Maintaining Commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan
 |
Dave Schuler | Sunday, October 25, 2009 |
Month to date there have been four U. S. casualties in Iraq. Each death remains a tragedy but that’s a far cry from a year ago or two years ago. Fatalities in the Iraqi security forces have declined, too, each month of this year seeing fewer casualties than in the corresponding month of last year. Things are far from quiet in Iraq but are clealry much better than they were and than they might have been. As U. S. casualties ratchet up in Afghanistan, largely proportional to the increasing U. S. forces in Afghanistan, we seem to hear less and less coverage of Iraq.
In today’s column, lest we forget about Iraq entirely, Tom Friedman warns of Iraq’s continuing significance and its strategic importance relative to Afghanistan:
Watching Iraqi politics is like watching a tightrope artist crossing a dangerous cavern. At every step it looks as though he is going to fall into the abyss, and yet, somehow, he continues to wobble forward. Nothing is easy when trying to transform a country brutalized by three decades of cruel dictatorship. It is one step, one election, one new law, at a time. Each is a struggle. Each is crucial.
This next step is particularly important, which is why we cannot let Afghanistan distract U.S. diplomats from Iraq. Remember: Transform Iraq and it will impact the whole Arab-Muslim world. Change Afghanistan and you just change Afghanistan.
I think he’s simultaneously right and wrong. Real change in Iraq in the direction of liberal democracy would have enormous significance. I’m not entirely sure whether that’s what’s happening or whether we’re merely seeing the emergence of Saddam Lite.
And I think that he’s largely wrong about Afghanistan through oversimplification. It is impossible to change Afghanistan at all in isolation. Afghanistan and Pakistan are the Corsican Brothers, each feeling the other’s pain, and their fates are inextricably entwined. I seriously doubt that we can prevail militarily in Afghanistan in the absence of a legitimate, decent government there and that will be impossible without a legitimate, decent government in control of the territory it claims in Pakistan, too. And that, in turn, would have tremendous implications for the entirety of south and central Asia.
And can whatever we see as the desired end state in each of Iraq and Afghanistan be maintained without an ongoing commitment to both countries?
Over at The Glittering Eye I muse in a related vein over the interrelationship between our military and our grand strategy. Is there an intrinsic conflict between nation-building and having the biggest, toughest military in the world? How should we be using our military and what are our interests?
About the Author: Over the years Dave Schuler has worked as a martial arts instructor, a handyman, a musician, a cook, and a translator. He's owned his own company for the last thirty years and has a post-graduate degree in his field. He comes from a family of politicians, teachers, and vaudeville entertainers. All-in-all a pretty good preparation for blogging.
He has contributed to OTB since November 2006 but mostly writes at his own blog, The Glittering Eye.
- Maintaining Commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan
- Obama Announces Iraq Withdrawal Plans
- Missing the Forest for the Trees
- Washington Post: the Surge is Working
- Zero Sum Wars
- SOFA, So Good
- AQI Leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri Arrested UPDATE: Mistaken Identity
- U. S. Raid Into Syria Confirmed (Updated)
- The Anbar Handover
- SOFA
- Arnold Kling on the Progressives
- Murtha Dead, District Next?
- U.S. Senate The World’s Greatest Deliberative Body
- Bush: Miss Me Yet?
- DC Snow Record Likely
- Super Bowl 44 Most Watched Show Ever, Topples M*A*S*H Finale
- Caption Contest Winners
- John Murtha Dead at 77
- Jon Stewart: Blogs Must Be Crazy
- NFL Players Association vs. Typical Unions
- uberVU - social comments linked with Social comments and analytics for this post...
I’m not entirely sure whether that’s what’s happening or whether we’re merely seeing the emergence of Saddam Lite.
Curious: what is the latter possibility ("Saddam Lite") based on?
The Lite part is obvious, isn't it? As to the Saddam part, the difference between liberal democracy and autocracy isn't elections. Saddam's Iraq had elections.
The difference is the peaceful transition of power and we haven't seen that in Iraq yet. Until it does autocracy with democratic trappings remains a possibility.
Things are far from quiet in Iraq but are clealry much better than they were and than they might have been.
Yeah, things are great--at 3:30 this morning DC time, 132 people were killed and 520 people were injured in synchronized bombings in Baghdad.
It was the worst bombing since 2007.
We've clearly turned a corner.
I’m not entirely sure whether that’s what’s happening or whether we’re merely seeing the emergence of Saddam Lite.
I don't really see "Saddam Lite" happening. Saddam's regime was basically your typical personality cult centered around one dictator, and Maliki just does not have that kind of authority, credibility, or respect.
More likely, I think we'll probably see a kind of corrupt, broadly oligarchical Shiite government emerge that will hopefully hold Iraq together with their deal with the Kurds (aka don't secede, and we'll mostly let you do your own thing) at the expense of the Sunnis.
What tick me off is Obama’s speeches when he say he will take long careful deliberation before he send troops into harm’s way. Doesn’t he know troops are already in harm’s way and what he deciding now is wither to send in reinforcement or not. When Obama talks it as if we are not at war yet.
Comments are Closed
