Defining Catastrophe Up
A rhetorical change I’m noticing since the ISG report came out is that we have to stay in Iraq “to prevent a wider regional war,” aka “the new thirty years’ war” and so on. That suggests that our mission is no longer preventing “full-blown civil war,” which used to be what we had to prevent, or “increased sectarian strife,” which is what we had to prevent before that, or “increasing insurgent violence” which is what we had to prevent before that. The pattern has always been:
1. Declare that we must stay in Iraq to prevent some Bad Thing from happening.
2. Bad Thing happens anyway.
3. Declare that we must stay in Iraq to prevent some Worse Thing from happening.
4. Worse Thing happens anyway.
5. Reiterate sequence.
At no point does the “Sensible Center” consider that the previous failures implicate our ability to fulfill the new mission, which is always paradoxically grander in scale while being a retreat from previous ambitions.
Comment by Nell —
December 12, 2006 @ 9:37 am
If the excuse is wider regional war, then negotiations with the regional players are the only answer. At least a couple of those countries’ conditions to begin discussions is a commitment to full withdrawal of U.S. troops, and a timeline that starts soon.
The Saudis can go suck eggs.
Comment by IOZ —
December 12, 2006 @ 10:31 am
Increasingly, all the wartalk reminds me of that particularly infuriating Maddenite brand of footballtalk. You know, “If they want to win, they’ve got to put some points on the board.” Or, “A strong offense and a good defense is gonna be the key to this game.” Or, “Yeah, he’s pretty smart for a black guy.” You know, tautological truisms interspersed with unintentional racial derogation without any acknowledgement that the yak in the press box hasn’t got a damn thing to do with the massacre on the field.
Comment by Tim —
December 12, 2006 @ 10:43 am
Well, then it probably is only rhetoric, and the sensible center knows it. TPTB may be entirely comfortable with the course of events, or comfortable enough that there is no desire to risk change. After all, they’re not paying for any of this, in any sense.
Comment by Eric Martin —
December 12, 2006 @ 11:19 am
Maybe it’s these sensible shoes I’m sporting, but I am still at least interested in hearing reality-based assessments of the potential for larger regional war, and what we might do to prevent it.
As long as the means for prevention didn’t include: “Stay the course.”
As Nell mentioned, one change of course would probably involve a regional conference at the very least. Which might be a bridge too far for Bush and Cheney.
Comment by Rich Puchalsky —
December 12, 2006 @ 11:34 am
I don’t think that peacemakers could really afford to tell the Saudis to suck eggs. Like it or not, they are a major regional power, and while we don’t have to do what they want, we’d have to at least try to create a situation in which they get something.
But of course the Bush admin are not peacemakers, so the whole thing is academic anyways.
Comment by norbizness —
December 12, 2006 @ 11:36 am
Homer: And by the sacred parchment, I swear that if I reveal the secrets of the Stonecutters, may my stomach become bloated and my head be plucked of all but three hairs –
Moe: Um, I think he should have to take a different oath.
Number One: Everyone takes the same oath.
Comment by Nell —
December 12, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
Are comments closed on the ‘Mr. Brightside’ post of a few days ago?
I’ve tried repeatedly to add a comment, and everything appears to work normally, but the comment never shows up.
An argument to use in stiffening Congressional spines:
* Regional proxy war is a real possibility.
* To avert that, there must be serious negotiations with all of Iraq’s neighbors (and all those countries experiencing significant Iraqi refugee flows).
* The Cheney/Bush administration isn’t going to do that. They’ve thrown cold water on the ISG’s diplomatic recommendations, showing interest only in the ‘US advising Iraqi units’ military option (because it’s what they’re already doing).
* A precondition for serious regional talks (as opposed to window-dressing) is a public U.S. commitment to complete withdrawal of troops, beginning soon and ending on a defined date.
* Therefore, since the administration won’t give diplomacy a real chance, and there is no military option that will work, members of Congress who want to avert disaster in Iraq and the region need to use the tools they have to force withdrawal: a funding cutoff, rescinding the authorization of force, putting teeth in the ‘no bases’ declaration.
Comment by Walt —
December 12, 2006 @ 1:11 pm
The Sensible Center is a truer term than you know, Jim. They know that the cycle that you describe ends in one place, and one place only — with the Earth plunging into the Sun. Isn’t it worth sacrifices now to prevent that happening?
