Timetable Teddy Gets Some Support

We've heard it again and again in the Iraq invasion: steadfastness wins the day. Setting and then moving heaven and earth to meet a deadline (whether it be creating the CPA, the symbolic June 30th handover, or the January 30th elections) has been heralded as our best tool in ensuring the transparent achievement of our goals and intentions. Stating clearly to the world what we intend to do and then doing just that. Watching the milestones go by. It's what you'll see the President pat himself on the back for in his SOTU address tonight.

But now, when there are more Americans who declare they want to start bringing the troops home than those willing to watch the occupation drag on, we're told a timetable is a bad thing. In fact, its so bad that even a distinguished Senator can be labeled a traitor for suggesting it's time to start discussing it. For the record, if that's the case, according to the poll above, 47% of Americans are traitors.

Now I've gone on record here repeatedly arguing that Iraq's security remains Job 1. Bringing the troops home must take second place to ensuring the Iraqis can defend themselves against enemies from without and within. But we've reached the point in all this where a timetable could serve to stop one of the insurgents' main recruiting methods: occupation resentment. As Michael O'Hanlon and James Steinberg explain in today's Washington Post it "is now inescapable that [US troops] are helping fuel the insurgency.":

Henry A. Kissinger and George P. Shultz argue against setting any American exit strategy to a calendar. That is an argument the Bush administration has, at least for now, itself endorsed. Kissinger and Shultz's logic would be right for the Balkans, or Germany and Japan after World War II, or any nation-building effort not challenged by a strong insurgency. But such logic does not apply in Iraq, where the resistance appears to be gaining most of its growing strength from indigenous hostility to the foreign military presence.

No exit strategy for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq should be abrupt or radical. We must not cut and run. We should not plan to withdraw our forces entirely by any set date. And we should announce a schedule for partial withdrawal only in conjunction with the new Iraqi government being formed. But the case for a fairly prompt major reduction in foreign forces, announced publicly and set to a schedule, increasingly appears to be the best way to help produce a stable Iraq under a government accepted as legitimate by most of its people.

And more than that, at least beginning to discuss a timetable will actually reinforce the achievement of Sunday's elections:

Even many Shiites celebrated the elections as a further step toward reclaiming their country. Thus, developing a withdrawal schedule would not run counter to the message of the elections but would build on that positive message. It would also remind the Shiites, as well as the Kurds, of the need to integrate Sunnis into the government and security forces.

Finally, O'Hanlon and Steinberg conclude that not setting a timetable will not only reinforce our failure to stop the insurgents, but will actually assist the insurgents (in other words, those dead-set against a timetable are arguably the treacherous ones):

Washington and Baghdad would actually improve their prospects for defeating the insurgency and stabilizing the country by publicly announcing a plan for gradual but substantial coalition troop withdrawal.

So I applaud Senator Ted Kennedy for having the wisdom to see this and the courage to stand up and say it. It's time to begin planning the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq; publicly, transparently, and most of all with steadfastness.

Comments

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Do be honest, at this point I don't care about the popularity. We don't leave until Iraq is stable and relatively safe. You don't leave things half done.

[Edward]

Did you read their argument though, Sebastian? Announcing a timetable could help us reach our goal of a stable, secure Iraq.

It's not in anyway leaving before Iraq is stable or safe. It's in no way leaving things half done.

I agree wholeheartedly that we can't do that. But according to O'Hanlon and Steinberg, not announcing a timetable makes that job that much more difficult.

[dmbeaster]

Aside from the insurgency, our continued presence also strengthens the hand of those newly elected representatives most hostile to our presence. This is the statement by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the winning ticket:

"No one welcomes the foreign troops in Iraq. We believe in the ability of Iraqis to run their own issues, including the security issue," Mr Hakim said. "Of course this issue could be brought up by the new government."

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Did you read their argument though, Sebastian? Announcing a timetable could help us reach our goal of a stable, secure Iraq."

Sure, and I don't buy it. Announcing a timetable is much more likely to give the insurgents a target to survive by, not to mention the propaganda victory they gain if they can force the timetable to move. But I was responding to the poll really.

[Edward]

Sure, and I don't buy it. Announcing a timetable is much more likely to give the insurgents a target to survive by, not to mention the propaganda victory they gain if they can force the timetable to move.

A target to survive by? You mean like the June 30 or January 30 targets? A propagand victory if they foce the timetable to move...again...like with June 30 or Jan 30?

Why is steadfastness no longer a positive in this?

[Katherine]

OT: can this possibly be true? I'm inclined to think not. If I'm wrong though, we have BIG problems.

As for Iraq: I would not set a timetable before we know who the government is. I think Reid's call for benchmarks--as in, more specific goals to meet rather than specific dates--might be a sensible way to go. I like Harry Reid.

[Edward]

As for Iraq: I would not set a timetable before we know who the government is.

Which government though? The just elected Constitutional Assembly or the actual government to be elected a year from now?

Benchmarks seems sensible.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Last I checked (Nov. 5), 48% of Americans were traitors, so 47% is really a move in the right direction.

[dmbeaster]

One easy benchmark is to peg US troop levels to the size of new Iraqi security forces. It might encourage the Iraqi government to put some energy into that issue.

