Obama, Clinton May Find ’09 Iraq a New Quagmire
Withdrawal Spout Easy But Scenarios Show Murk, Blood, Peril
If Iraq rarely comes up in the Democratic primary, it’s because, for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, there is nothing left to discuss.
The differences between them on extricating troops are miniscule, and the greatest point of contention is aboutn the past: who did or didn’t support the war, nearly seven years ago. But come the general election, Iraq will be important again, and the antiwar positions embraced during the Democratic primary will need to be advanced against John McCain, who has consistently argued for troops to fight on until they win, whatever that means.
It is on this prospect that the notion of 2008 as a Democratic year, to a great extent, is premised. America opposes the war; America will oppose the war candidate.
“We ought to debate it. We will debate it,” said Democratic strategist Bob Shrum. “There is no more important issue for a president than the issue of war and peace. It’s the inescapable issue.”
But that means details. And it’s fair to wonder how the Democrats’ current plans—little debated in front of a solidly antiwar primary electorate and rarely examined, thanks to a never-ending supply of Geraldine Ferraros and Jeremiah Wrights and Sinbads—will hold up. (For the record: Mrs. Clinton advocates an open-ended withdrawal process starting in 60 days; Mr. Obama has called for a troop reduction effort starting immediately and ending in roughly 16 months.)
As unappealing as Mr. McCain’s Iraq plan may be—a long-term commitment of troops in the pursuit of an unrealistically defined “victory”—his strategy does have the advantage of being easy to explain: Succeed at all costs.
The Democratic nominee, by contrast, will be able to talk about bringing the troops home, but will also have to explain why Iraqi political progress will be facilitated by less security; why the prospect of a greater number of Iraqi civilian deaths is acceptable; and why, at least if the candidates are to be taken at their word, the realities on the ground in Baghdad, Basra and Sadr City will have little bearing on their withdrawal policies.
“In 2006, Democrats were able to say we need to get out of Iraq, and it was a seemingly self-evident proposition to a lot of people,” said Andrei Cherny, editor of the foreign policy journal Democracy. “The situation right now is more murky, which means that whoever the nominee is is actually going to have to make an argument about why it’s in America’s interests and in the interests of Iraq for us to leave.”
That argument has the potential to become more complicated, and not less, over the next six months.
By November, Iraq could be fighting a formal civil war. But it could also see more of the gradual stabilization and snail-paced political progress happening now. And if that’s the case, the Democrats will have a choice between reversing their calls for withdrawal or, more likely, arguing that the progress hasn’t been sufficient to justify continuing the sacrifice.
The best-case scenario on the ground, Iraq experts say, is that Moktada al-Sadr’s Jaish al-Mahdi army and the Iraqi government sign and stick to a ceasefire in Baghdad. In Anbar, former Sunni insurgents would keep cooperating with the United States and would use the American-supplied arms and resources to put down Al Qaeda in Iraq. Reconciliation would begin to occur at the local level in the provinces, eventually leading to safe elections, effective oil distribution laws, diminished Iranian influence, a return of refugees and a functioning, centralized government.
More probable is that violence spikes intermittently as it did this week, or that elections planned for the fall cause more turbulence in the security situation. Legislative progress will be halting and frustrating. But on the whole, security gains hold and create space for political progress, like this month’s amnesty initiative to get Sunnis back into the government.
“In all likelihood, things will be same as they are now,” said Rand Beers, former national security adviser to the presidential campaign of John Kerry.
And then of course, things can get worse.
“I can imagine more deterioration easier than I can imagine new, brilliant progress,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who has expressed measured optimism about the stabilization of Iraq.
Can the Democrats be prepared to withdraw under any of these circumstances?
For now, they say, the answer is yes.
“Nothing is risk-free,” said Lee Feinstein, the national security director for the Clinton campaign, about the potential for chaos and violence if Americans leave. “But the risks of an indefinite blank check to Iraq are clear.”
“Obviously, we have concern for the situation in Iraq,” said Susan Rice, a foreign policy adviser to Mr. Obama. “But to take that logic to its extreme, we would stay there indefinitely till there is ‘kumbaya.’ We can’t physically do that. It’s impossible.”
Both campaigns argue that the promise of withdrawal is the only real leverage that the United States can exert on Iraqis to make political progress happen, and that a sustained presence will strain the military and distract from national security priorities in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. Next Page >
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.4
- 41.6
- Obama +4.8
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.7
- 32.7
- +23.0
- McCain
- 52.4
- 34.7
- +17.7
A very good article.
I, not being a journalist, would have used only two sentences:
" Both Democratic candidates have only one strategy for this election.Be it Iraq or Taxes, or NAFTA or Guns or Jobs, we just want you to feel GOOD."
If we leave, we will return at some future crisis point to a situation that will be completely out of control. Better to stay and invest in our mutual futures.
So for Democrats "peace" means genocide in Iraq is ok, Iran and al Qaeda having a failed state to use and U.S. soldiers not being on TV anymore?
Do they really believe this or just say it for votes?
I think that the real answer either Hillary or Obama will have to answer is "How do you withdraw completely from Iraq without having Iran fill in the vacuum left be the US absence?"
I'm afraid that the answer to that question cannot be, "Well, I never agreed with the war in the first place."
"America opposes the war; America will oppose the war candidate."
Factually inaccurate. Where is your evidence to support this little bit of propaganda/wishful thinking?
My evidence to the contrary starts off with the basic fact that Iraq IS NOT a WAR! It is part of a war. It is a campaign, theater, or to use the Socialist phrase, a Front.
My second point is that EVERYONE opposes war as a general principal. Also as a general principal, there are things worse then war. Such occupation, rapine, pillage, genocide, etc. Note please that all these things have in common the fact that they happen AFTER one loses a war. One loses wars by not fighting, not fighting hard enough or not fighting well enough.
It doesn't make any difference as far as the war goes anyway. Win lose or draw in Iraq and the war will continue. Cut and run or stay and fight, the war will continue. BO, Billery or Big Mac, the war will continue.
We win by forcing our enemies to stop murdering us. I say forcing because our enemies are religious fanatics and in the entire history of the human race there hasn't been a single instance of religious fanatics being reasoned out of a position they weren't reasoned into. As a point of fact, if they were susceptible to reason, they wouldn't be fanatics.
No, to win this war, we will need to kill 90+% of the fanatics. That is a process that has many steps to it.
The first and most important step is sorting out the fanatics from the other Muslims. Since that can only be done by the other Muslims the key to getting them to do the sort is Democracy. Show them a better way of life that doesn't conflict with their religion an they will finger the fanatics in their midst.
Iraq is where we are developing the tools and techniques to do that. So while Iraq won't win the war outright, it is that first rung on the ladder.
"Succeed at all cost"!! Now where did that come from, it has never been "at all costs" effort, nor will it ever be. The long history of un-welcomed armies on foreign soil is they either absorb the locals or fail. That means that to succeed America needs to be in the business of Empire building and no one thinks that is a good idea (except 100 year McCain).
The democratic strategy is not to have a plan, its to maintain flexible within the context of "withdrawal." This allows them to withdraw, or not withdraw, but still tell the American public that they are in fact "withdrawing." