No Magic Bullets For Iraq
Anne Applebaum captures the quandry of Iraq War policy
Out in the world, there are shades of gray. Here inside the Beltway, there are black-and-white solutions. And everybody who is anybody has a plan for Iraq.
Hillary Clinton has a three-point plan; Barack Obama has a “move the soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan” plan. House Democrats have a plan to take most troops out by next March; Senate Democrats have a plan to take them out by April. Some Senate Republicans want the president to shrink the size of the U.S. military in Iraq; other Senate Republicans want to let the surge run its course. Search the Web, listen to the radio and watch the news, and you can hear people arguing that if only we had more troops, fewer troops or no troops at all, everything would be okay again.
What is missing from this conversation is a dose of humility. More to the point, what is missing is the recognition that every single one of these plans contains the seeds of potential disaster, even catastrophe.
She then sketches out the pitfalls of each plan:
More troops? I hardly need to elaborate on what’s wrong with that plan, since so many in Congress do so every day. But for the record, I’ll repeat the obvious: More troops means more American casualties, maybe many more casualties. Worse, the very presence of American soldiers creates strife in some parts of Iraq — angering Iraqis, motivating al-Qaeda, sparking violence. Besides, we’ve tried the surge, and the surge hasn’t brought the results we wanted. And, anyway, the surge simply can’t be maintained, let alone expanded: There aren’t that many more troops to send, even if we wanted to send them.
Fewer troops? This plan sounds like a reasonable compromise: neither surge nor cut-and-run, just leaving a few guys on the ground to train the Iraqis, guard the border and fight the terrorists. It also sounds a touch naive: So, in the midst of a vast civil war, small groups of Americans will withdraw to some neutral outposts and announce that they would no longer like to be shot at, please? Both “guarding the border” and “fighting terrorism” are hard to do effectively without involving ourselves in wider political and ethnic struggles.
There is also trouble with the “train the Iraqis” part of the plan, as Stephen Biddle spelled out in The Post last week, since “training Iraqis” invariably puts us in the middle of military conflict. Besides, fewer Americans could mean more Iraqi violence; more Iraqi violence could mean more American casualties — not to mention more Iraqi casualties — which defeats the purpose of the plan altogether.
No troops? Though deeply appealing to the “we told you so” crowd, this plan is clothed in the greatest degree of hypocrisy. How many of the people who clamor for intervention in Darfur will also be clamoring to rush back into Iraq when full-scale ethnic cleansing starts taking place? How many will take responsibility for the victims of genocide? I’m not saying there will be such a catastrophe, but there could be: Mass ethnic murders have certainly been carried out in Iraq before. Other possibilities include the creation of an Iranian puppet state or an al-Qaeda outlaw state; or there might merely be a regional war involving, say, Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, just for starters, and maybe Israel and the Gaza Strip as well. Perhaps these things would never have happened if we hadn’t gone there in the first place — but if we leave, we’ll be morally responsible.
Given that those four options would seem to exhaust all of them but “continue what we’re doing now,” Applebaum doesn’t have a plan, either. She seems to come down to “muddle through.”
Of course, I don’t want to exaggerate. There are people who know that there is no perfect solution for Iraq. However, they tend not to be people who are running for the presidency or any other public office. Last weekend, I met a Marine about to depart for his second tour in Iraq. He wasn’t exactly enthusiastic about going, nor was he particularly optimistic about what could be achieved. But he wasn’t demanding to stay home, either. If nothing else, he felt obliged to stick by the many Iraqis who had helped the Marines and who might well be murdered if the Marines left for good.
Dodd Harris argued on last night’s edition of OTB Radio that we have a moral obligation to the Iraqis to help them clean up the mess that we made. “We owe it to them” is not a grand strategy for winning a war. It certainly would not be enough to convince many of us to go to war, which is why we’re not in places like Darfur. But, once we’ve actually gone in and created a killing zone, it’s a rather powerful argument for staying.
The question, though, is for how long. Few serious people think we can win this thing; certainly not by September or even next spring. How long, then, do we continue to ask American forces to risk death to pay off bad debt?
UPDATE: Jim Henley pronounces Applebaum’s piece “the stupidest column anyone has ever written for any venue.” He’s especially not fond of the “but Darfur!” argument against withdrawal citing the fact that “we still don’t have troops in Darfur” as evidence that “Darfur hawks do not hold the whip hand in American politics.” A fair point.
Then again, her argument isn’t merely the hypocrisy trope but that the Iraqi-on-Iraqi killing now taking place could quite conceivably ignite into something truly scary in the absence of American troops providing disincentives. Of course, we really have no idea.