[crionna]

I think that the goal will dictate whether a timetable is appropriate or not. If "stable and safe" is the goal then a timetable is inappropriate, for, how do we measure such things? And if measurements are indeed set, how are we to know if they are truly met? Could the insurgerrorists not simply feign weakness lulling the US to leave and the Iraqis to be less diligent in creating a security force? That's what I'd do.

If "a trained Iraqi security force" is the goal then I believe a timetable is more than appropriate. It would be very beneficial in driving recruitment and training on our side and a level of inevitability on the Iraqi side.

I'd further guess that the latter would be an appropriate goal according to the above noted quote "No one welcomes the foreign troops in Iraq. We believe in the ability of Iraqis to run their own issues, including the security issue," Mr Hakim said. "Of course this issue could be brought up by the new government."

[hilzoy]

Benchmarks seem like a good idea to me. I've never liked the idea of a timetable: there has to be (doesn't there?) some way of making it clear that you plan to leave in the not too distant future without announcing exactly when. Which is why I liked some of Kennedy's other suggestions, like not building permanent bases and scaling back the embassy plans.

[Jesurgislac]

Criona: Could the insurgerrorists not simply feign weakness lulling the US to leave and the Iraqis to be less diligent in creating a security force? That's what I'd do.

I think "insurgerrorists" is a really incredibly ugly word, I'm sorry.

But, use of it also blocks the point that the insurgency is an Iraqi insurgency: there are Iraqis shooting other Iraqis for cooperating with the US military occupation. If the US military occupation were announce, with benchmarks and a timetable, its definite intent to leave (and keep to the timetable) that might take away a good part of the reason Iraqi insurgents have for killing people they perceive as Iraqi quislings.

[praktike]

The Editor of the Daily Star made a similar argument. I think it's possible to compromise by doing more "over the horizon" type of stuff and pushing the Iraqi security forces to the forefront, where they seem ready.

[Edward]

I like dmbeaster's benchmark idea, actually. Kills two birds with one stone.

[crionna]

I think "insurgerrorists" is a really incredibly ugly word, I'm sorry.

Fair enough, I used it to try to stay away from discussions about what exactly to call those killing soldiers and Iraqis. But does your statement mean that 1) you believe that those of Iraqi nationality who kill soldiers and Iraqis are insurgents while those of other nationalities are terrorists and 2) there was no "porous border" problem, i.e. an insignificant sample size of those doing the killing are not of Iraqi nationality?

[crionna]

I'm sorry, Jes, I think I misread your statement and responded too quickly. I agree that a benchmark based exit strategy might take a good bit of the anger out of those Iraqis who see our role there as an occupation rather than in support of their efforts at self-rule.

[Gary Farber]

"Fair enough, I used it to try to stay away from discussions about what exactly to call those killing soldiers and Iraqis."

What, "the naughty people" doesn't work for everyone?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"If the US military occupation were announce, with benchmarks and a timetable, its definite intent to leave (and keep to the timetable) that might take away a good part of the reason Iraqi insurgents have for killing people they perceive as Iraqi quislings."

I think that is a terrible misreading of what the insurgents want. They don't want to just get rid of American soldiers. They want to get rid of American soldiers because the presence of American soldiers makes it difficult for them to take over the country. Removing the American soldiers doesn't give them an incentive to stop killing Iraqis, it makes it easier to do.

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian: Unfortunately, you may be right. But I fear I'm right too. There are Iraqis who want to take over the country: Iraqis who hate the US military occupation: Iraqis who want to collaborate with the US military occupation: and Iraqis who want to live in peace and have other people (Iraqi and American) please stop killing them now, thank you.

I don't think that any of these groups can very easily be pulled apart from any of the others and considered as a detached unit. It's certainly not accurate to assume that the insurgents are the only Iraqis who want to take over the country.

[tomsyl]

If the US military occupation were announce, with benchmarks and a timetable, its definite intent to leave (and keep to the timetable) that might take away a good part of the reason Iraqi insurgents have for killing people they perceive as Iraqi quislings.

How does this square with al-Zawahiri's call for terrorist attacks on people voting in elections?

[crionna]

What, "the naughty people" doesn't work for everyone?

Didn't know that was the common terminology, but sure, it works for me. Then again, being able to combine 5 syallables into a single word rather than three surely saves on space bar maintnance no ;P

[crionna]

al-Zawahiri's call

Is he Iraqi?

[tomsyl]

Either he's got Iraqis doing his dirty work or the "flypaper" theoery deserves some credence, eh?

[Gary Farber]

"I think that is a terrible misreading of what the insurgents want."

According to what I read, there are some sixty different disparate groups, with many disparate goals and motivations.

But, by all means, if it's simpler to regard them as a single unitary body, and that aids your analysis... well, I'd suggest reconsideration.

I'm really fairly sure that Sadrists, Baathists, Zarqawi followers, and people simply enraged because their relative was killed or unbearably humiliated by Americans, are fairly different sets of people, though, and not actually one bunch of folk with an agreed upon "want," other than to kill Americans and others who support what they, however rightly or wrongly, see as an unjust American occupation.

