I was asked last night for my opinion regarding how the United States will ultimately leave Iraq. My answer was straightforward – they will, in the end, simply go.
There are many that will disagree with that prediction. There are those that still cling to the belief that the US, as an occupational buffer, will somehow help Iraq achieve stability. But that is little more than wishful thinking and in no way based in reality. The majority of Iraqis do not want American forces in their country and view them not only as occupiers, but wholly influential with regards to the country’s political processes. Further, after five years of occupation, the United States has failed to really understand and embrace anything about the nation that they’ve occupied with regards to its social and religious intricacies. They remain resolute that through their presence they can help protect whatever agreeable government is in place in hopes of ensuring a pro-Western foothold in the region.
There are also those that believe that to abandon Iraq would lead to chaos. That assessment might be accurate, but then the question must be asked – how long is the United States willing to remain in Iraq to act as a stopgap measure against what is, in truth, the inevitable? The is no questioning the fact that, at some point, the electoral process is going to lead to the instillation of a government that will not be willing to placate US interests. Only through their military presence and political influencing can they hope to marginalize those that would otherwise gain significant political power, which only reinforces the reality that Iraqi democracy is little more than a sham, one steeped in ensuring that foreign interests are placated above the political desires of the Iraqi populace itself.
No, in the end the United States will simply leave Iraq, just as they left Vietnam. And while some will point to that occurrence as an example of why Iraq can’t be abandoned in that fashion, the reality remains that the US experiment in Iraq has been just as ill conceived and steeped in failure as their decade spent in Vietnam. What won’t be focuses on, and certainly wasn’t when Vietnam was finally abandoned, is the fact that US military involvement will represent the impetus behind the chaos that will follow.
There is no questioning the fact that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has resulted in a state of diminished global security. And that is not simply limited to the inspiration that it has provided radical Islamic groups. The unilateral, preemptive invasion of the country and subsequent occupation have emboldened others, caused an increase in global arms spending, and provided precedent for those that would use the very same justifications to act in a similar fashion, whether we agree with them or not. The Chinese are currently taking advantage of that precedent as we speak, offering no excuse, nor remorse, regarding operations in Tibet. The Israelis have done the same, as have the Russians, among a list of others.
In the end, despite American military might and their overwhelming capabilities, the United States will eventually have no choice but to simply abandon Iraq. The evidence of that reality is found in the diminishment of every American justification for the continuance of the occupation, and even the invasion itself.
Report
I have to agree, eventually the people of the united states will grow tired of the body bags and flag drapped coffins and elect a leader that will pull everyone out. In response to the claim that if they left, chaos would ensue, how can you argue that the area is any more secure now? how much safer are the people in Iraq right now, it has been reported that the US has recently seen one of the most violent weeks on record. I just don’t see them making that big of a difference.
Report
This is a little off topic but, is it true that you are going on tour with James McKenty and the Spades?
Words cannot describe how amazing this would be, as they are amazing performers.
They come from Peterborugh, ON and frquently come to the small town where I live (barely 4000 people) to play. I am now even more excited about the tour.
I mentioned them in one of the blogs that used to be on this site and recommended them to those looking for new artists to listen to. This should be spectacular…
Report
Matthew, do you have faith that Obama or Clinton will stick to the timetable they have proposed for Iraq withdrawal? Do you prefer one candidates “exit strategy” over the other’s?
Report
I just realized that in my previous post I made the assumption that the democrats are going to win. I’m confident they will. But I was also confident that there was no way George W. would win a second term.
Report
Quoting Eric-Head:
The depressing thing is, even Obama, who seems to want to pull the troops out quickest (by 2009)–even he wants to leave “some” troops behind. At least that’s the latest I’ve heard anyway. :(
Ugh, I really do hope it happens the way you predict, Matt, and that the US pulls out all at once (and damn soon). This has gone on for far too long. And thanks for addressing this issue …
“There are also those that believe that to abandon Iraq would lead to chaos.”
… since it seems to be the main argument for staying in Iraq; I’ve always felt that line of reasoning didn’t hold any water and couldn’t really put my finger on why, but you articulated it perfectly in this post.
Report
Interesting analysis Matt, and 100% right.
Report
USSR - Afghanistan. They also just went, but still hailed Victory!!! I’m always amazed at how powerless history is.
Report
I think the biggest point to keep in mind is that Iraq (and soon, Iran) is not meant to be won, only extended as long as is profitable.
Right now, the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is anything but failure. Look at the money being made by defence contractors, look at the freedoms we’ve lost in the name of security, look at how the country is fragmented over the invasion.
How much money would be lost if the U.S. pulled out of Iraq?
We’re not supposed to win…
Constant conflict IS the goal.
Sorry,
Rem
Report
Quoting Rem:
At a $12 billion a month cost and the subsequent recession (let’s admit it) id argue they’d be foolish to want to continue wasting lives and money.
But then, this shambolic administration isn’t a congregation of rocket scientists.
Report
This is all sad but true. Eventually we’ll say the hell with it and leave. We’ll pat them on the head and wish them luck, then leave them to clean up our mess. We don’t seem to learn from our mistakes; we’ll just keep repeating them every ten or twenty years or so. And we wonder why everybody hates us.
Useless, useless…
Report
I expect Bush and his Bush-o-phants to declare the mission in Iraq “complete” and, as you suggest, with Vietnam in his rearview mirror, will simply pull out the troops. It will be interesting to see how this is spun - Bush will not want to walk away from the Whitehouse with all of the Iraq debacle on his shoulders - even Nixon and Johnson had somebody else to blame the whole Vietnam mess on - Bush will keep his forces there until the Democrats win the next election and then blame a messy extrication on them.
Report
Quoting Brent:
You and me both, buddy. *sigh*
Matt, sadly I have to agree with you (I say sadly because I wish the U.S. had handled things better) - if the people of Iraq were actually being helped towards longterm stability and/or wanted us to stay, that would at least make it somewhat better. But where’s the evidence of that? Like you, I am concerned about what will happen when the U.S. pulls out - and I think there will be some chaos, and some of it will be attributable to U.S. actions in the country.
Who votes we go back to the U.S.’s policy of non-involvement…? Heh.
Report
Today, plans to withdraw 1500 British troops from Iraq have been put on hold due to a new eruption of violence in Basra. Supposedly there to assist in the setting up of surveillance, training and other logistical support, it is now revealed that more fighter jet missions, artillary, tanks and armoured vehicles are to be deployed to try to quell the new insurgence. Stability seems an unattainable pipe dream…’plans confounded by an unpalatable reality on the ground’ is how the BBC are reporting it. The decisive break for the British Government is a long way off. I can’t see US leaving in a hurry, especially with the US blaming us Brits for losing control in the Basra area. Thanks for the support Mr President. Thanks a bunch.
Report
there’s nothing to add to that. it’s spot on.
Report
Quoting foresthouse:
Who votes we go back to the U.S.’s policy of non-involvement…? Heh.
Certainly not I. To argue that the poor decision to invade Iraq means that any intervention anywhere is invalid is a stretch. I do dislike unilateral action, however. Many who criticize the U.N. have valid points and I think we should concentrate on reforming it (rather than only paying attention to it when we want something) into a more useful institution.
Report
I learned from people from China who understand things over there:
Tibet is part of China, however like most of the Western Provinces, they have their own language and are not “forced” to learn Mandarin. They are permitted their own culture if you will.
The problem with this is the Western Provinces would like to separate from China, or at least that is what the Government believes, and given what happened to the former USSR, China wishes to prevent this.
China’s government can do pretty much whatever it wants in China.
I’ll leave the effects to the rest of the world for some other thread some other day (I know CNN would have you believe they are going to take over, but economically, the answer is no, they can’t, to figure out why, do real research).
Report
Quoting satchboogieca:
The relevance is that Tibet is part of China, it is not quite the same as China invading India and taking control.
I reread my post and felt this might help.
Onto the main focus of US in Iraq, I don’t think they plan to leave until they have a strong foothold that is economically viable and backed by military force. They need to pull out at some point, but guaranteed there will still be a strong US presence in Iraq. How else will they keep the other countries “in line”?
Report
Ultimately, what it comes down it is a long line of incredibly poor decisions being made in the White House (and elsewhere) as to how to conduct the invasion and the resulting aftermath. As such, it is incredibly easy for us to point fingers at the US administration and say “You sir, Mr. Bush, fucked up and fucked up big.” Much like Vietnam, those in charge did not do their homework, did not listen to advice given and ultimately decided they knew better then everyone else and so went ahead with their plans, ill concieved though they were.
And really, in the end, we all know that the US will up and leave. That is, and has always been since the fall of the regime, the stated objective: get the hell out of Dodge. The issue with that as your military objective is anything other then getting out is tantamount to failure. It also means that real, meaningful, constructive objectives and goals are not set and not followed through on.
The only hope that Matt’s grim (and in my opinion fairly accurate) analysis will be proven wrong is that new leadership will recognize this as being a fundamental error in their plans. Perhaps with a shift away from this objective of ‘getting out’ and towards things like inviting Iraq’s regional neighbours (such as the much feared Iran) to participate in the reconstruction of the country, there might be the possibility of real success being found in Iraq. The probability of this however…
To put it simply, I don’t make bets I know I can’t win and this certianly isn’t one of them.
Report
” The Chinese are currently taking advantage of that precedent as we speak, offering no excuse, nor remorse, regarding operations in Tibet.”
So, if the USA did not invade Iraq, China would be a paragon of human rights?
I don’t think so. They’d still be the same murderous bunch of gangsters.
Report
I think the only way to actualy withdraw is to do as you have stated. Perhaps as a result of having just seen Stop-Loss (very good, especially for an MTV production), I have a feeling it will occur once they run out of enough troops to stop-loss due to death/injury/awol. Stop-loss has been referred to as the backdoor draft, and it’s worked to keep soldiers going back, but it can only maintain for so much longer, and then either an actual draft would have to occur, or they could be forced to withdraw troops. (According to the stats at the end of the film, since 2001, out of 110,000 troops, 80,000 have been stop-lossed).
Report
On a somewhat related note, I read somewhere today that Dith Pran passed away on Sunday March 30th. You’ll might recall his story from the 1984 film “The Killing Fields”. His story of imprisonment and eventual escape from Pol Pot ruled Cambodia in the mid 1970’s is truly a remarkable and heart-wrenching one - might be good video fodder for a boring Tuesday night if you don’t have anything else on the go. The scene with the AK47’s with the fruit on the muzzles might keep you up though.
Report
I think that Iraq will yield much the same results as the American invasion of Afghanistan did: the Americans will decide that they have bigger fish to fry, and the Canadians or UN will be left to try and sort out the mess, and pick up the pieces of another shattered country. In the end, America’s war in Iraq will end up causing the indirect deaths of many people from “friendly” nations. The total death tally of Iraq will end up being staggering.
Report
Actually, Afghanistan is much more import from a security standpoint than Iraq.
Report
To be clear, the “United States” hasn’t failed to understand Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to understand it. Lots of people in the US understand it pretty well, or at least understand enough to know that the U.S. military isn’t serving a positive purpose there. It took a while for the majority of my fellow Americans to get it, but polls suggest that we’re catching up.
I’m not a foreign policy expert and I knew little about Iraq before 2003 and yet I was able to predict it would turn out badly. I couldn’t say exactly what would happen, I just knew that it would turn out to be a big mess for the simple reason that there wasn’t a good plan for who would become the government once Saddam was gone. It doesn’t take a genius to know that firing (or executing, as the case may be) the boss does not mean that the next boss is going to be any better. And yet lots of people with fancy degrees from fancy universities, even people who call themselves liberal, thought this was a good idea. The mind boggles.
Report
The Future of America’s actions are rather predictable. But what about the future actions of Iraq? What will the government of Iraq look like in the future. Is any form of democracy possible in a country like Iraq? There is a severe lack in a tradition of democratic processes, Iraq is not geographically isolated, there is no ethnic homogeneity. The prospects are bleak. However, on the other hand, Iraq could be a prime candidate for a federalize system of government. I suppose only time will tell.
Report
Damn! I was thinking about this very subject last night. I was at the gym and saw a magazine with a picture of Barack Obama on the cover and it got me thinking… Barring any Republican hokus-pocus that would prevent a Democrat from winning the presidency, how would the new Obama (lets face it, Hillary isn’t close) administration deal with the Iraq nightmare? My only conclusion was a full withdrawal, Vietnam style, not that I would have known first hand, as I wasn’t even born yet when the US excused itself from Nam.
The “hopes of ensuring a pro-Western foothold in the region,” has instead turned into a huge pro-Western foot in the mouth I’m afraid.
Report
Nothing much else to say. Very well & simply put, and i agree 100%.
I just wonder what will result from the chaos once the U.S. leaves. What kind of government will rule in Iraq? What kind of presense will radical islamic groups like Al-Qaeda have in that country? Hopefully a US-free Iraq will not end up like Afghanistan did.
Report
Quoting maximilian:
…Sorry, maximilian - that last statement was meant to be rather tongue-in-cheek. I guess it didn’t quite come across over the internet.
Report
‘Further, after five years of occupation, the United States has failed to really understand and embrace anything about the nation that they’ve occupied with regards to its social and religious intricacies.’
I think that this is the most thought provoking part of the whole article.
For any country to want to liberate another nation in the name of democracy, one would think that they would do so with an understanding that other countries are not like our own, here at home. This is where passports and traveling comes in handy in order to better understand other cultures and peoples - to learn how to accept all types of realities and issues that we’re not aquainted with, here in the west. However, I doubt that it is a requirement in Universities or even as a pre-req for making political decisions.
A lot of countries are based historically on their own religions that are quite different from how we relate to religion and each other, here in North America, and a lot of these nations hold onto these traditions for their heritage, unlike the west, where we are allowed to practice whatever we wish. Religion and tradition are very powerful things and it takes a lot of effort and a lot of time for people (let alone countries) to remove prejudices between themselves and other religions.
Report
It has gone on for so long now the phrase “What are we fighting for?” springs to mind. Oh, I remember, it was to destroy those Weapons of Mass Destruction, wasn’t it?
Report
I don’t think comparisons to Vietnam are accurate. Saigon was essentially overrun when US forces abandoned Vietnam. This was the cold war. The situation today is different.
America will never fully abandon Iraq - it is too strategically important. It’s the crude, dude.
I predict that there will always be a presence of American forces in Iraq - in the form of these huge humongous green zone bases with private contractors who can act with total legal impunity. The Iraqi democracy is a sham. The overstayed occupation has become terribly dangerous to the wider problem of middle eastern democratic development. This is the agency of American arrogance and greed. Extreme Makeover: Iraqi Edition. The impetus for chaos - proviso failing to administer peace and reconstruction. Immediately following the fall of Saddam, the problem was true Iraqi self-determination was not in Haliburton et al. best interests.
The wider Chinese comparison is important. Global security has been diminished – ok, how do you measure that - and I don’t think it is quite to say the Chinese are taking advantage because of this precedent without considering the political situtation in China or the history of China in Tibet.
Chinese-Tibetan involvement should not be easily compared to America in Iraq. The Chinese committed Genocide in Tibet in the 60s and 70s. During the Great Leap Forward 6000 Tibetan temples were obliterated. American involvement in Iraq by comparison - and the wider Middle East - during the same period has been cynically opportunistic - an illegal war criminality - but never the scope of China.
Report
The only solution is an overwhelming international security force (500,000, the original estimation) from all nations, with the U.S. functioning logistically, and not visibly. The presence of the U.S. identity on the ground in Iraq is stigmatizing and counter-productive. Iraqis know that the American military is in Iraq fighting for American interests, and not for Iraqi interests. An international force, without an American identity, is more likely to be seen as acting in Iraq’s interest - and, in fact, acting in Iraq’s interest, five years into the Iraq War, is the only realistic or hopeful plan for success.
That raises the fundamental erroneous assumption of Bush’s Iraq War strategy: That Iraqis’ interests (e.g., stability) are not America’s interests. Unsurprisingly, and rather conveniently, acting in Iraq’s interest is also the solution to two current deficiencies of the current Iraq War plan. These deficiencies are: Inability to attract international military assistance and inability to stabilize Iraq’s politics.
The American plan is self-interested and, therefore, fundamentally flawed and unavoidably unsustainable. “Ding-dong, the witch is dead” didn’t work, and, really, it is small wonder why the international community will not commit to securing Iraq. It is not because the international community is unaffected by conflict in the Middle East. It is because the international community simply does not see success in the U.S. plan. Why would it? Sustaining forcibly an unpopular minority government which has no political authority and, in consequence, no hope - short of massacre - of stabilizing Iraq, is a losing battle, quite literally, and that is not good governance for any nation, notwithstanding its interests in Iraq. It is similar, quite metaphorically, to boarding a sinking boat: Don’t buy a ticket.
The Bush Administration is too ready to say to its increasingly poverty-stricken middle-class taxpayers that Bear Stearns and other abusive investment houses put you in a position in which you can let them suffer the consequences of their own practices or, taxpayers, you can bail them out because, if you don’t, you’re going to suffer their consequences too. Bush is too ready to foist the responsibility of his economic mess on taxpayers, and he’s too slow to ask for help in solving Iraq from the international community.
Bush should simply declare to the international community the reality in Iraq and America’s inability to stabilize it: “‘Mission Failed’ and, now, ‘Mission Impossible’; Send help.” What’s the difference? Spread the loss. Make it go away!
A Presidency stained by the courageous blood of 4,000 American and uncounted (truly) Iraqi deaths should witness at least one act of courage by its Commander-in-Chief.
Report
Interesting speech on the war - directed at Canadians in Calgary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGcdYntd0dU&feature=related
Report
Hate to say this but I think this assessment is incorrect. I think it’s possible to envision long-term engagement in Iraq through a careful balancing of external and internal interests, coupled with intense coalition building with our (former?) allies.
Iraq is one piece in a global political puzzle: it can’t be separated from global economic trends, critical alliances, and energy needs. Western Europe needs a source of oil that is not Russian. Iraq is clearly an option. Europe (or China) will eventually be the prime customer for Iraqi oil. I suspect the Europeans have a long-term interest in seeing the US fall on it’s face in Iraq, same with China. If the US wants to benefit from the leverage we have so expensively purchased, we’re going to have to stick and play the game out.
I see long-term self interest at work in a US to NATO to OSCE type military transition in Iraq (eg Kosovo), with the first phase being played out now as Gen. Petraeus is doing the spade work for identifying key partners and leverage points in Iraq.
Anyone who doesn’t think the current policies of carrot (bribes) and stick aren’t working, is not dealing with fact. It’s working, but it’s not sustainable (too expensive, to reliant on personalities currently in the field). The only way anything good can be pulled out of this mess is if the US sticks to its resolve to help Iraq out of the mess it’s in. It’s in our interest -strategically and economically - and it’s in their interest.
The US needs to figure out how to deal with this kind of mess. It’s the future, unfortunately. We messed up in Somalia by misreading the situation; we continued on in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. We simply have to re-think how we deal with tribal/family/ethnic politics when all of our diplomatic and security structures are designed to deal with national politics. And unfortunately, none of the current candidates appear to be thinking along these lines.
Report
Not only is an international force required, but it must be one that draws heavily upon regional players. The closest regional players currently contribute an overwhelmingly minority of the forces in Iraq (Georgia has roughly 2000 troops in theatre, second only to the South Korean forces). Of Iraq’s immediate neighbours, none of them are participating directly with troop contributions to my knowledge. As to why that might be, I will not bother to speculate. However, it is telling of something that not even America’s longest standing regional ally, Saudi Arabia, has committed troops to put a Middle Eastern face on the foreign forces working to secure Iraq.
Report
I don’t think the US military has failed or should feel defeated if they leave. They’ve done everything a military can do. Military force cannot make an unpopular government popular. They can’t force different factions to get along. Conservatives have this idea that if we just try hard enough and want it bad enough, that we’ll win. Like it’s a football game. But really, that’s like rooting for the Vancouver Canucks to win the Super Bowl. The military simply cannot fix these problems because they aren’t fundamentally military problems.
Iraq’s democracy is a sham, but their election, as far as I can tell, was not. The problem is that when the people had a chance to vote, they voted in a coalition of sects. The administration has this fantasy that if you just let people vote, that they’ll vote for nice Western-style, non-militant, liberal (in the broad Jeffersonian sense) secular parties and establish the rule of law, economic regulation and all the things that make Western democracies work as well as they do (which isn’t as well as we’d like, of course). But those sorts of institutions and political culture don’t just emerge magically overnight and no ammount of military force is going to make it happen.
