And Now You Do What They Told Ya?

by Eric Martin

As discussed in a post yesterday, the Bush administration is having an exceedingly difficult time getting the various power nodes in the Iraqi government/religious community to sign off on a new set of agreements necessary to codify the legal status of US/coalition troops in Iraq after the January 1.  Recall, January 1, 2009 is the deadline for the expiration of the UN authorization that coalition troops are operating under now.  After that date, our troops would be in legal limbo and would likely have to retreat to bases where they would be confined to stay until evacuated.

One of the options being considered as a potential stop-gap should the parties fail to reach an agreement by that date would be to get a temporary extension of the UN mandate while negotiations continue.  Juan Cole on that option:

If [the agreements do] pass, [they are] unlikely to pass by January 1, when the old UN mandate for the Multi-National Forces in Iraq runs out. Without such a mandate or a bilateral agreement, US troops in Iraq could be tried for war crimes even for ordinary military operations. If Iraq did go back to the UN for an extension of its mandate, it turns out that Russia would support an extension. Some observers, including Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, had wondered whether the US reaction to the Georgia police action had so soured Russia on Washington that Moscow would play spoiler on the UNSC with regard to Iraq. Not so, apparently.

Cole is right that many have speculated that Russia would play spoiler - perhaps in retaliation for our actions with respect to Georgia.  Russia might still exact a pound of flesh in exchange for their support on a UN resolution should we be forced to pursue the UN option.  The opportunity would be too tempting given the Bush administration's obvious bind, despite recent statements to the contrary.

However, Russia's acquiescence will likely come at an acceptable cost to us, and this should not be all that surprising. After all, it is in Russia's interest to see the US military tied down in Iraq for the foreseeable future.  Further, Russia is well served by the US Treasury bleeding over $10 billion a month to stay in Iraq for many years to come. 

Part of the reason that our response to Russia's Georgia incursions has been so muted, and our warnings so easily disregarded, is Putin's knowledge of our overstretched, weakened condition.  Why would he want to remedy that?

To paraphrase the old adage, when your rival is busy shooting herself in the foot and she reaches for more ammunition, don't get in her way.

A similar analysis should be applied bin Laden's taunts about our leaving Iraq and his declaration that Iraq is the central front in the jihadist cause.  Before the invasion of Iraq, bin Laden hoped that the US would commit to a long, costly, resource-draining, reputation-sapping war in overreaction to the attacks of 9/11.  He would use this war to rally thousands to al-Qaeda's banner and reveal the US for the aggressor that he contends it is.  He figured we would pick Afghanistan as the site of our supposed undoing, but we surprised him and chose Iraq instead. 

So it always strikes me as either disingenuous or ignorant when people like John McCain and Sarah Palin go on about bin Laden treating Iraq as the "Central Front of the War on Terror."  Of course he does! Why wouldn't he?  But that doesn't mean we have to go along with his designs.  We could, for example, decide to fight said war on our terms and at the location of our choosing.  Such self-interest might actually work to our advantage.

Others warn that should we withdraw from Iraq, bin Laden would declare victory.  To which I reply: Of course he would! Why wouldn't he?  Sure, al-Qaeda would capitalize on the propaganda value of us withdrawing (infidel crusaders driven back by mujahadeen), but it's not as if they've been reluctant to cash in on the ongoint propaganda value derived from our presence either (mujahadeen, rally to the cause of driving out the infidel crusders). 

Given that bin Laden is going to be scoring propaganda points one way or the other, and regardless, we should be more concerned with the actual costs of staying in Iraq.  Those actual costs are far more important to the health of our nation, and to the ultimate cause of defeating radicalism, than the nominal difference in propaganda value to our staying or going. 

This should be our paramount concern, even if Putin shows us the kindness of helping us to extend our stay.

Comments

[tgirsch]

I'd give the appropriate Rage response, but it would violate the posting rules. :) Great song, though!

[Ugh]

At least losing to al Qaeda will bring about some interesting changes in the U.S. I'm kind of getting tired of eating pho and speaking Vietnamese after we surrendered to North Vietnam. I'm looking forward to learning arabic and a switch in the cuisine.

[Eric Martin]

Hummus for all!

[MeDrewNotYou]

Bah! Pre-empted on a song I do know. However, if on Nov 5th, you title a post "Brand New Funky President" I'll be fine.

In any case, it seems that once again, "Country First" is the absolute worst slogan possible for McCain. We've been doing "Al-Qaeda First" since 2003. I would think putting country first would mean, you know, thinking about what's best for the country. But I'm not a real American, so meh.

Tangent rant- The world wasn't too worked up about us going to Afghanistan, and I'd bet bin Laden felt dumb after we initially won over there. But Iraq? It's like Bush gave bin Laden a call and asked him how he could help out. It was somewhat obvious then, but painfully so now, that going to Iraq was exactly what al-Qaeda wanted.

[Ugh]

But Iraq? It's like Bush gave bin Laden a call and asked him how he could help out. It was somewhat obvious then, but painfully so now, that going to Iraq was exactly what al-Qaeda wanted.

And Bush got to be the two-term war preznit that ousted Saddam to one-up his daddy. So it was win-win for him and bin Laden.

[russell]

So it always strikes me as either disingenuous or ignorant when people like John McCain and Sarah Palin go on about bin Laden treating Iraq as the "Central Front of the War on Terror."

From Bin Laden's point of view, the Central Front of the War on Terror is wherever we show up.

However, if on Nov 5th, you title a post "Brand New Funky President" I'll be fine.

I'm holding out for the original black president.

Thanks -

[bobbyp]

Consider actual costs? Surely you jest. This is the GOP, you know, the party that deals only with made up numbers and 'infinite time horizons' (cf Social Security, Laughing Curves).

There are advantages to being insane.

[Donald Johnson]

Off topic, but is Biden trying to make this a closer contest? I don't want to hear a politician speak on foreign policy and tell me that he's going to make tough unpopular decisions. Somehow I don't think he means decisions in favor of peaceful solutions to future world crises.

Link

[Turbulence]

Somehow I don't think he means decisions in favor of peaceful solutions to future world crises.

He might. For example, imagine if sometime in February, Israel dispatches aircraft to bomb Iranian nuclear sites. In order to do that, Israeli aircraft would have to fly over Iraq. Since the US Air Force maintains control over Iraqi air space, they could deny access and scrub the Israeli attack. The Iraqi government would certainly ask them to do so. Is that likely? Probably not. But it is the sort of scenario where our actions seem both clearly correct and incredibly unpopular. This behavior would unleash a firestorm of recrimination -- telling Israeli "no" is frowned upon by Very Serious People as is protecting Iran.

Because American elites seem predisposed to react to many foreign policy disputes with military force or at least saber rattling, unpopular moves in that space may be more likely to be peaceful than not.

[MeDrewNotYou]

Russell- Wow. That was something else. I think I'm now a fan of Afrobeat. I especially liked him on the sax (which was a pretty cool looking one at that).

Now I'd just like to see campaign posters with Obama on trombone.

[Free Lunch]

And Bush got to be the two-term war preznit that ousted Saddam to one-up his daddy. So it was win-win for him and bin Laden.

Too bad about the USA. No doubt we'll recover reasonably well, eventually. There's even a remote chance that we'll learn from this episode, but I won't get my hopes up.