The Big Deal

Look for right-wingers who previously sneered at Katie Couric to begin holding her up as a model of responsible journalism after this:

"We hear so much about things going bad, but real progress has been made there in terms of security and stability," Couric said Tuesday. "I mean, obviously, infrastructure problems abound, but Sunnis and U.S. forces are working together. They banded together because they had a common enemy: al Qaeda."

It's nearly impossible to know what's really going on in Iraq. The situation, obviously, isn't good, but the dog and pony shows that convince the already convinced that the war should continue don't add a lot of value, and there are a lot of people on both sides who are more interested in vindicating their opinions than they are in any kind of objective reality.

The point of the war for a long time has not been winning, at least as "winning" was defined at the war's outset. The original war -- the one about weapons of mass destruction -- has been won for a long time, because Iraq surely has no weapons that threaten us anymore. The Neocon war -- the one to spread Jeffersonian democracy through the mideast -- has just as surely been lost. After years of dialing back the vision, we'd settle for a sort-of-Democratic strongman government along the lines of Pakistan's or Egypt's, if it would give us the cover to get out.

So we're there now, as we have been for years, sacrificing blood and money for the sake of a best outcome that I haven't seen anyone able to define in more than the vaguest terms, and we've settled in on a Great Compromise that is going to suck.

The working assumption these days is that we're going to be in Iraq, for all practical purposes, forever. The interesting thing is that both sides -- Democrat and Republican -- basically agree on that, once you get past the rhetorical differences. For all the Republican bluster about "precipitous withdrawal," the withdrawal Democrats are talking about is really a "redeployment" around the region -- to Kurdistan, perhaps, and Kuwait. And for all the puffing of chests while talking bravely of staying until we win, Republicans are frantic in their search for a spinnable out.

Neither of these strategies has much to do with military necessity.  Both Democrats and Republicans are positioning themselves  for elections to come after the war.  Democrats don't want to spend the next 20 years being labeled "weak on defense" and Republicans don't want to take the rap for losing a war that they  probably -- in retrospect -- shouldn't have started.

So we're about to embark on a Great Compromise, making the Democrats happy by ending American bloodshed and giving Republicans the breathing room they need by keeping the troops over there. The model is justified with historical references to the aftermath of World War II. (Added bonus motivation: The Greatest Generation-envy of the Baby Boomers and the creation of a Cold War of our own to fight and, inevitably, win.) All over Iraq, American contractors are building huge permanent bases so we've got somewhere to hunker down, long-term.

When the American military stayed in Europe after World War II, there was a military reason to do so: the Russian Army and the Soviet's stated desire to impose communism on the world. The United States was absolutely essential, offsetting thousands of Russian tanks and aircraft.

But what would be the mission in Iraq? Unless our forces stay engaged in the battle -- unacceptable to Democrats and untenable for Republicans -- there's no reason for them to be there, and plenty of reasons for them not to be. The problems in Iraq, today, are at least partially fueled by the simple fact that the United States is present. To understand the resentment that fosters, imagine how we'd feel if a big, well-armed force occupied our streets, a force that didn't speak English and set up torture chambers and didn't respect our customs and felt sufficiently threatened that it sometimes killed our friends and family for what appears -- to us -- to be little or no reason.

(Please don't fixate on this and turn this into a discussion of whether I respect the troops. I spent years making documentaries about our military and my respect for its members and traditions is enormous. Still, we should never forget that "our troops" are nothing more than dedicated kids far from home. In Iraq, they've watched too many of their friends get blown literally to bits at completely random moments. You've got to expect them to be aggressive in protecting themselves. They're also on a mission that is off their core competency. An officer I met a decade ago complained about nation building this way: "You know what armies do? They kill people and break things. Everything else should belong to the State Department.")

We're about to embark on a couple of weeks of acrimonious debate, during which any tiny increment of progress -- even if reported by the likes of Katie Couric -- is going to be touted as reason to stay, and any failure to deliver as promised is going to be pressed as reason to begin leaving. There will surely be plenty of good and bad news to report.