Report
Quoting Moonlight Graham:
I think the chaos will be much the same… At best, all those other oil thirsty countries mentioned above (China, Western Europe etc.) might step in to “help re-built the infrastructure” - something that never happened in Afghanistan. But even if that happens, it will not be for the benefit of Iraq. Once the U.S. pulls out, it will truly be an opportunity for the Middle East to unite and help their own, I doubt that would happen though.
U.S. will always be there (and everywhere) - bless foreign investors and independent contractors…
Report
“…how long is the United States willing to remain in Iraq to act as a stopgap measure against what is, in truth, the inevitable?”
Ask McCain that. 100 years, was it?
Report
this is the way imperialism ends, not with a bang, but a whimper….we are all in the same boat.
satchboogieca: um… have you ever met anyone from Tibet and asked what they thougt of being “part of China” and “permitted their own culture”??
it only became “part of China” in 1959 after a brutal invasion.
cheers.
Report
Hopefully someday there won’t even be reason to enter such places as Iraq as the US did, but I’m sure there will always be somebody out there that finds some sort of reason, and people like us on this site will sit around and comment on it.
Report
With all that oil , why would the US leave ? That’s the reason we went there .
Iran is next .
Don’t you remember your music video with all the continents covered with the American flag ?
Report
I agree. Hillary or Obama would definitely pull out of Iraq, I dont know what Mccain would do though. I believe that the US economy is faltering because of the Iraq war. Once there is a change in power, there economy will pick up. The Iraq war is bad because of all the casualties, however they did capture Saddam, and there hasnt been any serious attacks since 9/11. So There is a certain amount of success. I think that they have to pull out because, there economy will never get better while there still there.
Report
AHermann: your ambiguity is laudable. try it like this~
“I’m sure there will never be a reason to enter such places as Iraq–or anyplace–as the US did, and hopefully {someday} nobody out there finds some sort of non-reason, and people like us (like you?) on this site won’t need to sit around and comment on it~but we might.”
There….that just feels better.
Report
or, maybe like this~
hopefully {oneday} there will not be a reason to look for “some sort of non-reason”….
Report
The military will leave, no doubt - evacuate, simply go, all that as you said - I can see that happening, too. What likely remain behind, aside from the mess, are the contractors and “mercenaries” and others who will continue to profit (likely spreading into other countries and regions, of course as we speak) and so it won’t be the country in the war anymore, but ultimately the same profiteers with their bloody hands in it (at a distance, of course).
Report
The analysis is flawed, in my opinion, but the end result is the same and that was stated from the very beginning by George Bush, go in and get out. That was the objective, it was never to stay as an occupier because the neo-cons were thinking that everybody would be so happy that Saddam was gone that they would just dance in the streets and go on about their business.
Once we were in there we had too few people to start setting up a new democracy. Putting the army and police force out of work was disastrous and helped lead to the civil war in Iraq because you just put hundreds of thousands of guys out of work.
The reason the government in Iraq is a mess is because of the electoral process they set-up with our help. Unfortunately, Paul Bremer and his guys did not force our founding fathers blueprint on them and it was decided that Iraq would not be cut-up into districts like our Congressional districts are divided. So, now they get a government full of zealots and extremists because those are the groups that are more organized and energized to vote.
It is so easy to say that we’re just going to walk out of there, but we still have incentive to stay and keep at it. I’m no Bush supporter and thought Gore was robbed in 2000, but there’s more at work than our military being there acting as a stop-gap. Things aren’t that simple when you are dealing with the economics of a country that was run poorly before the war and poorly after the invasion. The fact is Saddam Hussein kept lots of people happy because the state run institutions were a sham that instilled horrible principles in the people or Iraq. The Iraq dollar was pretty much worthless before the war because his heavily subsidized system was based on cronyism (not unlike the type we experience under the Bush administration) and was not effected by market forces. Why? There was no real market in Iraq because state institutions were immune to them because they received money regardless of their production, efficiency, etc.
I’m not saying the Iraqi people have to think the way of the west, but they will have to adapt to being part of a global economy now and people voluntarily changing the way they think is much harder than occupying a country until they convince themselves they want to change.
And to cap it off, I wish we had never gone in, stayed in, but we’re in too deep to walk away right now.