their mothers and burning the flesh off their bones. Lets hear it you asshole, tell us how cool it is when the Monkey Boy wants to BOMB a highly respected global news agency because they won't pimp his script.

Honestly, Sloan, one of the absolute SCARIEST aspects of this whole debacle is that we seemingly have a whole LOT of citizens that are as ignorant and uninformed as you appear to be.

Yes, Sloan, HITLER. IDI AMIN. They murdered and tortured TOO. Say hello to DICK CHENEY, boys.

To pissedoff: Take a look at what Col. Wilkerson said about Cheney the other day at the BBC: http://tinyurl.com/75j2k

"Under Mr Cheney's protection, "the Secretary of Defence moved out to do what they wanted to do in the first place". Asked whether the Vice-President was guilty of a war crime, Col Wilkerson said it was "an interesting question". It was certainly a domestic crime "to advocate terror", and "I would suspect it is ­ for whatever it's worth, an international crime as well." "

If you volunteer for today's military you have to know you're going to be dispatched to wage questionable, illegal, unneccessary wars. Making yourself a party to such misadventures therefore entangles you in their criminality. Now, having established those enlisting in the military are willing accomplices to war crimes I say let Bush invade Iran and Syria. Hell, let him invade China, too. The resulting American deaths would be regrettable and sad but those dying VOLUNTEERED to die in Bush's follies. Once the U.S. military is destroyed because of such nonsense maybe the electorate will wake up to what they've done.

So Average Joe Lieberman takes yet another principled, forthright, moral position.

re American withdrawal and the subsequent civil war --

It's plain that the intention was to ignite a civil war all along.

If you push Iraq in that direction while it's still under U.S. occupation, you can force an outcome not othewise possible, using radical means, w/o facing the usual consquences.

Thus did we see the CPA shut down legitimate newspapers and arrest Sadr's lieutenant. This would explain why moderate Shiite and Sunni clerics, universally respected and renowned for their ability to forge relationships and bring opposing factions to the table-- were assassinated very early on. Something stank about that -- it wasn't in the interests of either Sunni or Shiite.

And of course, there's no other reason to resort to the Salvador option. Death squads are never used to win a just war or in the service of a just cause. They're used when the war is already lost and directed by people who have no interest in fighting or winning a just cause.

They're used to terrorize, to subjugate, to eliminate -- to commit genocide. Operation Phoenix in Vietnam; now again, in Iraq. So sloanosaurus: let's stop sqawking when posters here profile Dick Cheney as being Hitlerian by nature and in substance. Even Lawrence Wilkerson is openly saying Cheney is a terrorist and has committed war crimes. by virtue of Cheney's substantive actions, and naked statements, you just can't get any closer to Stalin and Hitler than Cheney's decisions and policies.
The list goes on, but:
- Cheney: pro-torture; Nazis: notorious torturers

- Cheney: preemptive war rationalized by fear of & propoganda about an external threat; Nazis: preemptive war rationalized by fear of & propoganda about an external threat.

- Cheney: no problem using chemical weapons indiscriminately; Nazis: no qualms on same

- Cheney: deaths squads under Salvador Option & Phoenix Program not objectionable; Nazis: death squads that targeted civilians and directed by the SS was standard operation procedure.

Sloanosaurus: What part of America do you have a problem with? Why so agreeable to Nazi method and policy? Documented U.S. actions oughta make you steer clear of defending Cheney and Rumsfeld and Negroponte when they openly adopt the methods of those fascist/totalitarian regimes you claim to hate.

Note:
Just a refresher. What newspaper won a Pulitzer Prize for coverage that disproved the SwiftBoatVeterans claims about John Kerry -- in early 2004?

That'd be The Toledo Blade. For a 22-article series documenting the actions of the elite Tiger Force unit in Vietnam. The series verified Kerry's 'winter soldier' statements of 1970 -- and utterly blew away the SwiftBoaters' ostensible motivation for taking on Kerry.