But make no mistake: the compromise we're going to reach when this is over is going to be wrong for everyone but the politicians who forge it. They'll harvest a generation of wedge issues. For everyone else: disaster. The festering wound of Iraq will perpetuate, the lid kept on centuries of resentment and hatred that probably need to just explode and work themselves out. The bad guys will continue to be able to use the scaled-down American occupation to convince people that blowing themselves up is a viable route to heroism and even heaven. The continued simmering will feed what President Eisenhower referred to as "the military-industrial complex," the primary constituency for endless war.

And the troops we purport to support will be kept thousands of miles away from home and family, subject to random acts of violence and sudden death.

This, we will call victory.

Comments

[Broken Gnome]

This cynical analysis is, unfortunately, the next-best-case scenario. The best-case would involve a re-engagment of the UN mission in an attempt to restore order that will not be viewed by Iraqis as US imposed martial law. Worst cases include, but are not limited to: withdrawal with ensuing bloodbath, permanent US deployment on a massive scale to impose martial law, a popular uprising to install an Islamic council with a Dien Bien Phu-style retreat.

[Conrad]

Not only will the UN to do its usual stellar job of restoring order, the local economy will benefit from the newly created child prostitution industry.

[Frank]

When the American military stayed in stayed in Europe after World War II, there was a military reason to do so: the Russian Army and the Soviet's stated desire to impose communism on the world. The United States was absolutely essential, offsetting thousands of Russian tanks and aircraft.

But what would be the mission in Iraq?Replace Europe with Iraq, replace the Soviet Union with Ahmadinejad and Al Qaeda, and replace the desire to spread communism with the desire to see everyone bowing to Mecca 5 times a day or have their heads removed from their shoulders, and you have your justification for a long-term military presence in Iraq.

[NewMexiKen]

Let’s see.

Iraq’s demonstrated oil reserves: 115 billion barrels.

Price of a barrel of oil around $75.

115 billion times $75 equals 8.625 trillion dollars.

Under Saddam Hussein, share that went to western oil companies: 0.

Under legislation pending in Iraq, share that will go to western oil companies: 12.5%.

12.5% of $8,625,000,000,000 equals $1,078,000,000,000.

2 Comments | Show Comments | Hide Comments Edit Link

[Broken Gnome]

I pointed out that a UN mission in Iraq would be a best case scenario, not a perfect world scenario. Conrad, if I accept your argument that past UN shortcomings make it unfit for the task then present US shortcomings in dealing with Iraq indicate complete and immediate withdrawal, which by the way, I do not support.

[Tom]

Frank, seriously, you don't really equate Iran -- tiny, industrially backward, seriously divided -- with the Soviet Union, do you? Seriously?

[Conrad]

Yeah Frank, you aren't seriously implying that the country that brought the world the Lada and Chernoble was industrially backward, are you? You're surely not disputing the Baltics, and Ukraine, Belorus, and Chechnia, and Georgia and all the various Wherethefuckistans comprised a harmonious nation?

[Tom]

It's true that the Soviets were not able to make consumer automobiles or master peaceful used of nuclear power -- or produce toilet paper or chewing gum, or successfully paint street lights, or efficiently distribute agricultural products, or...

They were, however, extremely good at manufacturing tanks and aircraft, and at outfitting and motivating lots and lots of troops. (Military service, after World War II, being a very high calling in Russia.) It is that force that we were offsetting with our presence in Europe. The force was also a "trip wire" that made tangible the U.S. commitment to enter any war between west and east.

Iran poses no such danger to the United States or its allies. The sole strategic reason why we care about that part of the world at all is oil, the need for which -- under this administration -- we steadfastly refuse to address. Iran has no vast army of tanks, no great air force, and no large legions of highly motivated troops.

