Morning Readings
So here we have Lieberman making a factually accurate statement, yet drawing the wrong conclusion from it, paired with Yglesias making two factually inaccurate statements yet arriving at a more accurate conclusion.
Some of this depends on your definition of “insurgency.” Any armed group acting without official color, even if it pursues the ends of member-groups of the ruling coalition? Any armed group that acts against the stated policies of the nominal government? Any armed group that acts against the actual policies of the nominal government? Any armed group that attacks Americans? I think there’s less daylight between Matt and G’Kar than the statement suggests, though I too found Matt’s original statement too sweeping.
Tony Karon:
Iraq is hardly the only theater in which U.S. power is clearly on the wane. Whether it be the grandstanding of Russia and Venezuela or the more understated (and much more profound) challenge of China to U.S. geopolitical hegemony, encroaching at will now in the traditional U.S. “sphere of influence†of Latin America, sewing up Africa, and so on. A few years ago, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, comprising Russia, China, the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia, Afghanistan, and Iran (with observer status) would have been dismissed as a kind of geopolitical sour-grapes club. Instead, it represents a growing challenge to U.S. influence throughout the region.
Which is surely true. But from the standpoint of the well-being of American citizens, the next thing to irrelevant.
I have no idea whether Beauchamp’s story was accurate. But at this point I have seen enough of the Neocon corner’s war fables to immediately discount anything that emerges from it. One example: back last spring, when I was living in Baghdad, on Haifa Street, I sat in the evening reading a report by one of the core Neocon pack. He was reporting from Baghdad, and recounted a day he had spent out on a patrol with U.S. troops on Haifa Street. He described a peaceful, pleasant, upscale community. Children were out playing on the street. Men and women were out going about their daily business. Well, in fact I had been forced to spend the day “in the submarine,†as they say, missing appointments I had in town. Why? This bucolic, marvelous Haifa Street that he described had erupted in gun battles the entire day. In the view of my security guards, with which I readily concurred, it was too unsafe. And yes, I could hear the gunfire and watch some of the exchanges from my position. No American patrol had passed by and there were certainly no children playing in the street. This was the point when I realized that many of these accounts were pure fabrications.
And:
What’s interesting about this whole affair is not the Beauchamp story, but the response to it from William Kristol, the Weekly Standard, and their quite amazing ability to exercise total command and control over the public affairs operations at the Pentagon throughout the process.
For the president a one in a thousand shot at some better outcome is well worth it, no matter what the cost. Because at least that’s a one in a thousand shot at not ending his presidency with the crushing verdict history now has in store. It’s also worth just letting things keep on going as they are forever because, like Micawber, something better might turn up. Going double or nothing by expanding the war into Iran might be worth it too for the same reason. For him, how can it get worse?
And when you boil all this down what it comes down to is that the president now has very different interests than the country he purports to lead.
This is always true, but more starkly so than usual now. I think the actual bet is the Micawber one. Most civil wars eventually end, so the Beltway Consensus intends to ride the Iraqi one out. Assuming it concludes, whoever’s in charge can decalre victory, as if the whole point of invading Iraq was to eventually “end” the civil war that would break out as a result of the invasion. The whole course of events will have made a mockery of every public justification for the war in the first place. The only way anyone could declare it a “victory” would be if, after all, the aim of being in Iraq was simply to be in Iraq. Which is to say, if we end up with a basing agreement after an eventual armistice, the real purpose of the war will have been served. It just happens that they could never have convinced the country to waste thousands of American and millions of Iraqi lives (counting the refugees) and hundreds of billions of dollars on building some new forts where they’re not wanted. Which is why they didn’t sell the war on that basis.
Comment by Jonathan Goff —
August 24, 2007 @ 9:40 am
Jim,
Josh Marshall’s comment reminds me of a line of thought I’ve had a lot recently. The fundamental problem is that the President has absolutely no cost attached to continuing to send good troops into the grinder. It isn’t *his* hand that’s being shoved down the garbage disposal. There’s no real penalty for continuing to double down, and the slight hope that at some point things might work better. Kind of like an gambler with access to his rich daddy’s credit card.
