Exit Strategies [Updated]

Now that the dam of public opinion is bursting on the Bush Iraq policy, we opponents of the war have a greater burden than ever to pose viable – I repeat, viable - alternatives.

When there was still a strong majority support for the war, I suppose it was enough for some to just say they were against it. But with Bush policy on the ground in Iraq so dramatically faltering and with the administration unable to offer anything except a call to stay the course, Americans need a realistic, alternative policy.

The more activist wing of the anti-war movement doesn't seem much up to the job. Some of its more moderate factions risk their credibility by once again allying with fringe groups like ANSWER in supporting a joint September 24 rally in Washington. Someone once said, “But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao…”

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, meanwhile, has laid down a great marker that outlines the debate we should now be having. In proposing a timetable for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of 2006, Feingold dismisses the standard response that this would be giving the game away to insurgents who would only have to wait us out. Says the Senator:

"I would answer the idea that somehow this would be a mistake by pointing out if it’s really true that the insurgents would just wait us out if there was a deadline, why wouldn’t they stop the attacks right now?  In other words they would just say, stop, and the Americans would leave, everything is secure, and then they could take over.  So, it’s kind of a nonsensical argument. "

Juan Cole has elaborated a similar but more detailed plan. Cole is the anti-war left’s most quoted and favorite source when it comes to explaining what’s really going on in Iraq. Will they now listen to his well-thought out argument as to why rally cries for “Out Now” aren’t gonna cut it? Cole:

I think "US out now" as a simple mantra neglects to consider the full range of possible disasters that could ensue. For one thing, there would be an Iraq civil war. Iraq wasn't having a civil war in 2002. And although you could argue that what is going on now is a subterranean, unconventional civil war, it is not characterized by set piece battles and hundreds of people killed in a single battle, as was true in Lebanon in 1975-76, e.g. People often allege that the US military isn't doing any good in Iraq and there is already a civil war. These people have never actually seen a civil war and do not appreciate the lid the US military is keeping on what could be a volcano.

 

Cole argues that an Iraqi civil war would likely become a regional mid-east war would, in turn, put in peril a fifth of the world’s oil supply. Again, Juan Cole:

People on the left often don't like it when I bring this scenario up, because they dislike oil; they read it as a variant of the "war for oil" thesis and reject it. But working people, whom we on the left are supposed to be supporting, get to work on buses, and buses burn gasoline. If the bus ticket doubles or triples, people who make $10,000 a year feel it. Moreover, if there is a depression, the janitors and other workers will be the first to be fired. As for the poor of the global South, this scenario would mean they are stuck in dire poverty for an extra generation. Do you know how expensive everything would be for Jamaicans, who import much of what they use and therefore are sensitive to the price of shipping fuel? It would be highly irresponsible to walk away from Iraq and let it fall into a genocidal civil war that left the Oil Gulf in flames.

Cole then puts forward ten points that Congress should demand from the White House; a strategy that would culminate in eventual U.S. troop withdrawal but not before fulfilling some of the key responsibilities created by Bush’s ill-conceived invasion. I will let you read though them on your own. Please do.

The bottom line is that the politics of the Iraqi war are quickly reaching a tipping point. This is the moment for the anti-Bush forces to show some real political maturity and acumen by asserting effective counter-leadership. Bush has ably demonstrated the disastrous consequences of implementing policy on the basis of blind faith and ideological supposition. Let’s not make the same mistake.

UPDATE:
I'm pleased to see that Juan Cole's proposals are eliciting a wide and mostly thougtful debate in the blogosphere. Some of the more delusional responses predictably enough come from the Idiot Right who accuse Cole of being a traitor. And, yes, also from those who want immediate, unconditional, un-thought-out withdrawal on the Unrepentant Idiot Left . One of the more prolific buffoons from that corner -- Louis Proyect the self-described "Unrepentant Marxist"-- can offer no better response than to compare Cole with Dick Nixon and then further suggest I undergo a lobotomy for having linked to Cole and to cure what he diagnoses as my incipient Hitchens Syndrome (Ahh.. for the good old days of the Show Trials when prosecutor Vishinsky would end his feverish closing statements with a call to "Shoot these mad dogs!"). Oh well... I suppose every day that political Neanderthals like this have their mitts far, far, far from any levers of power is, at least, an OK day. For that I give thanks.

Comments

[Josh Legere]

One of the major faults of the Anti-War movement is the assumption that those who do not support the immediate withdrawl automatically support the Bush administration’s current course of action. I know many people who opposed the war, voted against Bush, and like me, are concerned about leaving Iraq to the Jihadists.

Ultimately the biggest problem (much more so than the almost non existent Answer inspired Anti War movement) is the silence of both parties right now. Neither side wants to really come up with a solution. The political stalemate and the unwillingness of politicians of both stripes to be honest about the situation is only making things worse. We need a plan quickly.

That plan cannot include leaving Iraq to the Jihadists.

[jim hitchcock]

It tickles me a little bit to recall that, in reaction to the election, the next day I sent my first (and only) email to a politician, Russ Feingold, urging him to start considering a presidential run for 2008. I started it off "I hate to start badgering you so soon...". A friend later reminded me that Wisconsin is the Badger state.

Cole is one brilliant dude. The thing that really bothers me about the whole Cindy Sheehan circus is the total disconnect from the reality immediate withdrawal would cause. Beyond that place, there be dragons...

[Rob Grocholski]

M. Coop & all:
Very good post. Cole's 10 points are compelling ideas. Although I'm on the other side -- pro Iraq war -- the comments I read thru of Marc and Mr. Cole actually sound more like some ideas that would get us closer to a real 'victory strategy'.

[Jim Rockford]

Marc --

I think the anti-War Left is simply incapable of proceeding with any solution for Iraq because they cannot comprehend the problem. [Bush chose Iraq IMHO largely because he lacked the political will to solve comprehensively Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, therefore post Afghanistan SOMEONE was going to get dealt with and Saddam chose himself thinking it was 1991 all over again. Bush also thought it would be a cakewalk, which it was up to the occupation. This wasn't blood for oil or imperialism but a post-Afghan victory lap]

The Problem: the forces of jihad wish to first push the US and other Western influences out of the Muslim world (culturally, economically, politically, militarily, etc), then consolidate into one single unitary Caliphate, then conquer the rest of the world. Basically, Hitler's dream with no military might but the "magic sword" of mass casualty terror attacks (which Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 all made worse). The problem is to manage this threat with the minimum of killing and prevent a nuclear attack on US cities with the horrific nuclear counterattack.

I mean, look at the rhetoric The working assumption on the Left is that ... well 9/11 never happened and even if it did, couldn't happen again ... because ... well just because. No one has ever offered any arguments that it could not happen again because they simply choose to believe. Believe that simply being non-violent is a solution. That withdrawal and handing over Iraq to bin Laden is a strategy. The Left is just stuck in Vietnam. Read what bin Laden himself said in his first declaration of war (he sure doesn't sound like Ho Chi Minh to me):

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

"Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that "the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists".

We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in less than twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.

I say to Secretary of Defence: The sons of the land of the two Holy Places had come out to fight against the Russian in Afghanistan, the Serb in Bosnia-Herzegovina and today they are fighting in Chechenia and -by the Permission of Allah- they have been made victorious over your partner, the Russians. By the command of Allah, they are also fighting in Tajakistan."

Really, read the whole thing. Read Abu al-Zarqawi's view on democracy in Iraq and the threat in his mind to Islam and the goal of the Caliphate:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/23/iraq.main/

IF we withdraw without a stable Iraq capable of defeating bin Laden and his lieutenant in Iraq, we hand over the Sunni area at least to bin Laden (along with substantial oil revenues). We find ourselves with no friends in the region, and little influence in Pakistan to prevent transfer of nukes to bin Laden since our influence is based on perceived strength and Ahmed was frankly right in saying that Pakistan is a fragile state with many competing power centers (Musharref's health and authority being pretty iffy).

READ bin Laden's words. Another Mogadishu just insures thousands and perhaps millions dead in American cities. Wishing and hoping is not an option.

I would be wary of Cole too, he is completely ignorant outside his expertise of language and culture; his point about Iraqi tanks being a threat to US forces is laughable. The main problem with Iraqi armor is that there is no support available to it; no trained mechanics, logistics corps, etc. Tanks just don't run on their own, they require MASSIVE amounts of material and men to keep them going (even the T-72's). Most of them logistical. Any hostile tank in Iraq is a dead tank, even Cole knows that (he's just spouting off). If you want a real assessment of the Iraqi military capability, go see Bill Roggio at:
http://billroggio.com/archives/2005/08/building_the_ir.php
AND
http://billroggio.com/archives/2005/08/amore_are_on_th.php

Iraq actually seems to be turning some corners. Sadly, SUNNI election officials were murdered by Michael Moore's "minutemen" aka bin Laden's group, as Sunnis more and more regret standing outside the last election and are determined to participate. In a horrible way this murder shows the resolution of some Sunnis to participate in elections rather than continue the fighting. The solution is political:

1. Give the Sunni Tribal Chiefs an offer they can't refuse: a share of the oil graft, if they come inside and turn on the foreign jihadis, stop their own attacks; coupled with a demonstrable threat of destroying their property (no effective banking system in Iraq means they have most of their wealth around them, guarded).

2. A federal system, with enough arm-twisting to get Sunnis to go along with this and make them face reality that they won't be running Iraq forever.

3. Just as important: make sure that Shariah is NOT enshrined as the constitutional basis for law, and there is a separate section guaranteeing the rights of women. Absent Saddam's rivers of blood and mass graves you can't change the tribal society overnight but America should at least set a structure where the society can move forward into the 19th Century.

Cole believes the natural order of things in Iraq was for the Sunnis to rule. Absent Saddam or his sons, civil war was inevitable. Hopefully, we are drawing to a close as Sunnis realize they can't fight forever.

None of this will prevent Americans from dying in Iraq. But then tragic as the dying there has been, there is no way out of it. If 9/11 doesn't convince America that we don't have a magic shield protecting us from the bad things in life, I don't know what will. We either defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq, and close in on them in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran (the real threats), perhaps politically with the leverage the victory in Iraq gives us (defined as an Iraq that is simply not hostile to the US ala Malaysia); or we hand bin Laden ISI nukes and convince him we are a dog waiting to be kicked. Our choice.

The big danger for the Left is political irrelevancy. They have far too much hitched themselves to Sheehan and the peace movement which is stuck in 1969. That is not responsive to a post-9/11 World.

[Mork]

Frankly, Marc, I think this is all a bit of a wank. The fact of the matter is that for the next three years, the war will be run by the same gang of venal, duplicitous fuck-ups that got us into it in the first place. That bunch is not going to give the slightest thought to anything that the Democrats say about the matter except to the extent that they can somehow use it to to make political points.

At this stage in the cycle, I don't think the Democrats have anything to gain by proposing any solution - and given the range of views within the party, they have a lot to lose by tearing themselves apart playing hypotheticals.

Moreover, given that anything they propose will be viewed with contempt by the adminstration, it's not like they can help the country any by coming up with carefully planned solutions.