Yet not one journalist, pundit, anchor, or politician uttered the words 'Pulitzer Prize' or 'Toledo Blade' during the drawn-out, red-herring discussions of the SwiftBoaters' character assassination.

Not one.

Read up on it yourselves.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE

To pissedoff: Take a look at what Col. Wilkerson said about Cheney the other day at the BBC: http://tinyurl.com/75j2k

"Under Mr Cheney's protection, "the Secretary of Defence moved out to do what they wanted to do in the first place". Asked whether the Vice-President was guilty of a war crime, Col Wilkerson said it was "an interesting question". It was certainly a domestic crime "to advocate terror", and "I would suspect it is ­ for whatever it's worth, an international crime as well." "

Posted by charles

I believe that Wilkerson MEANT to say "advocate torture", or was possibly misquoted. Perhaps Steve could ask him, and set the record straight if I am correct. I guess it really doesn't matter, considering that Cheney seems to advocate BOTH practices.

When I heard that someone had stated Iraq was the most foolish war in the last 2000 years I had to read the article....

Here is the applicable quote from http://www.forward.com/articles/6936 .."for misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men...."

How ridiculous. What a moronic view of history (obviously the guy knows no history). I wonder if World War I was foolish?

"...by virtue of Cheney's substantive actions, and naked statements, you just can't get any closer to Stalin and Hitler than Cheney's decisions and policies...."

If this is true, how is it that we still haven't started drilling in ANWR and why are people like Pelosi and Kennedy allowed to make outrageous statements. And why are blogs like this allowed. Why is Congress even still able to meet and go into session. Hitler and Stalin would have never allowed it.

"....The resulting American deaths would be regrettable and sad but those dying VOLUNTEERED to die in Bush's follies. Once the U.S. military is destroyed because of such nonsense maybe the electorate will wake up to what they've done...."

I have to give you kudos for this statement. At least you are an honest leftist. I have long argued that Leftists don't really give a rats ass about the baby-killer soldiers dying in Iraq, they just bring it up because they know the conservatives do care.

I think Mona Lyne is right on target. I had a very similar response to Nir Rosen's article when I first read it last weekend. I thought he was a bit too complacent about the consequences of a total and immediate withdrawl, but had a wonderfully clear-eyed view of the situation in the country, including the inevitability of Kurdish independence, and the failure of the US democratic political project in Iraq. US leaders need to get a grip on the fact that no stabilization of Iraq, or political resolution, can occur within the framework of the existing political insitutions - instututions which are weak, divisive and provocative, and have been manufactured by the United States.

The current government - which is actually just a temporary coalition of Shiites and Kurds pursuing separate agendas - will never be able to subdue and govern the Sunni Arab regions of Iraq. Nor will any constitutional reforms fix the underlying problem. The Sunnis are indefatigable fighters, and determined never to be ruled by the Shiites and Kurds. They will be satisfied with nothing less than self-rule, and will fight until they get it.

Some Sunnis, of course, might want more than self-rule. There are parts of Iraq that the Sunni's might like to control, but can't and shouldn't; but there are other parts that they would like to control, and both can and should. The US should redirect its efforts toward assisting the Kurds and Shiites in securing their own provinces, the bulk of which have already been pacified. US forces can serve as a deterrent toward armed incursions by Sunni Arabs into the Northern and Southern provinces, and engage those forces when necessary to turn back any such incursions, but direct most of their efforts toward containment and stabilization, rather than defeating the insurgency.

I believe the US should remain in Iraq for now, but in significantly reduced numbers. Most importantly, they should withdraw from most of central Iraq, and from direct engagement with the bulk of the Sunni Arab resistance. The "Iraqi" troops should do the same thing - get out. I believe casualties will drop significantly, and the US will be able to begin to draw down its forces, and give most of them a well-deserved breather.