Comment by Nell —
December 12, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
Rich, agreed. I wasn’t being much of a peacemaker myself there. What I meant was that we shouldn’t let the Saudis blackmail us into keeping troops there forever, which is what looked like was happening in the Cheney summoning. We need to horsetrade with all the regional actors.
Couldn’t help noticing how much oil talk there is in the Baker-Hamilton report, and in the last week or so in the news. It’s the one scrap the real powers behind this admin are determined to grab from the hell created. This war is about oil, even if not entirely, and the argument that it can’t be because we can buy whatever we want on the world market doesn’t respond to the long-standing desire of the oilcos to restore the kind of control they had pre-OPEC, with production sharing agreements being one of the chief tools for doing so. Weak, weak states are the most likely to agree to PSAs.
Comment by Barry —
December 12, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
Comment by Tim —
December 12, 2006 @ 10:43 am
“Well, then it probably is only rhetoric, and the sensible center knows it. TPTB may be entirely comfortable with the course of events, or comfortable enough that there is no desire to risk change. After all, they’re not paying for any of this, in any sense. ”
Think of the ’sensible center’ as ‘the guys who know who pays their salaries, and for whom premature changes in the Official Truth are grounds for being purged’. As to the Powers that Be, the very, very minor ones are trying to persuade the Decider not to screw things up, in desperate hopes of keeping him from living up to that french king’s saying, ‘apre moi, le deluge’.
Comment by Nell —
December 12, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
Okay. Fifth time’s a charm. Now to see if I can add one more comment, the one I wanted to make to the Mr. Brightside post:
Thanks to having missed this NYTimes story about US combat troops being taken out of their own units and plunked into Iraqi police and army units, I didn’t realize that the horrible recommendation coming from the ISG and the Pentagon ‘review’, the only one the administration seems likely to adopt, is what we’re already doing.
The process is far enough along that the scenarios Jim laid out should be happening pretty soon now.
Comment by bill woolsey —
December 12, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
Some time ago, Juan Cole argued against an immediate pullout of U.S. troops on the grounds that a full-scale civil war could (I recollect him writing as if it was pretty much _would_) result in a regional war. Let’s see….The insurgents march in mass on green zone The Iranians intervene to protect the Shia government. Then Saudi Arabia and Jordan intervene to help the Sunnis.
I thought the problem with the scenario is that U.S. client states wouldn’t have a chance against Iran unless the U.S. supported them. And so, they wouldn’t intervene unless they had U.S. support.
Cole has more lately come to favor a rapid withdrawal.
Comment by Comandante Agi —
December 13, 2006 @ 12:31 am
We all know what Westphalia did for stability in Europe – so bring on the thirty years’ war. We can’t make a democracy omelette without breaking some eggs.
Trackback by ..: schmeeve / a blog :.. —
December 13, 2006 @ 12:38 am
Iraq’d…
Seeing as The Decider has decided he can’t bother himself with these pesky things during the holidays, it’s important to remember that whatever happens, even if there’s an army of magical peace unicorns in waiting, the pattern will continue to repe…
Comment by RickD —
December 13, 2006 @ 4:20 am
Sacrifices now will prevent the Earth from falling into the Sun?
Sensible center indeed!
Comment by Jeff (no, the other one) —
December 13, 2006 @ 8:52 am
The Daily Show nailed it the other night (paraphrase):
Bush equates leaving with losing, so the troops come home only when we win, but the definition of winning is staying and that’s called — Blowing Your Enemy’s Mind!
Comment by Eric Martin —
December 13, 2006 @ 12:16 pm
Nell, well said.
Comment by nadezhda —
December 13, 2006 @ 5:31 pm
If we’re comparing Domino Theories, I find the 30 Years War a decided improvement over the Caliphate. There’s at least plausibility in the risk the US has sparked a regional conflagration, or what I’ve feared for years Iraq would become — a Lebanon on steroids. At least a 30 Years War acknowledges the regional problems have little to do with al Qaeda or the GWOT. Whether the presence of US troops, or bases, or quick reaction forces can help control a regional conflict, or simply add fuel to the fire, is a separate discussion.