You Are Not Ready
What we see in yesterday’s Outside the Beltway comment thread is a lengthy discussion on US troop levels and withdrawal time lines for Iraq in which no one, not the original LAT editorialist nor the blog-entry author, nor the commenters, whether “liberal” or “conservative,” makes even the slightest acknowledgement that there is a formal Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq that represents a solemn commitment to reduce the US military presence in Iraq according to an agreed schedule. None of the disputants seems to recognize that the question they’ve skipped is whether the US has any obligation to live up to its commitments to a theoretically sovereign Iraqi state and people (with whom the withdrawal agreement is popular). I should not be this appalled and so unsurprised at the same time, but I am.
Comment by James Joyner —
August 5, 2009 @ 8:26 am
I do think the support of the Iraqis is implicit in this from Walter:
Pingback by Iraq: Are We There Yet? | Outside the Beltway | Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs —
August 5, 2009 @ 8:37 am
[...] Jim Henley is “appalled” that this discussion is going on as if this were simply a decision for [...]
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 5, 2009 @ 10:18 am
I was pretty appalled by the opening of that piece:
The latest reason we have to stay in Iraq is to keep the Iraqi government – the one we sacrificed 4200 American lives and half a trillion dollars to put in the place, the one that was supposed to be a model of democracy for nations throughout the Middle East to follow – from oppressing and making war on the ethnic and religious minorities in the country.
Comment by BDB —
August 5, 2009 @ 10:26 am
When do we fucking leave already? If the “surge” worked, can’t we go home this year?
Comment by abb1 —
August 5, 2009 @ 11:00 am
Not until all the oil is pumped out. Then they can have it.
Comment by BDB —
August 5, 2009 @ 11:21 am
I’m with P.J. O’Rourke on that one, abb1. Wouldn’t it have been much less expensive just to buy the damn oil rather than steal it with a trillion dollar war?
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 5, 2009 @ 11:25 am
BDB,
We’re out of the cities. We’re not occupying or patrolling or running checkpoints. We’re not putting our filthy infidel hands inside anyone’s grandmother’s chador anymore.
I can understand the “no sudden movements” school of thought. As long as we don’t backslide back into occupation duty, and stick to the SOFA, that’s about as close to a happy ending as we’re likely to see.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 5, 2009 @ 11:26 am
It’s not the oil, it’s the oil money.
Who would we have bought it from? Who would have ended up with the money?
Comment by TallDave —
August 5, 2009 @ 11:29 am
This war was a strategic masterstroke!
Comment by fish —
August 5, 2009 @ 11:35 am
I’m with P.J. O’Rourke on that one, abb1. Wouldn’t it have been much less expensive just to buy the damn oil rather than steal it with a trillion dollar war?
It isn’t about buying the oil, it is about controlling the oil. Global hegemony starts with controlling the critical resources.
Comment by el serracho —
August 5, 2009 @ 11:37 am
hey Jim, sorry about boobygate; really it’s just a pretty picture that helps take my mind of my soul killing job.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 5, 2009 @ 11:49 am
BDB, dba “TallDave” –
You thought I made that up the first time, remember?
Comment by Thoreau —
August 5, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
That’s gotta be a parody. The real TallDave would say more, right?
Comment by Thoreau —
August 5, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
OK, he might not say more in terms of content, but there’d be more sentences to argue with us.
Comment by BDB —
August 5, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
Yes, that was me, but I think his little quote reveals what (isn’t) going on inside the minds of people who still think Iraq was a good idea.
Using the term “masterstroke” also sounds makes it sound like war gets them a little, uh, excited.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
August 5, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
Well, he didn’t say “masterstroke” for whom or to what end…
Comment by Eric Martin —
August 5, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
If the U.S. wants to avert this scenario, it will need to create real incentives for Maliki and the Shiites to offer a fair deal that transfers real political power to the Sunnis and Kurds by the 2011 deadline, and then it needs to help them enforce it over time.
James, any idea what those “real incentives” could be? And any idea why we haven’t offered them yet? I mean, presumably, getting Maliki on board with this agenda was a priority for a long time.
That we haven’t put together the silver bullet package yet creates a heavy presumption that there isn’t one. Another factor pointing in that direction: the inability on the part of all observers to actually, you know, enunciate the parameters of such “real incentives.” Euphemisms are easy. Give me the deets.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 5, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
I know what kind of incentive we could offer Malaki to make nice with Iraq’s minority communities.
We could tell him that we’re leaving, and that he’s going to have to deal with any sectarian conflicts by himself if he can’t put together an understanding before we’re gone.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 5, 2009 @ 10:21 pm
joe, I like your thinking, but there’s one caveat here: If he’s either stronger than we realize, or thinks he’s stronger than he is, or has enough support from some other country* then he might not be too upset over having to deal with sectarian conflicts after we leave. Indeed, he might actually enjoy such a prospect.
That’s not an argument for staying, just a cautionary note for anybody who assumes that leaving Malaki to his own devices will lead to a good outcome for Iraq’s minority communities.
*I dunno, maybe a large Shia-majority neighbor? And if he goes after Kurds, I suspect that the Turks might be willing to do him a few favors.
Comment by Eric Martin —
August 6, 2009 @ 10:57 am
We could tell him that we’re leaving, and that he’s going to have to deal with any sectarian conflicts by himself if he can’t put together an understanding before we’re gone.
Hmmm. He didn’t seem to concerned with that around SOFA time. He basically set out a list of demands, and didn’t budge. Further, we’ve been saying that same thing for three years, and he hasn’t been persuaded. So either he is supremely confident that we won’t leave, or was OK with the result if we do.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 6, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
You two make a good point.
Comment by Glaivester —
August 6, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
…no one, not the original LAT editorialist nor the blog-entry author, nor the commenters, whether “liberal” or “conservative,” makes even the slightest acknowledgement that there is a formal Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq that represents a solemn commitment to reduce the US military presence in Iraq according to an agreed schedule.
“Law! What do I care about law? Hain’t I got the power?” –Cornelius Vanderbilt
“The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can’t do.” — Jack Sparrow, Pirates of the Caribbean
Comment by Glaivester —
August 6, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
(I should point out that I am not endorsing these sorts of views).
Comment by Eric Martin —
August 6, 2009 @ 11:50 pm
Joe: Yeah, I’m not happy about it, but I really can’t figure out how to salvage a happy ending in terms of the whole thing being worth it…
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 7, 2009 @ 10:27 am
“Worth is” never had a chance.
I’m just hoping for “no further catastrophe.”