The only way American policy in Iraq will improve is if the Administration wakes up to reality or is removed from office.

For that reason, I think the best that the Dems can do for themselves and the country is to do their best to point out the consequences of the administration's actions, to explain how they came about and to hold the administration accountable for them. The rest can wait until a change of government.

[Michael Balter]

Marc, I agree that a knee-jerk "out now" position that does not consider all the possible consequences of leaving Iraq immediately is irresponsible. But at least two other factors need to be taken into account if the left is going to be useful on this issue. First, to what extent we have the right to ask young American men and women to continue to die in Iraq, as well as innocent civilians, while we get it all sorted out, and second, to what extent the US military is really keeping a lid on civil war as Juan Cole says rather than providing the justification for the terrorist acts of the insurgents. I don't have the answer to these questions, but they have to be part of the equation.

[Marc Cooper]

MB: Those are both excellent points. To the first one, I never have an answer Im comfortable with (this is why I am totally for a draft army by the way). And to the second point, I -- like you-- dont know. It does SEEM to me however that the best way to answer that question is to take the Feingold route and ANNOUNCE a phased withdrawal with renuciation of permanent bases.

I guess for me the really hard part of this war is facing the cold truth that not everything has a simple solution or any solution for that matter. Bush really put us in a dangerous FUBAR position in Iraq with no good options.

[jim hitchcock]

Feingolds on KCET as I type this.

[richard lo cicero]

I was impressed with Professor Cole's plan when I read it this morning but that is premature at this time. As someone else said on this thread for the next three years Iraq will be run by a group of incompetent war criminals who would nit-pick any 10 point plan to death, as would the media and the DLC and probably Biden and Hillary as well. The fact is there are other essential things to do before we get to plans.

The first is to recognise that A) the only way to get the chance to change things is thru the Democratic Party and B) The leadership of the party is almost hopelessly unwilling to give up the illusion that there is a "Winning" strategy for Iraq. And so leaders of the DLC call antiwar types like those at Camp Casey "anti-American". And Hillary and Biden refusing to state the obvious. Furthermore, it is reported that the so called "strategists" are advising candidates to avoid talking about the war but concentrate on "Values" issues
and social security. The same advice they gave in 2002. The same advice that worked so well then for Gepheart and Daschle. No wonder Dave Sirota called these people the "Democratic Professional Losers."

All this ignores a simple fact about Iraq. Come hell or high water the troops have to come out and soon. No this is not because A.N.S.W.E.R. says so but what professional military types say. Take Lawrence Korb, the Reagan era Dep Sec Def who recently wrote that by next summer everyone in the Regular Army would have served two terms in country and the third time is the not the charm. And the Reserves, who make up 40% of the forces, can't stay by law more than two Years and that comes up too. To extend requires an act of Congress and they are antsy. Bush may not have to run again but his party does. So the "Out Now" crowd will grow and the Dems could find themselves whipsawed on this.

So the answer now is for people who are running, the Feingolds, Hacketts, other Iraq Vets, to make the case that this is the GOP war. They sold it and they are responsible for it. And if you want a change don't go to the same people who sold it to you in the first place. And if that makes some Dems in DC upset - So be it! As Dighby write what is needed now is Politics not Programs. First get some power. Then you can create ten part programs to your heart's content.

[richard lo cicero]

I was impressed with Professor Cole's plan when I read it this morning but that is premature at this time. As someone else said on this thread for the next three years Iraq will be run by a group of incompetent war criminals who would nit-pick any 10 point plan to death, as would the media and the DLC and probably Biden and Hillary as well. The fact is there are other essential things to do before we get to plans.

The first is to recognise that A) the only way to get the chance to change things is thru the Democratic Party and B) The leadership of the party is almost hopelessly unwilling to give up the illusion that there is a "Winning" strategy for Iraq. And so leaders of the DLC call antiwar types like those at Camp Casey "anti-American". And Hillary and Biden refusing to state the obvious. Furthermore, it is reported that the so called "strategists" are advising candidates to avoid talking about the war but concentrate on "Values" issues
and social security. The same advice they gave in 2002. The same advice that worked so well then for Gepheart and Daschle. No wonder Dave Sirota called these people the "Democratic Professional Losers."

All this ignores a simple fact about Iraq. Come hell or high water the troops have to come out and soon. No this is not because A.N.S.W.E.R. says so but what professional military types say. Take Lawrence Korb, the Reagan era Dep Sec Def who recently wrote that by next summer everyone in the Regular Army would have served two terms in country and the third time is the not the charm. And the Reserves, who make up 40% of the forces, can't stay by law more than two Years and that comes up too. To extend requires an act of Congress and they are antsy. Bush may not have to run again but his party does. So the "Out Now" crowd will grow and the Dems could find themselves whipsawed on this.

So the answer now is for people who are running, the Feingolds, Hacketts, other Iraq Vets, to make the case that this is the GOP war. They sold it and they are responsible for it. And if you want a change don't go to the same people who sold it to you in the first place. And if that makes some Dems in DC upset - So be it! As Dighby write what is needed now is Politics not Programs. First get some power. Then you can create ten part programs to your heart's content.