I am more convinced than Juan Cole appears to be that that much of the resistance is directed mainly toward expelling the US from the Sunnis' own cities and towns, and toward thwarting the efforts of the current Iraqi government to achieve control of the predominantly Sunni Arab provinces. If the fight to subjugate this region ceases, and both US and Iraqi government troops are withdrawn, then I believe much (though not all) of the resistance will celebrate its victory and turn its efforts toward resolving power disputes and consolidating rule over their own provinces, rather than attempt a war of re-conquest of the rest of Iraq.

The resistance on the whole possesses overwhelming popular support in the Sunni heartland, but the jihadis do not - particularly the foreign jihadis whose numbers appear to be extremely small. We should facilitate a transistion to home rule in central Iraq. We must also clearly recognize the the current Iraqi government is no national government, but a coalition of Shiites and Kurds dedicated to preparing the ground for their own vision of the future. The Kurdish vision is independence. The vision of much of the Shiites appears to be control of the rest of Iraq, including brutal, vengeful subjugation of the Sunni Arabs. There is no reason at all why the US should play this game. Why should we not be in favor of the Sunni Arabs doing the very same thing in that part of the country in which they are the natural majority that we are in effect encouraging the Kurds and the Shiites to do in their own regions?

I also want to second the calls to avoid the "cutting and running" language. I have even heard some war-skeptic Democrats using this language in the past few days. They seem to be under the impression that, the national Democratic party having hemmed and hawed about what to do in Iraq for a few years now, they might actually be able to win political points by accusing Bush of shamefully cutting and running - should Bush ever actually decide to withdraw.

This is a really stupid tactic. If Bush gets out, Americans will remember that the withdrawl was necessitated by a collapse in public support, a collapse that forced the hand of a President who would have prefered to stay. And they will remember that there were more Democrats in the public opposition than Republicans. So, if Americans are in a mood to describe the withdrawl as "cutting and running", they are more likely to blame Democrats for this than Republicans.

But they should not think of redeployment, and an altered strategy, as "cutting and running". We're not talking about some sort of stupid and pointless game of chicken, or a mere loss of nerve in a fight that should be fought out of stubborn masculine honor to the bitter end, simply for the sake of winning a fight, no matter what its effect on the Iraqi people and US national interests. We're talking about how best to achieve sensible objectives. Policy makers constantly have to re-evaluate objectives, and re-assess their estimates of which objectives are realistic and which objectives are unrealistic. US forces are currently bogged down in a stubbornly pursued and futile effort in central Iraq, and one that even if successful would not be conducive to the best available outcome. Sometimes it is necessary to get out of a mindless hockey fight, so we can win the hockey game - or at least tie or minimize our loss. Changing our approach in Iraq is a matter of intelligence, composure and national discipline. It's not just a case of turning heel and heading for the hills.

While this war is being "fought " with the terrorists, in Iraq, it is clearly a war against the American people and their values. When was the last time in American history that a sitting prez took the shock and awe factor to one of the home towns?>?? We can't shock and awe Iraq so let's do Miami. BushCo has taken America and trashed it. It's gone folks.Every bit of Iraq was to tear up and trash America.

Uh.. none of these comments or articles make sense whatsoever.

We went in there for engery security; peak oil reasons.

Why should we leave? We need energy for the economy, for gdp, for jobs, for growth. Energy is directly related to GDP growth.

Without energy, we would commit ourselves to zero or negative growth, loss of jobs, recession and economic disruption -> Powerdown.

That should be the debate; not iraq.

"....[Sunnis] will be satisfied with nothing less than self-rule, and will fight until they get it...."

This seems like a logical conclusiona bout Sunni demands except that is not what they are saying. Sunnis were fighting to keep Iraq unified. The Kurds and Shia are all for self rule, the Sunnis were not, which is why the Sunni led insurgency will not last once the Americans leave (what would they be fighting for at that point).

"....If Bush gets out, Americans will remember that the withdrawl was necessitated by a collapse in public support, a collapse that forced the hand of a President who would have prefered to stay...."