Support the pawns…er I mean troops.
~Jon
Comment by ran —
August 24, 2007 @ 10:13 am
Well said Jim.
It’s clear that we’ll never leave voluntarily so long as any of our oil remains beneath their sand.
It’s up to the resistance to kick the occupiers’ sorry asses out.
Comment by dbomp —
August 24, 2007 @ 10:18 am
Is that true? I’m trying to think of an example of a civil war that just petered out. That is, one that didn’t end with one side decisively clobbering the other. As we’re preventing either side from beating the other, perhaps there’s no end to be had.
Maybe Northern Ireland counts as a civil war that petered out?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
August 24, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
Well, that’s an end, to. I’ve actually seen it argued that peacekeeping prevents such resolutions by prolonging wars and only increases casualties, though I wasn’t convinced on that last point.
Comment by Eric Martin —
August 24, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
Assuming it concludes, whoever’s in charge can decalre victory, as if the whole point of invading Iraq was to eventually “end†the civil war that would break out as a result of the invasion.
Heh.
Comment by JP —
August 24, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
It’s up to the resistance to kick the occupiers’ sorry asses out.
–Doesn’t seem very likely they’ll reach that humble goal at the moment or in the near future, much less their other strategic objectives. Absent help from another superpower their chances of remodeling Iraq to suit their worldview (Shi’a or Sunni theocracy, Ba’athist-ish dictatorship) seem poor.
Assuming it concludes, whoever’s in charge can decalre victory…
–… That’s what tends to happen at the end of most wars. World War I, the Sequel, Star Wars, Ali – Frazier, etc.
Comment by sniflheim —
August 24, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Winning. That’s been the plan all along!
Comment by sniflheim —
August 24, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
Sorry, here.
Comment by ran —
August 24, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
yea JP. I agree it won’t be quick or easy. It may take decades and tens of thousands of GIs sent home in transfer tubes but I think eventually the PTB will realize this particular smash and grab is doomed.
Comment by Hesiod —
August 24, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
A skillful and clever Bismarckian politician could have scored basing rights in Iraq without invading it. We ct deals with all kinds of lousy dictators, why not Saddam? I bet he’d have welcomed being on our good side. We could even “enlist him” in the war against Islamic extremists who, of course, posed a threat to him too.
I bet he had all kinds of great stuff in his intelligence files on Al Qaeda.
The same calculus applies to Iran, incidentally. Instead of making them an enemy, why not coopt them?
Trackback by Political Animal —
August 24, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
Victory…
VICTORY….Jim Henley on how the war will eventually play out:Most civil wars eventually end, so the Beltway Consensus intends to ride the Iraqi one out. Assuming it concludes, whoevers in charge can declare victory, as if the whole point of……
Comment by Me_again —
August 25, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
Josh!!!
Going double or nothing by expanding the war into Iran might be worth it too for the same reason. For him, how can it get worse?
Well at 29% things could get a lot worse for Bush/Cheney – attacking Iran, pushing the military draft with the war czar again might make impeachment very likely. I mean Sen. Warner says bring some of the troops home by Christmas, might be the warning shot and after the primary election cycle – Repug Prez hopefuls will need something other than Bushie tough talk about terrorist this election cycle to even have a bare bones chance of mixing with the more popular “get out of Iraq” war Dems.
Rove left office (fairly sure that it was a Repug request) and I’m sure the Repugs have told Bush to hurry his hydrocarbon law benchmark with Iraqis or give up and leave. It’s almost pumpkin time for the Bushies. All Maliki has to do is hang tough until after US primarys to tell Bush his hydrocarbon law is a non-starter.
If Bushs does start withdrawal – I wonder if all those private security forces will be left to protect a wably hdrocarbon law? Big oil will have to up the pay. That will be interesting.
Comment by marcus —
August 25, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
The problem with Saddam is that he had shown some unruliness and unpredictability. We like our proxy governments very obedient.