[reg]

I tend to agree with Cole, although I don't have any certainty as to a "solution". But it doesn't matter, because the reality is that what will come out of this will be screwed up...resulting from an endgame driven not by some "Out Now Left" or a "responsible opposition" but by mainstream political imperatives as ordinary Americans increasingly get sick of the war. Anybody who's been watching the puke machine go into overdrive against Cindy Sheehan has got to recognize that an anti-war action doesn't have to be organized by The Workers World Party or some other ultra-left fringe to be demonized. A grieving mother crying out from her gut, her loss and her pain against people who arrogantly manufactured a needless war from false premises and, their folly compounded by their incompetence, proceeded on a path of criminal negligence is deemed enough to bring out the vile and dishonest shills of the right, crying "treason" to silence her. Bush is responsible for the war and he's responsible for the depth and breadth of anti-war sentiment. But the "Bush-haters" and the anti-war left haven't snowballed with their protests. The anti-war center and the anti-war right have snowballed with the abject failure of the administration to maintain even a shred of credibility on the war's rationale, it's conduct or it's likely outcome.

When a neo-con chickenhawk like Michael Ledeen starts calling decorated war veteran and bona fide conservative GOP Senator Chuck Hagel, "the Senator from France" you know these jerks are running scared. That shit may have worked on John Kerry, but I think people are finally getting sick of it. Anti-war sentiment is about to outrun the politicians and, at least inside the Beltway, the force that will put the most direct pressure on Bush as regards Iraq will be the fears of the GOPers running for re-election.

[Michael Turner]

Fresh from being booted a second time from Michael Totten's comment section, where I was sniping incognito until I outed myself to him (musta been a death wish), I must say it's refreshing to come over here and read genuine thought. Even wack thought like Rockford's -- hey, at least it's thought.

I also read Cole this morning -- I guess you just have to go back to Cole when something like this Islamic Surprise comes up during Iraqi Constitutional Convention Overtime. And my first reaction was -- "Gosh, Cole's brave; for a couple years he crawled way out on what many thought was a limb on the left, and now in all likelihood it's the left that's going to saw him off, calling him a closet hawk. 'Why did we ever listen to you, Juan?'" (He has just run a long response to his proposal, somewhat to that effect, and it makes for very interesting reading.)

My second reaction was: could this be the early 70s all over again? I've reviewed this hypothesis that Vietnam was a defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. You remember it I'm sure -- it's been hashed out in this very comment forum. It goes like this: a stable South Vietnam was almost in the bag, Vietnamization had worked as well as it was going to, it was just a matter of cutting the umbilical cord of U.S. ground troop presence to force them to toughen up on their own, but then Congress cut off the kind of external support that Cole now proposes, and then the other shoe dropped when Nixon went out in blaze of ... um ... sewer gas?

(It's noteworthy, I think, that a young Donald Rumsfeld was, in that very divided administration, in favor of removing ground troops, a the very least.)

So Vietnamization would have worked if Congress hadn't bowed to popular will about Vietnam, and if Nixon hadn't hung himself with Watergate. That's the theory. Do I buy it? Still not sure.

In any case, for "Vietnam[ization]" read "Iraq[ization]". And there you have it: Cole seems to be offering little more than a retread of that strategy, perhaps not significantly different from what the current administration plans. Phased withdrawal of group troops, but air support, material support, and intelligence support left in place. Is it a strategy that could work in this case, though?

One big difference I see is that Vietnam was in a civil war with a srong centralizing theme: Vietnamese nationalism. Iraq seems quite the opposite -- it's naturally three nations.

Another problem is that Vietnam had to go one way or the other in the big contest of the time, the Cold War. The only thing anywhere near a similar global conflict right now is us vs. al Qaeda, and al Qaeda is just laughably small. They can stir up trouble, and they sure did with 9/11, but they can't decide a major conflict like a full-scale Iraqi civil war, much less take control. Sorry, Jim, but you're just telling ghost stories here.

Finally, there's one element that could work for better or worse in uniting or dividing Iraq: those two oceans of oil within its borders (one in an area claimed by the Kurds, another in an area claimed by the Shi'ites.) Sunni Arab Iraqis will keep the insurgent heat on indefinitely, if they believe they will be cut out of a share. Whatever they are fighting for, it's not for becoming a poor but sovereign Sunni Triangle Republic. (And their moral claim on that oil might be that, under Ba'athism, at least until 1980 or so, Iraq made great strides economically, becoming a modern nation.) At today's prices, that oil is worth trillions of dollars. Vietnam was about who was going to run what would still be a poor country in the end. Not so Iraq.

The amount that Iraqi oil reserves have appreciated since 2003 amounts to probably a decade's worth of average income per capita in Iraq. And don't think for a minute that's not in the political calculations going on now. As Cole also notes, very briefly: Iraqi oil production is now at standstill. Production, pipelines, shipping -- these are all very vulnerable. There is no settlement that will work unless it's one that somehow guarantees cooperative protecion of that infrastructure.

But there is another calculation going on -- not what the oil is worth now, but what it will be worth in two years, in five years, in a decade, in fifteen years. From a certain point of view, the Sunni Ba'athist "bitter enders" are aiming at something very sweet indeed. They are probably betting that whatever delays production for the duration will pay off handsomely in the end, if they define what they mean by victory shrewdly, and achieve it.

"We've got to make the pie higher," said Dubya malapropistically in another context. Iraqi oil is getting to be a very high pie indeed.

[Nell]

The job of a mass movement isn't to come up with plans, it's to move politicians to do so. The demands of United for Peace & Justice's September 24 march:
END THE WAR ON IRAQ
BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW

aren't irresponsible, because neither the Bush administration nor Congress is going to respond to them with an immediate withdrawal. The message is really
"Start NOW to implement a plan to end the war and withdraw the troops."

The first of the subsidiary demands, Leave no military bases behind, is also crucial to make publicly and loudly. My concern about Juan Cole's proposal is that it could end up as a version of what Bush wants to see -- a garrison of 20-30,000 troops who are there for the long term.

