War and Peace

A loyal (?) reader suggested I write about Iraq and the war. I initially demurred, as I am generally disinclined to open my mouth and remove all doubt that I am, indeed a fool. But the response to that is that what I "think" is more interesting than what i know. Interesting concept.

Still, I am hesitant about this. Despite subscriptions to Foreign Affairs, the Economist and the Atlantic, I'm not as well versed in the ongoings as that reading list would indicate.

Before diving into the current situation, l much like Congress, was in favor of the invasion, based on the reported intelligence at the time. Preemptive action, in my mind, was allowable based on credible threat. Using 9/11 as a case in point, the government received criticism for having intelligence something might occur and not acting. How could it not act in this case, given the stated intelligence and what was deemed to be the probability of use/threat by Hussein?

Leaping forward to now, the debate is on more troops, less troops, withdrawal of troops, funding, etc, which I find to be oversimplified and overly political. Obviously it's a political issue, but to construct an opinion and justification for that, there needs to be less focus on the means and more on the ends.

The quaqmire that's been the last 3+ years is a sunk cost. The strategies and policies adopted/enacted now does not change what those outcomes were, but they can change what happens going forward. I believe current calls for an exit strategy or troop removal is in response to past events rather than what influence/role the US can/should have in the future.

This isn't necessarily meant to be a justification to maintain/increase the effort. Rather, the situation must be appraised now for what actions by the US are in its best interests.

Does US withdrawal make the situation worse or better? If worse, does the transfer of resources outweigh that? Is it a matter of strategy, or is the mere presence of the US that makes it a quagmire? What interests of the US are at stake? Are those interests best served by increasing, maintaining but changing approach, or decreasing troop levels? What is the desired outcome, and is that realistic?

I think the last question in many ways is the most important. The end vision is a stable, democratic Iraq. Is that feasible? That doesn't seem to be the case, but, again is it environmental (whatever the US does is doomed to failure) or tactical (better strategery=better results)?

My instinct is that a withdrawal of troops would further destabilize the Middle East and opens up additional threats with the US minimized as a factor because once we leave, there's a definite window in which we're not coming back. I can even see the scenario in which factions lay low after an announced US withdrawal strategy to gather and renew resources for when the US is not an impediment.

The US must play a role in securing some level of stability, but even when it does, it will still likely need to maintain some presence (think DMZ-like) as a posture of support. But this assumes a democratic Iraq government is pro-US. If not, what then?

That muddles the issue even more, so let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. In the end, I don't think the solution is "get out", but new strategies of support for the Iraqi government are needed. The divisiveness between the Dems and GOP and the effort to present the issue in black and white obscures the nuance and diplomacy needed (which have been lacking) to stabilize the region.

That's all.

...

That was illuminating, wasn't it?