Do you really think there is no significant number of Iraqis, Sebastian, who simply resent, yea, bitterly hate, occupation by foreign troops?

[lily]

There was an article in the National Review about two weeks ago about the nature of the insurgency. Actually the article was one in a series but I didn't read the others. In the article I read the reporter (who was overtly a strong war supporter, plus the kind of person who attacked the patriotism of anyone who disagreed with him) was stunned and amazed to discover that the Sunni insurgents were motivated by nationalism. Yes nationalism. He interviewed respectable, professional Sunnis who expressed rage at the presence of American troops and spoke of the humiliation of occupation. They didn't like Saddam but said they could have gotten rid of him themselves.
Some of the insurgents are clearly religious fanatics. But as noted upthread the insurgency is not unified and motivations vary. There is strong evidence for two senarios: the presence of our troops unifies insurgents who would otherwise attack each other, and the presence of our troops increases the support for the insurgency from people who otherwise would be open to working within mostly Shia Iraqi government.
Anyway the bottom line is this: Bush has always claimed ( and I believe he was lying) that he didn't want a puppet government and that we weren't in Iraq to stay. So now is the time to put up or shut up. Now is the time to set bench marks or dates for a gradual withdrawal and to start dismantling bases. Otherwise those ( and this includes many Iraqis) who doubt Bush's motives will have will have more reasons for their doubts--and that will fuel isurgency, too.
Or are we there to have bases to use in attacking Iran?

[Anarch]

I like dmbeaster's benchmark idea, actually. Kills two birds with one stone.

For the record, I suggested this back in 2003, I think it was. Damned if I know where, but it's either here or on the erstwhile Calpundit somewhere.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Do you really think there is no significant number of Iraqis, Sebastian, who simply resent, yea, bitterly hate, occupation by foreign troops?"

Nope. But I think that the most significant number of Iraqis who are killing other Iraqis are not such.

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian: But I think that the most significant number of Iraqis who are killing other Iraqis are not such.

What makes you think that?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Well for one thing, they tend to kill a lot more Iraqis than US soldiers. For another they seem to be targetting certain sects of Islam. For a third, many of them are either Ba'athists who have a history of trying to run the country or foreign jihadists who as a group tend to try to take over countries.

What makes you think they will go away if the US leaves?

[Gary Farber]

"But I think that the most significant number of Iraqis who are killing other Iraqis are not such."

What evidence would you cite to support that?

"What makes you think they will go away if the US leaves?"

See, you're doing that unitary "they" thing, still.

Have you been reading the Iraqi polls, Sebastian?

The poll also finds majorities of both Iraq’s Shiites and Sunnis calling for a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from their soil. Zogby International polled 805 Iraqi adults from January 19 to 23, 2005 on behalf of television broadcaster Abu Dhabi TV. The margin of error is +/- 3.6 percentage points.

[...]

Majorities of both Sunni Arabs (82%) and Shiites (69%) also favor U.S. forces withdrawing either immediately or after an elected government is in place.

The poll also found that of Iraq’s ethnic and religious groups, only the Kurds believe the U.S. will “help” Iraq over the next five years, while half (49%) of Shiites and a majority (64%) of Sunni Arabs believe the U.S. will “hurt” Iraq.

[...]

What’s alarming is that more than half—53% in this survey—believe that ongoing attacks in Iraq are a legitimate form of resistance. With this group already boycotting the election, this makes for a very violent combination.”

“Only the Kurds seem to favor a continued U.S. presence, and are likely to outright reject violent resistance,” Zogby added.

Have you been reading, say, Raed? I would never suggest they represent majority opinion, any more than I'd suggest, or believe, that any of the other Iraqi bloggers represent the majority of Iraqis, but they clearly represent at least one thread of popular opinion in Iraq, just as IraqTheModel and more pro-American blogs do, do they not? Why do you think they are so angry?

[Gary Farber]

Blockquoting begone!

[lily]

I don't think it is a question of the insurgents going away. They probably won't. There are a couple of advantages to a gradually staged departure of US troops: the Iraqi troops gain stature, the people who are offended by the presence of Americans no longer have that issue, and the war becomes an internal policing issue rather than a crusade against the infidel. The Iraqi troops are very much handicapped by the perception that they work for the occupying forces. Granted they do need training but they also need to be seen as the real Iraqi army, not the pawns of the US. Opinion polls have shown repeatedly that very large percentages of the Iraqi public want the troops out. People don't have to be insurgents or even insurgent supporters to regard our soldiers as an affront to their national dignity. Anyway the goal shouldn't be to surpress the insurgency; it's to win hearts and minds so fewer Iraqis will support the insurgency so they can surpress it themselves. Staged withdrawals of the troops will help with that because withdrawal supports the goal of independence, the goal sought by the vast majority of Iraqis of all political or religious persuasions. No the job shouldn't be left half done. But if the job is an independent Iraq (not a puppet or client state) then planned withdrawal serves the goal. Open ended adherence to the status quo does not.

[Gary Farber]

"Have you been reading, say, Raed?"

This was intended to read "have you been reading, say, Riverbend or Raed?"