Bush won't renounce bases, or commit to total withdrawal, so Congress must. Demonstrations, lobbying (the UFPJ actions include a lobby day on Monday, Sept. 26), letter writing, town meetings can all be ways to build pressure on Congress and on prospective candidates.

I encourage anyone within traveling distance of DC to consider coming to some or all of the events of September 24-26. Details here:

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?list=type&type=91

There weren't any pictures of Chairman Mao among the crowd of 200,000 on the mall in January 2003. Sixty people traveled from my little town that day. The speeches are probably going to be shorter and better this time around. See you there.

[Michael Turner]

Nell writes:
----
The demands of United for Peace & Justice's September 24 march ... aren't irresponsible ... The message is really
"Start NOW to implement a plan to end the war and withdraw the troops."
----

Hm, this must be one of those Lakoffian 'frames' I still haven't figured out. "Out Now" *really* means "Start moving on getting out eventually"? Wow, I can't wait for Dubya to start chanting it, since he would hardly disagree with that gloss. Maybe Rummy can chime in, mumbling under his breatch "even if it takes 6, 8, 10, 12 years ...." The makings of a Real Big Tent you got there.

Ayn Rand used to have this trope she used against the "altruist collectivist mumbo-jumbo-spouting ...." (oh I'm starting to forget the mechanical invective streams she used; a good sign I guess.) This one cracked me up then, and it still cracks me now, years after I deprogrammed myself out of Objectivism. It goes like this:

"DON'T TAKE ME SERIOUSLY!" they scream.

Never thought I'd have to take it seriously.

Try it on for size. I think it would make a great demo chant -- text and subtext, call and response:

OUT NOW!
(Don't take us seriously!)
OUT NOW!
(Don't take us seriously!)
....

Moving right along to someone who can at least be very precise even when he's being flatly ridiculous, Rockford writes:
----
"...be wary of Cole too, he is completely ignorant outside his expertise of language and culture; his point about Iraqi tanks being a threat to US forces is laughable. The main problem with Iraqi armor is that there is no support available to it; no trained mechanics, logistics corps, etc...."
----

I don't think anyone is proposing that a free-standing Iraqi Army (if that's really possible) be supplied tanks without also being supplied with adequate support for them. And I don't think it's ridiculous to say that an effective cavalry is impossible in Iraq; Iraqis have been able to use tanks before, and probably used them quite effectively against Iran.

The problem is one that Fred Kaplan wrote about recently. He thinks the current 'government' of Iraq is actually very afraid of a U.S. ground force withdrawal happening on any kind of definite, timely schedule, because if Iraq spun out of control, as it might if the withdrawal is any time soon, a good portion of Iraqi military capability that the U.S. is now helping to rebuild could be used against all comers, by whatever factions gain control over various parts of that capability, and even against any remaining U.S. forces. In the event, it wouldn't be American M-1 tanks going up against old Soviet T-72s run by Iraqis, it would be American M-1 tanks going up against new M-1 tanks run by Iraqis, with logistical support networks originally trained and provisioned by the Americans.

The compromise position might be: give them the weapons, but hold the logistical purse-strings tightly. That can be pretty useful leverage, after all. Even long after the fact. Why, didn't one of the Iran-Contra deals involve raising money by going through some Israelis to sell spare parts to Iran for fighter jets that the Mullahs had inherited from the Shah's regime? (And, irony of ironies, I think that was somewhere around the same time that one of Iran's suicidal-teenager-wave offensives against Iraq was named "Operation Push to Jerusalem.")

Oh, sorry, that's too embarrassing to bring up again these days. I guess I forgot my manners. Anyway, Rockford might have a point here after all. It happens sometimes. At least I got an Iran-Contra cheap shot out of it.

[Nell]

Michael, I was not saying that the 'out now' demand is insincere, or can be expanded to mean anything, in the Bushian "withdrawal program-related activities" style. I for one, and Andrew Bacevitch for another (Sunday op-ed in the Washington Post), sincerely believe the best of an array of all-bad choices is the quickest withdrawal possible.

My point was about the realistic effect of such a demand, and the difference between joining a demonstration and making a detailed policy proposal. Marc's post seems to me to hold grassroots antiwar marchers to an inappopriate standard.

On the scale of proposals actually on offer by politicians in a position to push them, Feingold's _is_ practically an 'out now' stance.

[Tom Grey]

(Bush?) Exit Strategy: support the Iraqi Constitution that the Iraqis who were elected in January agree upon (unless it is "too bad" -- undefined). Support the October referendum to ratify, by vote, the Iraqi Constitution (no plan B). Support the election of new Iraqis, as specified by their new constitution.
Negotiate a timetable of withdrawal of US troops with the newly elected Iraqi leaders.

This plan MOSTLY depends on the Iraqis. I think it's good, and the right plan, and the US leaving Iraq w/o discussing our plans and decisions with elected Iraqis is pretty irresponsible. (But Leftists seem happy with wanting Reps to do irresponsible actions.)

Marc, you're right about Juan Cole having good insights (this time; usually I don't think so). Especially #7 -- district elections, NOT party list elections. If the elections remain as party lists, expect Iraq to split.
(Will Iraq become a bloodbath?
http://tomgrey.motime.com/1083696987#269782)

I was surprised no point 11 -- National Iraq Oil Trust fund, to divide oil profit to all citizens (voters?) equally. And keep other taxes low.

He prefaced his points with this important statement, which I fully agree with:
"If there is a civil war now that kills a million people, with ethnic cleansing and millions of displaced persons, it will be our fault, or at least the fault of the 75% of Americans who supported the war."

Such a civil war will NOT happen while Bush is president.

