Our Tangled Web

I have been reading over ISG excerpts and various related news clips, pundit analysis, and bloggerisms. As Abraham Lincoln might have appreciated, for a report that is so proud of its bi-partisanship it has succeeded in satisfying exactly no one.

Over at Redstate, etc, we have the "Kill them all and let God sort 'em out" contingent predictably lamenting that the ISG doesn't have the guts to recommend accepting a few more civilian casualties to quell the insurgency. The lefties are unhappy with the ISG report since it doesn't specifically state "GET THE HELL OUT NOW" with a gratuitous "Bush is an idiot." The neocons (Krauthammer, Kristol, etc) are openly mocking the report for stating the obvious and recommending the unthinkable: a working relationship with Syria and Iran.

The popular Redstate position that we need to use overwhelming force and show Iraq a little tough love is an interesting one. It's kind of a romantic notion, really: If we'd nuke Fallujah and/or Anbar province it would resolve the problems with the insurgents and that nasty arab-on-arab violence so we can get on with the business of spreading democracy. Sure, the Iraqi people would be a little pissed off at first but they'd learn to love us just like the Japanese did. Right? Right??? (One dissenter brings up a few inconvenient facts about the Japan-Iraq comparison but the commenters conveniently choose to ignore him.)

The bottom line is that we haven't positioned ourselves as conquerors of the sovereign state of Iraq. We deposed Saddam and in that regard we've met our objective. The wisdom of having done so (relative to our national interests) is now the subject of much debate, but destroying Iraq in order to 'save it' was never part of our mission. In fact, the fallout of such a pursuit (if one thinks about it in terms of cause and effect) would likely run counter to everything we hoped to gain by installing Iraq as a model of democracy in the Middle East. That's the reason the Bush administration (and I'll give them credit for it here) has not pursued it. Contrary to pundit opinion, the Bush administration has not held back because their hands are tied politically... they're holding back because it would be a stupid move with very bad long term consequences. Lebanon is a fascinating study in this regard -- Hezbollah was only marginally popular outside of the southern region until Israel attacked. Suddenly Hezbollah support skyrocketed and the party's opportunistic response was to leverage the support for an attempted government coup. I'm sure there's a lesson for us in there somewhere.

The lefties don't quite have it right either. There are going to be ugly consequences for immediate troop withdrawal, not the least of which is the potential for genocide while the sectarian factions fight for power and control of Iraq's future. Add Iran to the mix, whose influence in the region has already grown dramatically and emboldened them to give us the one finger salute over objections to their announced nuclear intentions. Troop withdrawal may turn out to be the best option going forward but the consequences must be acknowledged, planned for, and mitigated... not wishfully ignored.

Stay-the-coursers are off track, too. Often complaining about American impatience toward the war, these folks believe that if we just stay there long enough the Iraqis will get the hang of nationalism and democracy and put aside their petty differences for the greater Iraqi good. These are the same people who believe the "We'll stand down as the Iraqis stand up" line of bs without bothering themselves to understand why that plan has made so little progress over the years.

As for the neocons, their preferance for unilateralism and their distaste for political diplomacy has blinded them to reality. I think one of Andrew Sullivan's readers summarized it best:

You missed the biggest flaw in Victor Davis Hanson's statement, which is its historical inaccuracy. This country did not fight and defeat Germany, Italy and Japan all at once. We defeated Japan with some help from the British Empire and Commonwealth, and China; we defeated Italy with substantial help from the British Empire and Commonwealth, as well as Free French, Polish, Czech and other forces; the Soviet Union defeated Germany, with major help from us as well as the British Empire and Commonwealth, as well as Free French, Polish, Czech and other forces.

Had the Soviet Union not broken the back of the German Wehrmacht and its allies before Moscow, at Stalingrad and at Kursk, and thereafter, there is serious doubt whether even the combined forces of the U.S., the British Empire and Commonwealth, and their allies, could have defeated Germany in northwest Europe. Read Max Hastings.

This is an example of the pride and hubris in an all-powerful U.S. that does not have to resort to mere diplomacy and alliance building as it goes boldly forth to impose its military will abroad - pride and hubris that directly led us to the dire circumstances in which we now find ourselves in Iraq.

The Iraq situation is a very complex one and I'm wary of anyone who thinks the answer is going to be found in any one action. The most dreadful solution I've heard proposed to date is to undo the results of the last election and replace the current Iraqi government with one of our choosing (think for a minute about the ME fallout from that mind f*ck).

The most intriguing idea I've heard uses a strange combination of Keynsesian economics and socialism to flood Iraq with prosperity in hopes of easing tensions. The idea seems to be to parcel out 30% of oil profits directly to the Iraqi people. I read this over at Iraq the Model but his sources are in Arabic so I have no way of knowing if it's truly on the table. If so, I think it's the first winning idea I've heard in a long, long time.