This is a danger for democrats. remember that in Vietnam, the anti-war folks were not completely identifed in completely with a political party (there were oplenty of democrat war hawks).

Reach back into history and you can fin an example of where one was... take the Federalist party in the war of 1812. Completely opposed to that war which mostly ended in a draw.
Less than 10 years after the war was over, it became "taboo" to have opposed the war, and the Federalists ceased to be a party.

I disagree with Mona and Dan. The problem arises fron trying to impose Mr Bush's solution of a Shia dominated government on all of Iraq without adequate protection of the Sunni minority. That is the cause of most of the insurgency. Bush declared war on the Sunnis when he disbanded the Iraqi army and blacklisted all Iraqis with any type of Baath affiliation right down to dogcatcher.

Bush is trying to impose his political mandate by abusing the US military to raze Sunni cities, kill the young males and "sweep up" the resistance. This won't work for the US and it won't work for any new government we install. It is necessary to have a political settlement that is more attractive to the resistance than to continue to fight and less worrysome to the Iraqi population than the current political and economic instability.

However, Mr Bush is convinced he can impose his solution with the US military so he is not trying hard enough (if at all) to get the necessary political settlement. Because Mr Bush is not trying hard enough to get a political settlement, there are no good options for removing US troops. A decent political settlement would clear the way for US troop withdrawal without devolution in civil war in Iraq. However, that is not the way Bush thinks and until he gives up on his military imposed solution, there will be no good way out.

The reason why Democrats cannot devise a decent withdrawal strategy is that Mr Bush has FAILED to take the political steps necessary to make withdrawal possible. Unless Mr Bush is FORCED to commit to withdraw US troops, how likely is the pursuit of a political settlement?

just to clarify...
I agree with Bakho (and disagree somewhat with Dan) that the problem is protection of the Sunnis as a minority--and that the initial Bush strategy of de-Bathification and demonization of anyone remotely related to Sadaam's rule was a catastrophic mistake. In order for there ever to be a political settlement in Iraq the US had to signal in clear and unambiguous terms from the very beginning that it was going to force the Shi'a to cut the Sunnis in in a real and meaningful way. Of course, we did just the opposite as bakho says.

I agree with Dan that tactically perhaps the best thing we could do would be to realistically recognize the ethnic tensions and say, OK Sunnis, you can have your provinces. But this will not end the insurgency, becuase the insurgency is not just about federalism vs. centralized govt., but about what these imply for who controls oil. Sunnis in control of their own provinces will have no oil, they will be dirt poor.

one last point about Dems... my argument was not about whether they can devise a solution. I thnink Bush choices have left the situation so FUBAR now that there is very little we can do besides cut our losses. In other words, the only real quesiton left about Iraq, as far as American politics goes, is how soon we will leave and who will get blamed for the civil war that ensues. My point was that democrats should be cognizant of this and NOT adopt thetorical strategies that make them sitting ducks for being blamed for the ensuing Iraqui civil war. that is going to happen no matter what we do now thanks to Bush Co incompetence, so at least Dems be smart enoubh not to get blamed for it.

A similar discussion happening over at Washington Realist. Democrats have short memories about their own complicity in all of this. I posted this there in the comments and am repeating it here to, because so many seem to have selective amnesia. Read Max Boot's piece in the Los Angeles Times from November 30:

Just a few years ago, it seemed as if the Democrats had finally kicked the post-Vietnam, peace-at-any-price syndrome. Before the invasion of Iraq, leading Democrats sounded hawkish in demanding action to deal with what Kerry called the “particularly grievous threat” posed by Saddam Hussein. But it seems that they only wanted to do something if the cost would be minuscule. Now that the war has turned out to be a lot harder than anticipated, the Democrats want to run up the white flag.

They are offering two excuses for their loss of will. First, they claim they were “misled into war” by a duplicitous administration. But it wasn’t George W. Bush who said, “I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons [of mass destruction] again.” It was Bill Clinton on Dec. 16, 1998. As this example indicates, the warnings issued by Bush were virtually identical to those of his Democratic predecessor.