Applying the same logic to Vietnam, we get: the post-war genocide that killed 2 million people was (partly) the fault of the USA, especially those who were advocating US "OUT NOW" -- like Marc Cooper.

Democracy is possible in an Arab, Islamic country -- but its supporters must be the "strong horse."

(Michael T -- you make more sense here?)

[Jason Schulman]

REPLY FROM GILBERT ACHCAR
Dear Juan,

As a regular reader and occasional contributor to your blog, which I believe is doing a real service to all those concerned with the situation in Iraq, and as an activist in the antiwar movement, I feel it necessary to comment on your last piece of argumentation posted today, August 22, 2005, where you argue at length against the “US Out Now” position. I was surprised to see that, on this score, you are quite a bit softer toward the US occupation of Iraq than Andrew Bacevich, whose piece The Washington Post ran yesterday.

The core of your argument is stated from the beginning when you talk about “the lid the US military is keeping on what could be a volcano.” Using the same “lid” metaphor, I would reply that the lid that the US military is keeping on the Iraqi situation is precisely what makes the pot boil so dangerously and threaten to explode at any moment.

You add: “All it would take would be for Sunni Arab guerrillas to assassinate Grand Ayatollah Sistani. And, boom.” Agreed: that could definitely lead to a disaster. But, aside from the fact that Sistani does not rely for his protection on US or any other foreign troops, do you seriously believe for one second that, if he were assassinated, the presence of US troops would prevent the disaster? You know quite well that, not only is this last assumption highly unlikely, but it is also quite possible to make the opposite point: that such an explosion in the presence of US troops would just make things worse, by greatly increasing the number of casualties when the US military resorts to the “conventional” weapons of mass destruction that it possesses and has not hesitated to use in cases like Fallujah.

The only hope one could have of avoiding the slide into a full-blown, devastating civil war — if Sistani were to be assassinated — is if the forces involved in the political process, i.e. those not already involved in the low-intensity civil war going on in Iraq, were successful in achieving control over their constituencies after an inevitable first outburst of anger, by emphasizing that the perpetrators are either the Baathists or Zarqawi’s followers or the like, that their objective is exactly to ignite a civil war, and that the best reply to that is precisely to pay heed to Sistani’s insistence on the necessity of avoiding any kind of sectarian war.

As for the other argument that you make implicitly, namely that the presence of US troops in Iraq would prevent the shift from a local civil war to “a regional war, drawing in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey,” this too is unconvincing. One could more easily argue that it is the very presence of US troops in Iraq, combined with Washington’s provocative policy toward Iran and Syria, that threatens very concretely to ignite a regional war, with all the consequences that you may imagine, including those on the price of oil, the importance of which you underline. Isn’t it already quite clear, by the way, that Washington’s saber rattling toward Teheran is responsible for a great deal of the recent hike in oil prices?

Let me now comment on the “responsible stance” that you advocate in the guise of an “exit strategy.” I’ll take up your main arguments:

1) “US ground troops should be withdrawn ASAP from urban areas as a first step. Iraqi police will just have to do the policing. We are no good at it. If local militias take over, that is the Iraqi government's problem. The prime minister will have to either compromise with the militia leaders or send in other Iraqi militias to take them on. Who runs Iraqi cities can no longer be a primary concern of the US military…”

Strange indeed! If the argument against the “Out Now” position is that the withdrawal of the troops ASAP would lead to civil war, everything in the above paragraph backfires completely.

2,3&4) US ground troops would be withdrawn, in a second phase, while US air bases would be kept and US air forces used in support of the Iraqi government: “we would replicate our tactics in Afghanistan of providing the air force for the Northern Alliance infantry and cavalry.” This, you believe, “could prevent the outbreak of fullscale war.” And than you add: “This way of proceeding, which was opened up by the Afghanistan War of 2001-2002, and which depends on smart weapons and having allies on the ground, is the major difference between today and the Vietnam era, when dumb bombs (and even carpet bombing) couldn't have been deployed effectively to ensure the enemy did not take or hold substantial territory.”

First, starting from the end, I am surprised that, whereas you stress the difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan, you don’t see the much greater one — in terms of the nature of the terrain, of the kind of war (urban vs. rural guerilla), etc. — between Afghanistan and Iraq. From the military point of view, your suggestion of a replica in Iraq of US support to the Northern Alliance troops in Afghanistan is, to be frank, quite nonsensical. The proof of the pudding is that, if anything of the kind could work in Iraq, I am sure the Pentagon would not have waited until they read your blog.

Second, have you considered that the goal of the Bush administration might precisely be to keep US air bases in Iraq for the long haul, and that arguments such as yours are very likely to be used to support this goal? Keeping in mind the nature of the dominant political forces in Iraq, and everything you yourself have written repeatedly about their Iranian connections, do you seriously believe that Iraqi majority leaders would agree to US air bases remaining in their country after the withdrawal of all ground troops? And even if we assumed that to be the case, don’t you see that this would be the best recipe for the continuation of the “insurgency” and for regional conflicts, for that matter?

7&8) “The US should demand as a quid pro quo for further help” — a. “that elections in Iraq henceforward be held on a district basis so as to ensure proper representation in parliament for the Sunni Arab provinces.” ; and b. “that the Iraqi government announce an amnesty for all former Baath Party members who cannot be proven to have committed serious crimes, including crimes against humanity. Former Baathists who have been fired from the schools and civil bureaucracy must be reinstated, and no further firings are to take place.”

