In a lengthy op-ed in the Washington Post this morning Daniel Byman and Kenneth Pollack ask the question “What’s next in Iraq?†Their answers are civil war, spreading disorder, a potential new home for terrorists, spillover to adjacent countries. increasing disorder in the region, and possible intervention by neighboring countries. A good time for the U. S. to make a break for it? That’s not they’re conclusion:
Much as Americans may want to believe that the United States can just walk away from Iraq should it slide into all-out civil war, the threat of spillover from such a conflict throughout the Middle East means it can’t. Instead, Washington will have to devise strategies to deal with refugees, minimize terrorist attacks emanating from Iraq, dampen the anger in neighboring populations caused by the conflict, prevent secession fever and keep Iraq’s neighbors from intervening. The odds of success are poor, but, nonetheless, we have to try.
We can’t disentangle ourselves from this situation. And, in all likelihood, we can’t correct it.
It bears mentioning that, regardless of the platform that politicians may run on, unless they’ve completely taken leave of their senses, we will have a major military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Even those running on a policy “immediate withdrawal†will, in all likelihood, recognize that they’ve underestimated how bad a disaster that would be. As Byman and Pollack put it in their introduction:
Indeed, the only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into total Bosnia-like devastation is 135,000 U.S. troops — and even they are merely slowing the fall.
Slow may be as good as it gets.
Here are Byman and Pollack’s prescriptions:
- persuade neighbors not to intervene
- avoid taking sides in the sectarian conflict
- manage the Kurds
- create buffers along the borders
They conclude:
How Iraq got to this point is now an issue for historians (and perhaps for voters in 2008); what matters today is how to move forward and prepare for the tremendous risks an Iraqi civil war poses for this critical region. The outbreak of a large-scale civil conflict would not relieve us of our responsibilities in Iraq; in fact, it could multiply them. Unfortunately, in the Middle East, one should never assume that the situation can’t get worse. It always can — and usually does.
Well Dave, I don’t think those two make much sense.
I believe it would be immoral for the US to stay if there is no hope for an outcome favorable to the United States. Anything less would be a waste of lives. So if civil war comes, we should bid the country adieu and leave them to their own devices.
We only have an obligation to stay if we can do some good. I’m not seeing a compelling case for that. If we’re doing as much harm as good we need, as Rick said, say adieu.
Given that so far by our presence we seem to have 1) strengthened Iran and by extension Hezbollah thereby weakening Israel, 2) turned a secular thugocracy into a religious one, and 3) given Sunni terrorists a new base of operations much closer to oil and the western world, I don’t quite see why anyone sees our continued involvement as being helpful.
What evidence is there to suggest that we have the wit, let alone the will, to do more good than harm?
we have to stay because we have to do the right thing.
Iraq isn’t flypaper.
It is a tiger trap.
I supported Gulf II. I understand perfectly why we went in. I have work experience.
But whatever we intended Iraq to be, right now it is a tiger trap. A tiger trap is located well outside the village that is menaced by tigers. Simple enough, there is a tethered goat for bait and a blind or shelter from which men can shoot tigers. The tiger trap draws the local disaffected male jihaadis and prospective homicide bombers into the trap of Iraq, hopefully to be killed. It keeps the tigers out of our village, but it really sucks for the goat.
we have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq to do our best and stay the course.
at dean’s, we had a big argument about killing our way out of the jihaadi factory. we concluded that would be possible only with genocide of the host population.
but we can destroy the environmental niche that generates them. it is the only solution, and it is not easier or simple or cheap.