Mind, I wasn't suggesting that I agreed with their views in the least; I merely suggest that their sorts of views are not those of a trivial minority in Iraq.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Yes I do read both, and I don't think letting Iraq become 1999 Afghanistan is the way to go.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

In the overall context of the issue raised, when are the troops leaving Japan, Germany, South Korea et al.

And what would we do without polls, especially when you don't get to read the exact question.

Finally, given the recent elections, the duely elected representatives of the Iraqi people will make the decision. My guess is, US troops will stay as requested by the current elected Iraqi government.

[heeter]

And what would we do without polls, especially when you don't get to read the exact question.

What percentage of those populations want the US out?

[liberal japonicus]

Timmy
In the overall context of the issue raised, when are the troops leaving Japan, Germany, South Korea et al.

As Charles said in this post

Iraq, of course, is a different story, different time, different location, different situation, different culture, different neighbors, different government, different benefactors, different enemies, different terrain, different religions, different technologies, etc.

Can you present any reasoning as to why Chas is wrong about this?

Slightly OT, but I hope my question concerning this didn't slip your mind. If we just make up our historical facts, it might cause a bit of difficult when we try and predict what is going to happen, IMHO.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Did you miss the election last Sunday? Now who will decide?

Not for nothing, last November's exit polls were wrong JFTR.

[Gary Farber]

"Yes I do read both, and I don't think letting Iraq become 1999 Afghanistan is the way to go."

I doubt many people we're apt to be in contact with do.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Iraq, of course, is a different story

All the stories are different, which begs the question, when are the troops coming home? Where is the time table?

[243]

TtWD And what would we do without polls, especially when you don't get to read the exact question.

You think maybe its sorta like elections where you don't (and even some of the candidates didn't) know who was running?

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Liberal happy to oblige just look here

Yasar Yakis, the foreign minister, said he was examining treaties from the early 20th century to see whether Turkey had a claim to the oil fields of the Mosul and Kirkuk provinces, which the Turks ruled during Ottoman times. In comments published yesterday in the Hurriyet newspaper, Mr Yakis said: "If we do have such rights, we have to explain this to the international community and our partners in order to secure those rights."

I have others but the above is the best.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

243, in the state I currently live in, we use to have a party lever, to help those Nutmeggers overcome the issue you raised.

[liberal japonicus]

I see,
If we do have such rights

means

the Turks wanted the northern oil fields of Iraq, which we wisely declined

Thank you Timmy, I see that was a London Telegraph article which also said

While Mr Yakis was careful to emphasise that Turkey had no territorial claims over the provinces, his comments were greeted with anger by Arab diplomats in Ankara.

That is very magnanimous of you to include Arab diplomats among "we"

This CSMonitor article also gives a bit more detail.

I will make sure that I waste no time reading your future efforts at presenting history.

[243]

TtWD. Ok, I'll ignore the gift about your current state, but Nutmeggers -- WTF???

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Liberal, or

"He is revealing Turkey's true intentions. They are playing a dangerous game".

A game which the Arabs were not in a position to stop, as compared to the US. Expand your reading to cover, what we did for the Kurds during the period in question and the Kurds aren't even Arabs.

And Liberal why should I be surprised that you don't want to know what was going on. Might I suggest you catch up on who was surprised by the vote and why.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

but Nutmeggers

Well yes, people like (and hometown)

Dean Acheson statesman, Middletown
Ethan Allan American Revolutionary soldier, Litchfield
Benedict Arnold American Revolutionary general, Norwich
P. T. Barnum showman, Bethel
Henry Ward Beecher clergyman, Litchfield
John Brown abolitionist, Torrington
Samuel Colt inventor, Hartford
Oliver Ellsworth jurist, Windsor
Eileen Farrell soprano, Willimantic
Charles Goodyear inventor, New Haven
Nathan Hale American Revolutionary officer, Coventry
Robert N. Hall inventor, New Haven
Katharine Hepburn actress, Hartford
Collis Potter Huntington financier, Harwinton
Charles Ives composer, Danbury
Edwin H. Land inventor
Annie Leibovitz photographer, Waterbury
John Pierpont Morgan financier, Hartford
Frederick Law Olmsted landscape designer, Hartford
Kenneth H. Olsen inventor, Stratford
Rosa Ponselle soprano, Meriden
Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. congressman, New Haven
Benjamin Spock pediatrician, New Haven
Harriet Beecher Stowe author, Litchfield
Noah Webster lexicographer, West Hartford

just to name a few

[Gary Farber]

"All the stories are different, which begs the question, when are the troops coming home?"

You might want to look into the meaning of "begs the question." It doesn't mean what you think it means.

"Where is the time table?"

See, the guy who came up with this whole "exit strategy" thing is a crazy left-winger who was a career soldier, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Appointed by that radical liberal, President Ronald Reagan. There's a whole "Doctrine" thing he came up with. You might want to look into it. It has to do with troops in a situation where they are forced to fight. If you are aware of recent fighting in Japan, Germany, or South Korea, please let us know.

Lastly, you might also wish to look into which troops have been withdrawn from Germany and South Korea in the past two years, and what troops are presently scheduled to be withdrawn in the next five years. It's almost as if it had been publically announced, and you could find that information with Google! It's almost as if we withdrew troops in the past year from South Korea, and it was all over the news! Who could possibly know? It's secret, after all.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

If you are aware of recent fighting in Japan, Germany, or South Korea, please let us know.