First of all, let me state clearly that I am resolutely opposed to the US government demanding any quid pro quo for “help” it could offer the Iraqi authorities: this reminds me of the Godfather’s “offer you can’t refuse.” Second, the procedure of Iraqi elections is no more the business of the US than that of US elections is the business of Iraq. Third, Washington’s imposition of an amnesty for whatever Baathists, aside from its reaching the highest degree of cynicism, would be the best way to replace the frustration of the “Sunni Arab political elites” that you are keen to quench with the frustration of the overwhelming majority of the Kurdish and Shia Arab masses and political elites (except Allawi and his crowd)! Of course, Washington, with its global arrogance, sees no problem with ignoring the basic principles of peoples’ right to self-determination and non-interference of a state in the internal affairs of another — both inscribed in the UN Charter of which the US is the foremost world violator — but surely the antiwar movement shouldn't take a similar position.

For the rest, I think that Bacevich, a Vietnam veteran himself and definitely not a radical, has made very clearly the main commonsensical arguments for the call for bringing US troops home now so that I don’t need to repeat them here. I am sure, Juan, that you are genuinely seeking to elaborate a “responsible stance,” as you call it, which would be in the best interest of both the US and Iraqi peoples. I believe, however, that you are on the wrong track and hope that you will rethink your stance accordingly and join the increasing majority of both populations calling for a total and immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

With my best regards,

Gilbert Achcar '

[Alex Cutter]

"Such a civil war will NOT happen while Bush is president."

zzzzzzzzzz

[Michael Turner]

Nell, I suppose your approach might have some merit, seen only as a political strategy. But what you're proposing sounds to me like what's been called "positional bargaining" (as opposed to "principled bargaining") -- taking an extreme position only in the hopes that your opposition will be forced to move toward it. But if it's just a bargaining position, it's a bargaining position taken while Iraqis are already dying in much greater numbers than U.S. troops. What if the quickest possible exit also means an ultimately much higher body count -- in Iraq? The real problem is inherent in even the expanded form of "Out Now!" -- "Start NOW to implement a plan to end the war and withdraw the troops." What if, in practice, that means, "get out of Iraq post-haste even if that means much more war"?

I think U.S. troops are providing targets for the Jihadists and for the Sunni Arab insurgency, and probably others as well. Their very presence virtually guarantees some added violence. But Cole's point is that the most rapid possible disengagement might actually cause a *real* war. U.S. troops are a provocation to small-scale violence, but arguably a bulwark against large-scale violence.

Given that we've been tricked into this bad situation, there's still an onus to try for the best possible outcome. An Iraqi civil war might kill millions, and might even spread beyond Iraq's borders, as Cole warns. That's a losing proposition for everybody (except maybe al Qaeda, which might eke out some leverage from the chaos; there are hints that they'd be interested in seeing a large-scale renewal of the original Shi'a/Sunni split, even if it lost them Shi'a followers; in other words, maybe they'd actually *prefer* a major "civil war" within Islam. They are nothing if not opportunists.) The repercussions would be global, and negative, in any case.

I think we can agree that an untrammelled Iraqi civil war is an outcome to be avoided if at all possible. Even if your main concern were primarily gaining future domestic political influence, the question "Who Lost Iraq?" isn't very conveniently answered for you, in the hypothetical future in which you've had great influence, if that loss entailed the deaths of millions, where so far we've seen only tens of thousands dead from what Bush & Co have perpetrated.

Then there's a "social violence" outcome that should be strenuously avoided. This a situation in which various militia-backed forces within Iraq set up fiefdoms within which they administer affairs in a manner that yields superficially peaceful societies that are nevertheless as vicious as the Ba'athist regime, societies which are in most places less liberal in the few ways that Saddam's regime was liberal (women's rights, for example.) There were hints of this from the very beginning, and now the syndrome appears on the verge of becoming widespread, it's growing like weeds in a vacant lot because of the longstanding power vacuum at the center. Yes, that power vacuum is almost certainly the fault of a botched occupation. Still, we can't comfortably contemplate this "equivalent social violence" end-state until all better scenarios can be ruled out. Can they, at this point? If there are better ways, what role would U.S. military force most appropriately play? None? Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE?

I have to say that when certain figures in associated with this mess speak honestly, as they do on occasion, it just drives me nuts. Like when Condi said that it might be 40 years before we know for sure whether invading Iraq was a net positive contribution. Or when Powell said that the goal of the invasion was to create a stable middle east oil supplier nation. I think the motives were mixed, and that they knew it was a gamble. I don't think they knew that it might be a gamble where some other administration might have to pay the gambling debt. Or maybe they did -- maybe they figured two terms for Bush was the most they could expect, and that the executive branch would shift back to the Democrats, making *them* the ones who could be painted as "Losing Iraq."

Fumbling this one just doesn't seem like an option. Unless it's already a fait accompli. I wish I knew. Do Hagel and Feingold know? Or are they just echoing their latest poll results, like good politicians?

[Bill]

Today, Juan Cole posts a contributor who completely disagrees with him about a US withdrawal. Certainly, that speaks well of Cole. I admire Cole, but believe that there will be a bloodbath regardless of what the US does. I also would point out that the US Army cannot sustain a presence in Iraq. (This was also true of Vietnam: if the US had stayed much longer, the Army would have disintegrated.) I opposed the war: the future Iraqi Civil War is not my fault. The Iraqi exiles who cheered the US invasion on (both the criminals such as Chalabi and the simply short-sighted, such as the Shia community in Detroit) are more to blame than the anti-war movement. If they want to stop the future civil war, let them form their version of the International Brigades. Perhaps the pundits who helped the Bush administration lie us into the war can also enlist.