The Democrats’ other excuse is that they never imagined that Bush would bollix up post-invasion planning as badly as he did. It’s true that the president blundered, but it’s not as if things usually go smoothly in the chaos of conflict. In any case, it’s doubtful that the war would have been a cakewalk even if we had been better prepared. The Baathists and their jihadist allies were planning a ruthless terrorist campaign even before U.S. troops entered Iraq. Their calculation was that if they killed enough American soldiers, the American public would demand a pullout.

When he doesn't channel Brzezinski, General Odom's summary of arguments - under the headings Iraq as a Dead End Street and Withdrawal is the Precondition to Progress - is rational and, I think, correct. In their wildest dreams, the leaders of Al Qaeda could not have come up with a better ally than George W. Bush.

But as Bush has just confirmed with the publication of his latest propaganda tract, the military strategy - in the midst of a hot war, no less - is being cooked up by pollsters and speech writers on the one hand and by defense contractors and the think tank ideologues they fund on the other.

Bush's "strategy" reads like a compromise between the PNAC/GWOT ideologues and the military-industrial complex. No wonder the generals are livid.

In the words of Gen Odom: '"Staying the course" may make a good sound bite, but it can be disastrous for strategy.'

But Odom begins by channeling Brzezinski and talks about the Middle East as today's "Balkans", and about a "missed opportunity" to carve up spheres of influence.

According to Odom, the problem wasn't the administration's decision to bypass the UN and illegally occupy a country over there by means of a war of aggression, one of the principle war crimes recognized after WW II and Nuremberg.

It was that the neo-cons wanted it all for themselves and that they should have carved up the Middle East among a few other major economic powers with oil interests - such as Russia, China and Europe - instead.

One could extend this argument seamlessly to the Great Game that is currently being played over access to and control of the whole of Central Asia, where the US, Russia and China are in fact desperately trying to keep their ambitions under wraps and do precisely what the US ultimately did in the case of Iraq: bypass the UN, lie to Congress, and keep public opinion out of the picture.

Last time nationalist, imperialist, colonialist military powers sought to carve up geo-strategic hotspots among themselves "although nothing in the region objectively merits [going to world wars over]", according to Odom, that's precisely what happened: two World Wars were the result. A West Point general and former NSA director should simply know better than essentially saying that the US "missed the opportunity" to risk another world war by failing to gang up with Europe, Russia, Japan and China.

I think it's crucial that people like Odom wake up to the fact that the world has changed since the late 19th century. Nationalist power grabs are simply not a option in the 21st century, not for the US, and not for any other state.

And then there's the small issue with the facts: yes, the neo-cons were happy to appeal to their depraved chauvinist, ultra-nationalist base by stinking against the "Frenchies", thus making sure an international coalition would never come to pass. And yes, at that point, the fundamentalists and the hard right were working themselves into a lather over their perceived influence over global affairs.

But it was Blair who pressured Bush into going to the UN. That in turn forced the neo-cons to extend their big lie -- from lying to the American public and lying to Congress to lying to the international community, ultimately leading to Powell's presentation.

Odom doesn't acknowledge some fundamentals here: many, or most, of the governments Odom says the US should have allied with -- Europe, Russia, Japan, China -- knew via their own intelligence agencies that Powell and the administration were lying. Hence, these governments knew that the US's designs on Iraq were illegal - a war of aggression. And in a departure from what they may have decided to do in the late 19th century, they were not prepared to go along with that.

I don't finish reading a sentence any more that has Joe Lieberman or WSJ op-ed in it -- there's simply no reason to dignify either with a response.

Dan Kervick, your comments have the prized characteristic of consistently adding something useful to the discussion. Thank you.

I'm definitely in favour of replacing the "cut and run" terminology with "redeployment".

Apart from the Chinese language, from Sun Tzu onwards, English has probably developed the most extensive terminology intended to help the political classes to sell a change of military strategy back home.