So we pull the troops while the fighting is going on. Is that what you are saying?

Or do we pull the troops when the fighting is done?

Or we keep the troops (some of them that is) there, after the fighting is done, because of geopolitical considerations.

Given our history over the last sixty years or so, I have a pretty good idea which option we will end up with.

So I repeat my question, when are the troops coming home from Germany, Japan and South Korea.

That doctrine thing, didn't we come to the conclusion after 9-11, that it was part of the problem? Just asking.

On the beg the question question, I question the premise on the current allocation of troops. But I'm looking at camps, instead of forts, and eastward rather than westward. That is, India is more important than Germany in my geopolitical equation as well as Central Asia being more important than Europe. I think the Europeans understand this and are none too happy about it.

[liberal japonicus]

And Liberal why should I be surprised that you don't want to know what was going on. Might I suggest you catch up on who was surprised by the vote and why.

Well, Timmy you said
the Turks wanted the northern oil fields of Iraq, which we wisely declined

OK, so why was the US surprised by the vote? Or was the fact that we had the 4th ID floating off Iskenderun a Pee-Wee Hermanesque 'I wanted to do that'? We were, in your elliptical rendition, wisely declining those greedy Turks, who just wanted to snatch up Kirkuk oil fields, so we should have been expecting it. If I were Jes, I'd accuse you of racism (;^)

However, why am I not surprised that you seek to recast history in order to make the US seem more heroic?

Perhaps it is just an allergy to citing things. It can't be an allergy to searching on the internet, as I can't imagine that you had all those nutmeggers and their hometowns at the tips of your fingers.

But seriously. Cites are a good thing. If you had added the Telegraph cite, I would have written

"Well, I think that you are being too reductionist about this and I think that this was simply a trial balloon. Note that the minister said it for Turkish language press. While I am sure that Turkey (or any country) would like control of the Kirkuk oil fields, Turkey was more motivated by the desire to now have a new Kurdish nation on its border"

Wouldn't that have been better than having me chase you across two threads to get an answer?

[Gary Farber]

"So we pull the troops while the fighting is going on. Is that what you are saying?"

You are free to interpret the Powell Doctrine as you wish.

But: no. That's not what I'm saying.

"So I repeat my question, when are the troops coming home from Germany, Japan and South Korea."

Asked and answered.

"That doctrine thing, didn't we come to the conclusion after 9-11, that it was part of the problem? Just asking."

I'm unaware of this. Feel free to explain it. Do you have a cite for, say, President Bush or the recent Secretary of Defense abnegating the Powell Doctrine?

Why is it that last year Secretary Powell invoked his Doctrine in support of invading Iraq when it has been, you say, renounced?

Powell, currently the U.S. secretary of state, has recently invoked the Doctrine in articulating the justifications for the Bush administration's preparations for war in Iraq.

"On the beg the question question, I question the premise on the current allocation of troops."

That's not what begging the question means. However, insofar as I understand the above sentence and the rest of your paragraph, I agree with you.

[Josh]

That's not what begging the question means.

Eh. While I appreciate you fighting the good fight, Gary, that battle's been lost for quite some time now.

[hilzoy]

Josh: " that battle's been lost for quite some time now."

Some of us refuse to concede defeat. Not only is 'begging the question' just all wrong for 'raising the question' -- I mean, why begging? -- it's the only quick and easy way to say 'presupposing your conclusion in your argument'. Unless you want to use 'petitio principii', which I try to avoid because I strive for a down to earth, Crawford-esque quality wholly inconsistent with the use of Latin terms for fallacies.

[Catsy]

"Never try and teach a pig to sing: it's a waste of time, and it annoys the pig."
-Robert Heinlein, from The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Lastly, you might also wish to look into which troops have been withdrawn from Germany and South Korea in the past two years, and what troops are presently scheduled to be withdrawn in the next five years. It's almost as if it had been publically announced, and you could find that information with Google!

Wow, talking through your level of snark is almost intolerable. So I'll keep it simple. Please note for the class how many years it took between the cessation of hostilities and the US withdrawal of troops in the following countries: South Korea, Japan, Germany. To give you the benefit of the doubt we can pretend that if they have not been entirely removed that the end date is 2005. Please then note the number of years that have passed since we initially invaded Iraq. To be extra fair to your side you may round up to the nearest decade. Does the last number exceed any of the first three numbers?

[McDuff]

I've never been in favour of quick withdrawal from Iraq, but I think that entrenched positions on either side here are masking just how difficult a catch-22 situation we've placed ourselves in here.

There's no doubt that there are significant number of insurgent groups who want American forces out so that they can take over themselves. The fact that they have been attacking power and water lines is strong evidence for this: if they get a functioning infrastructure in Iraq, people are less likely to welcome a bunch of crazed, AK-47 wielding fanatics into the governor's seat.