[kaff]

How can ANYONE have a coherent "plan" when as you say the situation is "FUBAR"? With military officials saying one thing and the pathologically secretive administration another,with constant lies and mixed messages at best, what savior is supposed to wade through this giant clusterfuck and come up with a plan? Doesn't someone have to actually know the reality of Iraq before a plan is presented?

[Mavis Beacon]

I understand the impulse to withhold a plan but in this case I think those fears are misguided. The administration has already made clear that anyone who suggests a time table or exit plan of any sort will be labeled a coward. (By the way, was anyone else listening to To the Point yesterday when David Frum accused Hackett of run away and Hackett remarked that he never saw David in Iraq? Good times.) I don’t believe that argument holds a lot of currency with the American people anymore. The answer is to be proposing productive solutions along with Chuck Hagel and dissatisfied conservatives. While the Out Now faction may be displeased with a timetable I suspect a good portion of them would quiet down and give the process a chance (Nell for one). Second, it’s good for Democrats because a timetable strikes me as potentially very popular. Third, it’s a position that will get good press whether it’s the Dems or moderate Republicans who seize upon it. Lastly, I think it’s the best option for the Iraqi people.

I agree, Richard lo Cicero that this was a war of choice built by the Bush administration.
But it was facilitated by the cowardice of Democratic leaders so it ain’t easy to blame the Republicans for what we got into. I think the American people tend to agree that the status quo is unacceptable. Macho foreign policy isn’t looking stellar right now (except maybe to the paranoid Rockfords of the world). I think America is ready for a more nuanced approach than Bush has to offer and if the Democrats aren’t there to capitalize, Chuck Hagel and the moderate Republicans will benefit.

[reg]

"Fresh from being booted a second time from Michael Totten's comment section, where I was sniping incognito until I outed myself to him (musta been a death wish), I must say it's refreshing to come over here and read genuine thought."

Totten bans you from his comments ? You're about as reasonable and reasoned as commenters get. Incredible. I don't read Totten often, but I check in occasionally to see if he's still neck and neck with Roger Simon in the race to the shallow end of the pool, and the last thing I saw was his pissing on about how unfair the "chickenhawk" label is. In his case, "chickenshit" seems more to the point, if he can't deal with your responses to his drivel.

[rosedog]

Thanks for the topic, Marc. The (virtual) discourse between such voices as Juan Cole, Andrew Bachevich and Cole's commenter, Gilbert Achcar, is indeed what is needed....and finally it’s taking place in the light, rather than the shadows. Yet it's only the shifting tide against the war that has allowed this discussion to begin to occur on a nationwide basis. Until recently, dissenting voices---whether advocating OUT NOW or HANG IN FOR A WHILE IN SOME REASONABLY INTELLIGENT,SEMI-PLANNED FASHION OR OTHER---have been shouted down in the mainstream press. The Cindy Sheehan Tipping Point has blown open the conversation. (No, I'm not giving her credit personally. She's symbolic.)

Just for the record, the Out Now philosophy is not merely the province of the left. There is this from the Salt Lake City Tribune’s morning editorial. And yes, I realize Salt Lake’s mayor is a former ACLU dude busy leading demonstrations yesterday, but the state itself delivered the highest winning percentage of votes for Bush last year of any in the nation. Yet below are clips from what Utah’s paper of record had to say after Bush spoke at the VFW:

Gunpoint democracy: THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH
The strategy for bringing democracy to Iraq isn't working

“Imposing democracy at gunpoint in Iraq is looking more and more like a fool's errand. Nevertheless, President Bush continues to try, mostly because, at this point, that's about all the United States can do.
See the constitutional process through, then get out. If you want a U.S. exit strategy in a nutshell, that's it….

“…. The president is right that the United States was able to impose lasting democracies in Japan and Germany in the aftermath of World War II, and we have witnessed a blossoming of democracy in Eastern Europe and parts of the former Soviet Union in the wake of the Cold War.

“But the strategy of gunpoint democracy does not appear to be working in Iraq. As James L. Payne has pointed out, U.S. military intervention never has worked to quell terrorism elsewhere in the Middle East, either. In fact, sending American soldiers into other places, including Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, always has had the opposite effect; it has caused terrorism to flare and gain strength.

“That is what has happened with the American invasion and occupation of Iraq over the past 28 months..

“… The best the United States can hope to do at this point is give cover to the stop-and-go process of writing an Iraqi constitution and holding elections for a new government. After that, the United States should withdraw its troops.

“Because every day that the United States remains in Iraq only increases resentment of the occupation and strengthens the forces of terrorism….”

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_2964574

[Marc Cooper]

Nell.. I stand corrected. Intl ANSWER and the Workers World Party which stands behind it have always preferred posters of Kim Il Sung over Mao Tse Tung, I stand corrected. No doubt the rallies organized by ANSWER are populated by fine people like urselves who have nothing to do nor even much if any awareness of ANSWER's fringe agenda and ideology. Those do not invalidate your process. But the mass abdication of antiwar folks on this matter, the fact that they continue such marginal elements as ANSWER to speak in their name comes no doubt with a high political price. There are many many reasons why the peace movemet has failed to gain traction. One of those reasons is that a sectarian Stalinist cult has been allowed to have a high profile in organizing its rallies. Honest people have been morally blackmailed or auto-blackmailed and they pee in their pants in fear they will be called McCarthyites or Anti-Communists. Too bad, If I had the power I would have banned ANSWER from coming within 100 miles of an anti-war demo. If you think that on Sept 254 the anti-war cause is going be be furthered by a gaggle of speakers wearing Kefiyahas and denouncing the "colonial occupation of Iraq, Palestine and Haiti" all in the same breath, then you probably will disagree with me. If you dont, then why are you going to let those speakers speak for you?