So what to do in Iraq?
My mother has pointed out that my last two blogs have come to opposite conclusions: that we must stay in Iraq to avoid a chaos-driven spike in oil prices, and that we must withdraw because our stay in Iraq is simply prolonging the start of an inevitable civil war. Evidently the National Intelligence Estimate agrees with me on the second point. To quote the the Washington Post's plain English translation of the end of the NIE summary:
"The unstated bottom line: things are bad and could easily get worse. If the U.S. withdraws quickly, things are likely to get much worse much faster. We recognize the possibility of improvement, although we have no basis for saying how it could come about [given the lack of strong Iraqi leaders]. Assuming further deterioration, the most likely outcomes are all rather grim."
The report clearly lays out the chaos that would ensue if the U.S. withdraws quickly: sectarian civil war, a haven for Al Quaeda in Sunni Iraq, massive civilian casulties, the high likelihood of the war involving neighboring countries (consider Iran and the Shi'ites, the Arab League and the Sunnis, and Turkey and the Kurds). The report does not even mention the inevitable spike in oil prices that would result from this Middle Eastern unrest and drive the U.S. economy deep into recession (the Middle East contains more than 50% of proven oil reserves).
For all that, I am now convinced that we must leave Iraq, and soon. As a whole, some of the worst outcomes are inevitable: our presence in Iraq will not stop a civil war. But on the positive side, if we start to withdraw slowly this year, some potential disasters can be dealt with diplomatically. Please read the excellent op-ed , "Victory is Not an Option", by Lt. William E. Odum in the Washington Post. This article examines and blows apart each of the arguments that have been advanced to prolong this war: preventing civil war, fighting Iran's influence, not letting Al-Quaeda have a haven for operations, and supporting the troops.
Consider the advantages of a slow withdrawal, one carried out over a year and a half:
1) It sends a signal to the Iraqis and to neighboring countries that they must take responsibility for their own security. Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Syria do not want a regional war or a chaotic failed state on their doorsteps. They will take action to stabilize Iraq.
2) It will lower the level of anti-U.S. insurgency at the same time that it raises the sectarian infighting. Such infighting is inevitable, and will probably lead to the diplomatic partitioning of Iraq as we withdraw.
3) The U.S. can shift its role from police to trainer, from occupier to heavy reinforcements when the Iraqi army is in trouble. It can turn over its heavily fortified bases to Iraqis. Even if our U.S.-sponsored Iraqi army and goverment are doomed by a quick withdrawal, a slow withdrawal and a partitioning of Iraq could lead to increased support of Iraqi institutions by neighboring countries. A slow U.S. withdrawal would certainly increase the legitimacy of the current government.
4) Yes, it has a timetable. Such a timetable is inevitable, and it is better to make our own than to have one forced on our troops by events. And if we keep going this way, we will retreat amid fire, chaos, and open battles.
Yes, a deterioration of Iraq is highly likely, say a 90% chance, and therefore an oil price shock is highly likely. American consumers, brace for it! Somehow--maybe you can buy oil stock or a hybrid car, winterize your house, or stop heating with fossil fuels and use wood instead. I consider this oil disruption so likely that I am trying to time my purchase of a new, fuel-efficient car to coincide with the announcement of the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
The only way to avoid the seemingly-inevitable deterioration of Iraq is decisive U.S. action. Staying in Iraq is the wrong course to take--it merely prolongs the start of a civil war and alienates the regional powers that could prevent such a war from taking place. A quick withdrawal would be a mistake as well--chaos would erupt. A slow withdrawal would signal U.S. intentions and allow the Iraqi people and regional powers one last chance to stabilize Iraq before it is too late.
President Bush, I hope you read my blog. Failing that, I hope you read the Washington Post. Support the troops: bring them home.
"The unstated bottom line: things are bad and could easily get worse. If the U.S. withdraws quickly, things are likely to get much worse much faster. We recognize the possibility of improvement, although we have no basis for saying how it could come about [given the lack of strong Iraqi leaders]. Assuming further deterioration, the most likely outcomes are all rather grim."
The report clearly lays out the chaos that would ensue if the U.S. withdraws quickly: sectarian civil war, a haven for Al Quaeda in Sunni Iraq, massive civilian casulties, the high likelihood of the war involving neighboring countries (consider Iran and the Shi'ites, the Arab League and the Sunnis, and Turkey and the Kurds). The report does not even mention the inevitable spike in oil prices that would result from this Middle Eastern unrest and drive the U.S. economy deep into recession (the Middle East contains more than 50% of proven oil reserves).
For all that, I am now convinced that we must leave Iraq, and soon. As a whole, some of the worst outcomes are inevitable: our presence in Iraq will not stop a civil war. But on the positive side, if we start to withdraw slowly this year, some potential disasters can be dealt with diplomatically. Please read the excellent op-ed , "Victory is Not an Option", by Lt. William E. Odum in the Washington Post. This article examines and blows apart each of the arguments that have been advanced to prolong this war: preventing civil war, fighting Iran's influence, not letting Al-Quaeda have a haven for operations, and supporting the troops.
Consider the advantages of a slow withdrawal, one carried out over a year and a half:
1) It sends a signal to the Iraqis and to neighboring countries that they must take responsibility for their own security. Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Syria do not want a regional war or a chaotic failed state on their doorsteps. They will take action to stabilize Iraq.
2) It will lower the level of anti-U.S. insurgency at the same time that it raises the sectarian infighting. Such infighting is inevitable, and will probably lead to the diplomatic partitioning of Iraq as we withdraw.
3) The U.S. can shift its role from police to trainer, from occupier to heavy reinforcements when the Iraqi army is in trouble. It can turn over its heavily fortified bases to Iraqis. Even if our U.S.-sponsored Iraqi army and goverment are doomed by a quick withdrawal, a slow withdrawal and a partitioning of Iraq could lead to increased support of Iraqi institutions by neighboring countries. A slow U.S. withdrawal would certainly increase the legitimacy of the current government.
4) Yes, it has a timetable. Such a timetable is inevitable, and it is better to make our own than to have one forced on our troops by events. And if we keep going this way, we will retreat amid fire, chaos, and open battles.
Yes, a deterioration of Iraq is highly likely, say a 90% chance, and therefore an oil price shock is highly likely. American consumers, brace for it! Somehow--maybe you can buy oil stock or a hybrid car, winterize your house, or stop heating with fossil fuels and use wood instead. I consider this oil disruption so likely that I am trying to time my purchase of a new, fuel-efficient car to coincide with the announcement of the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
The only way to avoid the seemingly-inevitable deterioration of Iraq is decisive U.S. action. Staying in Iraq is the wrong course to take--it merely prolongs the start of a civil war and alienates the regional powers that could prevent such a war from taking place. A quick withdrawal would be a mistake as well--chaos would erupt. A slow withdrawal would signal U.S. intentions and allow the Iraqi people and regional powers one last chance to stabilize Iraq before it is too late.
President Bush, I hope you read my blog. Failing that, I hope you read the Washington Post. Support the troops: bring them home.
posted by Tree Texan at 11:05 AM
0 comments