Nonetheless, with insurgent numbers at 1% of the population, it's evident that a number of the insurgency groups draw on broad popular support. You can't have 200K insurgents in a population of 20M without the population being largely sympathetic or, at the very least, apathetic. As we can discount the possibility that Iraqis en masse are broadly in favour of not having clean water, electricity, regular gasoline supplies and being shot, it's no great leap of logic to surmise that the popular support is for the other thing the insurgents do: kill Coalition soldiers. Our presence there grows more unpopular each day, which feeds this tacit support for the insurgency and makes the job of defeating it nigh on impossible.

On the other hand, if we leave too soon, although we expose the insurgency for what it really is, stripped of its excuse to fight Americans it will turn on other Iraqis (and even those groups who are ostensibly fighting solely for the end to American occupation, I wager, will find it hard to put the guns down when there's territory to be divvied up). This could dry up the popular support, but without even the fragile security we provide (let's face it, we don't do a very good job at it) it's unlikely to matter, and we'l undoubtedly see the insurgency transform into a civil war as the various factions try and carve out territory for themselves. As Sebastian says, parity with Afghanistan circa 1999 is an undesirable outcome for Iraq.

The only solution I see is to phase out American street patrols and replace them with Iraqi local police patrols, as quickly as possible but no quicker. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that this is what the plan actually is, and it seems to be proving most difficult. I think we've made the job ten times harder and ten years longer than it needed to be, because the people who we could do with having in the Iraqi police force -- those who used to be in Saddam's army -- are in the insurgency. Had we, two years ago, had a proper plan to keep the old Baathists, if not on our side, at least not fighting against us, we'd most likely have a far bigger pool of recruits for the local police force and a far smaller pool of insurgents for them to deal with.

Germany and Japan aside (the number of American soldiers killed by suicide bombers in Berlin vs. Baghdad since the official cessation of hostilities is another statistic to consider if we're playing the "smallest number" game) it's not doing Iraq or the Coalition any good to still be there. Unfortunately, we already missed the opportunity to implement the fast version of the exit strategy at the end of initial combat operations. We need a plan, and we need it two years ago: yesterday is too late. In the absence of a time machine, we'll be stuck in this damned if you do, damned if you don't situation* for a very long time.

It could be worse, of course. This newly elected government could ask us to leave in three months. Hopefully, they'll be sensible enough to not do that...

*Official theme tune of the Iraqi elections: "If I stay there will be trouble, if I go there will be double, so you got to let me know, should I stay or should I go?"

[McDuff]

(Incidentally, I am now amused at the thought of Hilzoy as a Grammar Insurgent, fighting a violent yet largely ineffective battle on behalf of correct phrasing)

[Gary Farber]

"To be extra fair to your side...."

My "side"? Sebastian, if you can find a post in which I've expressed an opinion as to when U.S. troops should be withdrawn, or about a "timetable," or advocating any sort of policy whatsoever in any way, for our troops, please let me know.

Then tell me what "side" I'm on in the discussion.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Are you really so unaware of your words that you don't know the impression you convey. I find that surprising. I tire of playing debating games with you purely for points Gary. You don't answer questions, you waste time on useless grammar distinctions, you fail to deal with distinctions pertinent to the discussion, and you regularly employ a condescending tone which puts even me on my my very worst day to shame. You occasionally come up with brilliant points, but it is a terrible slog to get to them.

So, feel free to discuss things all you want. I won't claim to be above random point scoring all the time--I'm human and I'm flawed. But I played at useless debate in high school, so I prefer to try actual discussion when possible--at least some of the time. If you would care to do that, I would love to join you. Until then...

Other readers can look at the context of this thread and draw their own conclusions about whether or not I'm being fair.

[Anarch]

Nice post, McDuff, as always.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Do you have a cite for, say, President Bush or the recent Secretary of Defense abnegating the Powell Doctrine

Afghanistan, as in the Afghanistan conflict for starters which contradicts the Powell Doctrine. Rummy continues the DoD eastward migration towards, more mobile, lighter and more lethal. That is, think of the Marines as compard to the Army.

[liberal japonicus]

Germany and Japan aside (the number of American soldiers killed by suicide bombers in Berlin vs. Baghdad since the official cessation of hostilities is another statistic to consider if we're playing the "smallest number" game

I'm sure that many of you know this, but there was a parallel movement in Germany called the Werwolf movement. If someone has read this book I'd love to hear what they thought of it. I have yet to come across a similar movement for Japanese, unless one counts the militarists trying to prevent the Emperor's surrender message from being broadcast.

Otherwise ditto what Anarch said, excellent post.

[Dantheman]

Sebastian,

"Wow, talking through your level of snark is almost intolerable."

Pot, meet kettle. Even more so when you consider this was addressed to TTWD.

[Dantheman]

Sebastian,

"Other readers can look at the context of this thread and draw their own conclusions about whether or not I'm being fair."

My view, not to Gary. If you were making your statement at other, especially someone whose handle derives from the Hitchikers' Guide to the Galaxy, that would be another story.

[Gary Farber]

"You don't answer questions...."

What questions have you asked me that I've not answered? Ask, and I shall attempt to answer, one way or another.

"...you waste time on useless grammar distinctions...."

I try to waste time on either useful grammar distinctions, or amusing ones, but this is subjective, to be sure.