Do Democrats always have to wait for Karl Rove or Frank Luntz to come up with stuff like "cut and run" before they leaf through their own dictionaries? Can't they come up with anything at all? Given the stakes of all of this, both domestically and geo-politically, it's unbelieveable how lazy and incompetent political operatives are.

So - "redeployment" would be just that: a repositioning of US military assets in the region. (The US is more likely to land a human on Mars and grab that planet's resources before it would freely choose to give up its military presence in the Gulf region.) Redeployment would simply require that the US cease its direct occupation and oppression of a Middle Eastern country and its people and instead begin negotiating the terms of its continued military presence in the region -- a process that should involve all the regional powers and the international community via the UN. This could also help to drag into bright daylight the current backhand-dealing going on in Central Asia.

I agree with Nir Rosen on the need for the US to get out - but that is only the beginning of the troubles ahead.

To me, talk of a national rehabilitation and reconciliation between the three large ethnic groups in the aftermath of US redeployment seems delusional. The Sunnis will not simply loose the 'Quisling status' (Rosen) as soon as American soldiers disappear from the streets of Iraq. The Kurds are not likely to ever forget what Saddam Hussein did to them. On the other hand, a national government that is seen to have learned from America to torture its dissidents will not earn the trust of the Sunnis.

Hopes for some form of nationalism to even slow down Iraq's disintegration seem overblown. If the Middle East really is the "Balkans" in the era of globalization, as Brzezinski would have it, then Iraq certainly must be regarded as its "Yugoslavia": an artificial nation state, created by the British and very much ready to fall apart.

And disintegrate it will, much to the horror of Saudi Arabia and Turkey and pretty much everone else in the region. This is in nobody's "national interest", but it will probably happen.

You can flip a coin on which ethnic group will break away first. After that, all the regional powers -- Turkey, Iran, Saudi, Syria, Israel and Egypt -- will try to jockey for influence. And the situation will become far more explosive than it has been so far. Again, all the regional powers and the UN will have to get involved in negotiating the final status of the three regions that now make up Iraq.

That's what the neo-cons bargained for with their idiotic notions of bringing democracy at gunpoint, and I'd say at this stage there's probably no way around facing up to the fall-out of a disintegrating Iraq.

If Bush would only admit he cannot get a military victory in Iraq, the US would start down the path of difficult political negotiations to bring Iraq to the point where the US troops could leave Iraq. If Mr Bush would only start down that path, the way out would start to appear. As it is, Mr Bush is not even trying to get out. This is making the situation in Iraq worse and makes it look as if our troops cannot leave without disasterous results. The political FAILURE of Mr Bush in Iraq is the reason why withdrawing US troops seems like a bad option (though less bad than stay the course).

The majority of Iraqis want the US out and they want stability and economic progress. No one wants chaos. The value of a time table for withdrawal would be for US to say, "OK we will be gone 1 year from today." What deals do those of you left need to make to prevent chaos. What deals do you need to end the insurgency, prevent Shia militia from waging war against Sunnis and return to rule of law. It could be accomplished. However, it cannot be accomplished as long as the US refuses to bargain with one or more groups involved or prevents all the Iraqi groups from bargaining amongst themselves.

We are stuck in Iraq because Mr Bush has it in mind to beat the insurgents into submission with the US military and is not making the necessary political steps to resolve the political situation and bring our boys home.

Oh please-- the neo-conservatives are allied to Israel and Israel wants the Middle East, if not more. Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Libby, Wurmser(s), ad nauseam, fed us lies, and the Democrats and the GOP lapped them up, because they know where the money lies.

We are in Iraq and will be in Syria and Iran because Israel wants it, so all of you can do your semi-academic wanking, but the bottom line is this: OUR KIDS ARE DYING FOR ISRAEL'S WARS.