The sole thing that unites Arab and Persian Shi'ites is a hatred of Americans. The likelihood of Iraqis and Iranis joining together is small, and is only increased by a continued American presence.

[Frank]

I would never compare the Soviets to the Islamo-fascists living in Iran, Pakistan and elsewhere. After all, the Soviets were never able to make a serious strike at the U.S.; on our own soil or elsewhere..

Meanwhile, the current bad guys have the U.S.S. Cole, several embassy bombings, 9/11, and so on and so on...

[Frank]

Also..

The sole thing that unites Arab and Persian Shi'ites is a hatred of Americans.

It is not solely a hatred of Americans, it is a hatred of all things infidel. They would love America if our men and women would only grow fist length beards and don the veil, respectively.

[Tom]

...the Soviets were never able to make a serious strike at the U.S.

They were absolutely able. They chose not to, mutually assured destruction making it much more desirable for the Soviets to work through surrogates.

It sounds to me like you think of Iran and Islamofacism as more dangerous than the Soviet Union and Communism. That's nuts, Frank. Self-dramatizing, yes. But nuts.

[Conrad]

Iran poses no such danger to the United States or its allies.

Easy for you to say in Kentucky. I'm not sure you'd be nearly so sanguine were you one of our allies living in Tel Aviv.

The sole strategic reason why we care about that part of the world at all is oil,

Israel offers a two-fold refutation of that statement. First, not only is America's primary commitment in that region to a country with no oil whatsoever, but that alliance serious impedes the US relationship with the countries that do have the oil. If all the US cared about in the Middle East was oil, it would have dumped Israel long ago.

[Frank]

They are much more dangerous than the Soviets were, for precisely the reasons you state. Mutually assured destruction kept the Soviets from dropping the bomb, and the same went for us. The nut jobs in the middle east know without a doubt that we could nuke them off the face earth and they have nothing to compete with that, but they still fight. They are willing, to a man, to die for their cause, which is something the Soviets never had. That is why they are so much more of a threat than the Soviets were.

[Tom]

Conrad first:

You're right, except that I don't think we'd plant 150,000 troops in Iraq to protect Israel. We might put them in Jordan or Lebanon, but not Iraq. The Persian Gulf area is important because of oil.

Now Frank:

The nuts jobs in the middle east are individually dangerous on a relatively small scale, more akin to ambitious and capable street criminals than to the Red Army. Planting 150,000 man army on their border does nothing to mitigate the threat.

[Conrad]

Tom:

I don't know too many "nut job street criminals" capable of reducing the US government to sputtering impotence for 14 months (of course it was the US government under Jimmy Carter, so it's not like they were playing against the first team), blow up a tower housing US military personnel, deploy proxies to battle the Israeli army to a draw and develop nuclear weapons.

Although give Ray Negin a few more years in New Orleans and anything is possible. . . .

While Frank overstates the threat, you understate it by at least the same order of magnitude.

[Squidley]

Haven't read the comments yet, but did read the entry.

Excellent.

One disagreement: leaving troops in Iraq but in remote bases, out of direct contact with the various Islamic factions trying to kill everyone who isn't them, is a good idea. That way, if someone (or some group) either poses a credible threat or attacks us or our interests, we can retaliate swiftly.

Most of the world won't like it. Forget them. I'm more concerned about American security--including the economic security that comes from reliable oil sources--than I am with the opinion of the various anti-American leftists at the UN and in the EU.

[Squidley]

Now I've read the comments.

The Iranians do have legions of well-motivated troops: the Revolutionary Guard. President Aramalamadingdong was one once, and he appears to have been one of the hostage-takers in '79.

The main threat that Iran poses is its ability to disrupt oil tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz. An even greater potential threat is its nuclear program.

Conrad's points are right on target. Considering that Aramalamadingdong's version of Islam says that the apocalypse is coming soon, they are more of a threat than most people think. We shouldn't allow the Iranians any way to hasten their millenialist fantasies.