"...you fail to deal with distinctions pertinent to the discussion...."

That's rather more subjective, I'm afraid. I regret if we disagree at times on what is and isn't pertinent to what we each wish to say or point out, but that's rather inevitable, I'm afraid.

"...and you regularly employ a condescending tone which puts even me on my my very worst day to shame."

I think your previous "snarky" is a better descriptive, but I'm not in a position to fairly judge. I'm otherwise certainly guilty, but I do try to largely restrain it to only in proportional response to how much the comment I'm responding to deserves it; I'll agree that I'm inevitably imperfect on this, as in most things.

It may escape your attention, Sebastian, but I agree with you much of the time, and have often commented here and elsewhere in such agreement; I also defend you when warranted, as in just yesterday (or was it the day before?) when I explained at some length to Jes that she was wronging you with her silly accusations that your comments about Turkey were "racist." I happen to hold you in considerable respect. I just don't happen to hold everything you say in respect, but, then, the same goes for Edward, or Jes, and the overwhelming population of planet Earth.

And, yes, I think it's rather relevant that you seem to think I'm on a "side" in discussing the issue of troop schedules and withdrawals, when, in fact, if you'd paid attention, you'd have noticed that I've expressed no opinion whatsoever. Respectfully, I am not responsible for any notions you project upon me, nor for any opinions you imagine I hold that I do not hold, and have given you no basis to believe I hold.

And you may believe what you will, but I assure you that any "point-scoring" I engage in is not at all random. However, I'm largely concerned with untangling bad arguments and sloppy thinking, not "point-scoring." There's a difference.

As to substance, I think I've been more than a little substantial on the history of the Vietnam War here in the last few days, as I've been here on many subjects at many times; that's just my own, biased, opinion, of course. But since I don't have posting privileges here and can't start a thread here -- and thanks, by the way, for making the return effort to come over to my blog, and engage in discussion there, so freely, and read me regularly there; it's very thoughtful of you and others to reciprocate -- if you'd like to speak to whether or not you think we could have won the Vietnam War by doing something differently, I'd be interested to read whatever you have to say on the subject, and discuss it as warranted.

I'm not, on the other hand, going to join you in issuing opinions about the degrees of war crimes, because I don't believe my personal opinion would lend anything to such a discussion. In fact, I largely don't have an opinion on the details of what you've been discussing. And I really, as a rule, try to limit myself to writing only when I think I have something worthwhile to add, and know what I'm talking about. Despite that being nearly illegal on the internet. Sorry.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"And, yes, I think it's rather relevant that you seem to think I'm on a "side" in discussing the issue of troop schedules and withdrawals, when, in fact, if you'd paid attention, you'd have noticed that I've expressed no opinion whatsoever."

I think the direction of your thinking is strongly hinted at by the direction of your questioning. But I won't belabor the point.

We have been instrumental in securing the peace and security of Japan, Germany, Italy, and South Korea (among a host of others to a lesser extent) for 50 years. We are only now withdrawing from them, as they have become among the richest nations in the world. Is Iraq so much better off than these countries that we should withdraw after only two years. I don't think so. You note that we are withdrawing from these countries, but you do not seem to note that we are only doing so after 50 years. Do you think we wasted 50 years in those countries? If you believe the Cold War is a deciding difference, do you believe we wasted the last 10 years in these countries?

[Edward]

The difference, though, Sebastian, as noted in the opinion piece, is that Germany, Japan, Italy, and son son don't/didn't have an insurgency using our very presence as a strong recruiting tool.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Hmm, perhaps 'the difference' is that we didn't have an insurgency because we quickly killed and captured all those who would have caused problems. I'm not sure.

What I am sure of is the fact that the insurgency wants to take over Iraq and it can't be allowed to do so. Leaving would allow them to take over. Therefore we can't leave and we have to find out something to do about it. Now I will admit that if you believe that the insurgency is bound to take over no matter what, we might as well surrender now and let them take the country so they can kill lots of Iraqis without also killing US citizens. But I don't think that is inevitable.

[Jesurgislac]

Leaving would allow them to take over.

Staying may also allow them to take over. If the US occupation refuses to leave Iraq, refuses even to set a timetable with benchmarks for leaving Iraq, popular support for the insurgency will only increase. It is impossible for any foreign occupation to win against a guerrilla army with popular support.

It's a complex problem, and it can't be reduced to the simplicity you wish for it.

[Gary Farber]

"I think the direction of your thinking is strongly hinted at by the direction of your questioning."

That's absolutely amazing, because I don't have an opinion on this. But, go ahead, believe I'm lying, and you know better than I do what I think.

I've actually never once been annoyed with you, Sebastian, up to now, in the several years I've read you, rather than simply disagreeing with a point you've made, as I do with people all the time, but this time is a first. It's just frigging incredible that you think you know the "direction" of my opinion-that-doesn't-exist.

I have no timetable in mind for troop withdrawals from Iraq. I have no opinion whatever about whether it would be better or worse for us to announce anything sooner or later. I read with interest various points of view about it, and I have come to no conclusions whatsoever.

Apparently this is so unheard of on blogs that you can't believe it.

More's the pity.