And if you don't believe me read the paper that Feith,Perle and the Wurmsers co-authored for Benjamin Netanyahu (who was the newly elected Israeli Prime Minister) back in 1996. It was called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm"

Go ahead and natter on, but our kids are dying and will continue to die for another country and both major parties know it.

And I dare all you foreign policy wonks to actually read the Feith/Perle/Wurmser Clean Break -- or are you scared of the truth?

By the way Shlomo Brom, Brig. Gen. (Ret.) of the Israel Defense Forces in charge of intelligence did a study for the Jaffee Center of Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University (Israel). Brom concluded that Israel fed us (By us I mean the US) false information about Iraq's WMDs.

Straight from the liars' mouths. Do a web search "Brom Jaffee Iraq" and read it for yourself right after you read "A clean break"

NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL.

By the way, this is really amazing. Cold feet, meet realpolitik.

Israel to Neocons: We prefer Assad

Israel told the United States it fears the outcome of regime change in Syria.

At a strategic-dialogue meeting this week among senior officials, Israel laid out for the United States three scenarios if Bashar Assad is toppled: chaos, an Islamist regime or another strongman from Assad’s minority Alawite sect. Israel fears all those options, saying Assad provides a measure of stability.

U.S. officials told their Israeli counterparts that toppling Assad could be “transformative” and dismissed concerns about an Islamist regime taking his place. Israel and the United States favor pressure on Syria to force it to stop hosting Palestinian terrorist groups and supporting Hezbollah, a Lebanese terrorist organization.

(via Josh Marshall)

Oh please-- the neo-conservatives are allied to Israel and Israel wants the Middle East, if not more. Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Libby, Wurmser(s), ad nauseam, fed us lies, and the Democrats and the GOP lapped them up, because they know where the money lies.

We are in Iraq and will be in Syria and Iran because Israel wants it, so all of you can do your semi-academic wanking, but the bottom line is this: OUR KIDS ARE DYING FOR ISRAEL'S WARS.

Posted by HateBothParties

You WILL NOT cut through the denial here about how deeply enmeshed the Israelis are in this charade called "the war on terror". Despite mountains of evidence that implicate the Israelis in espionage andx deception directed against the United States, people here still refuse to discuss or address the Israeli's role, including and particularly Steve Clemons. He seems to avoid the topic like a hot potatoe.

It is MY believe that their involvement in this mass deception extends right into the pile of rubble that was once the WTC.

pissed off you can not believe ANYTHING these crooks say.I think you need more than diesel fuel fire to bring down over hundred floor steel and cement buildings and aii planted evidence to cover this fairy tale.You know CHIMP was in school reading his MY LITTLE GOAT at the time.I THINK IT'S ALL ONE BIG SNOW JOB,AFTER ALL THE LIES WHATS LEFT MORE LIES??

btree,

of all the posts above, you come by far the closest...vis a vis the great game.

people, there will be no withdrawal from iraq, doesn't matter if the repubs or dems win in '08, there will be no withdrawal, period.

there is no exit strategy, never was one, never will be one.

this constant harping on the WMD, and who knew what when, and where, is perfect distraction for what is really going on.

btree, my only refrain from your line is that the european powers, and russia, and china, were more than happy to support invasion of iraq, they truly were, but they withdrew when it became clear how the US was planning on dividing the pie once the conquer was complete...they were gonna throw away all the old contracts, all the old debt obligations and rewrite the rule book, and the US administration was blatantly public about it during the time...and the rest of the world said, ok, that's how you wanna play, then fuck you, you're on your own, let's see how it works out...

people, do you have any idea about what is happening these days in china and india, how massively they are ramping up into industrialization and beyond into high tech, and how much energy that requires ?

do you ?

get over your pathetic democracy analysis and smell the global roses for a change.

seriously.

Will someone in the Democratic Party please tell Lieberman that he's welcome to change parties? The guy has friendly interviews with Bush sockpuppet Sean Hannity and provides pro-war bullet points for the President. A great shot- across-the-bow for Democratic party discipline would be for Dean to call for Lieberman to leave the party.