I would fricking say what my opinion was if I had one. Have you noticed my being shy about speaking my mind?

Jaysus!

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I have no timetable in mind for troop withdrawals from Iraq. I have no opinion whatever about whether it would be better or worse for us to announce anything sooner or later. I read with interest various points of view about it, and I have come to no conclusions whatsoever.

Great, I'm thrilled that you are approaching it from a pure information gathering point of view. So...

We have been instrumental in securing the peace and security of Japan, Germany, Italy, and South Korea (among a host of others to a lesser extent) for 50 years. We are only now withdrawing from them, as they have become among the richest nations in the world. Is Iraq so much better off than these countries that we should strongly consider withdrawing after only two years? Do you think there are strong reasons why we should have stayed in those countries that argue against us staying in Iraq? You note that we are now withdrawing from these countries, and I know you are aware we were in them for 50+ years. Do you think we wasted 50 years in those countries? If you believe the Cold War is a deciding difference, do you believe we wasted the last 10 years in these countries? If not, is there a way that we could do similar positive things in Iraq? Do you believe that withdrawing is likely to allow the insurgency to take over? Would that be a positive thing?

[crionna]

Hmm, perhaps 'the difference' is that we didn't have an insurgency because we quickly killed and captured all those who would have caused problems.

If I put on the big poofy Carson (MHRIP) hat I see that we didn't have an insurgency in Germany because they knew they were wrong to make war on the world and kill millions in concentration camps. The average German felt guilty. In Japan and Germany their all powerful leader had been humbled and defeated. Their belief system had been demolished.

I'd guess that the average Iraqi feels no personal shame in the defeat of their leader because they wanted him gone. They feel no guilt because they had nothing to do with anything Saddam did to bring these soldiers into their midst.

Hence, an insurgency by those more p*ssed than happy.*

So yeah, set a timetable to create a proper Iraqi security force and promise to leave when it has been created. Once announced I will believe that any attacks on coalition or Iraqi forces will be made by those afraid of that security force taking control. That the security force is not full of ex-supporters of Saddam I feel to be a good thing...now...even if it may be what allowed the insurgency to grow in the past 2 years.

*An insurgency also used by terrorists for their own ends.

[Gary Farber]

Sebastian, I don't know why you are, apparently, arguing with me. I am not arguing we should start withdrawing troops from Iraq now, or at any specific time. I have never made such an argument. If I come to such a conclusion, rest assured I'll let you know.

Beyond that, are you asking me questions for the simple pleasure of having me say "yes" and "no" and "maybe"? Or what?

"We are only now withdrawing from them, as they have become among the richest nations in the world. Is Iraq so much better off than these countries that we should strongly consider withdrawing after only two years?"

We're not withdrawing primarily because of their economic strength. We're withdrawing from Germany because the USSR dissolved in 1989.

"Do you think there are strong reasons why we should have stayed in those countries that argue against us staying in Iraq?"

I think the reasons we stayed in Germany beyond, say, 1955, are largely orthogonal to the situation in Iraq, and that it makes about as much sense to find them similar as it does to assert that Iraq and Vietnam are identical.

"You note that we are now withdrawing from these countries, and I know you are aware we were in them for 50+ years. Do you think we wasted 50 years in those countries?"

No, but we didn't stay in Germany or Japan beyond the mid-Fifties for any reasons having anything to do with the domestic situation in those two countries beyond the indivisible way it kept them allied with us in the face of the Soviet threat. Similarly, the only reason for staying in South Korea has been the North Korean threat.

"If you believe the Cold War is a deciding difference, do you believe we wasted the last 10 years in these countries?"

It's immensely expensive to move troops and support facilities. Remaining has had convenient aspects in many ways. Beyond that, and inertia, I can't see a case for a necessity of staying in Germany, and obviously, neither does Donald Rumsfeld or George W. Bush. The strategic situation in the Pacific is far more complex, particularly given the existence and nature of China, so I believe there are significant arguments for maintaining a presence in Okinawa and Japan, although I imagine we can get along with Guam and sea-basing if it becomes necessary. Some presence in South Korea seems desirable for the duration of the North Korean threat, which is also another reason for maintaining some presence in Japan and Okinawa, as is Taiwan.

"If not, is there a way that we could do similar positive things in Iraq?"

I'm not clear what this question is asking.

"Do you believe that withdrawing is likely to allow the insurgency to take over?"

Possibly. Certainly Iraq would be in deep doo-do if the order were given tomorrow to start withdrawing everyone ASAP.

"Would that be a positive thing?"

Why, yes, I love Zarqawi and young Sadr so much I want to give them a big tongue-kiss, and tell them "enjoy, the country is yours, boyos!"

Or maybe not.

Now that I've answered your questions, might I suggestion your time might more profitably be spent on arguing with me when I'm actually disagreeing with you?

Just a thought.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Maybe not. Interesting to see your thoughts anyway, no?

[Gary Farber]

"Interesting to see your thoughts anyway, no?"

But you knew them already; you said so.

Thanks for the gracious apology, by the way. I'm duly appreciative.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Well they say that it is difficult to think of things that aren't in your vocabulary. So I can't really help it that I'm not grac... what is that word again?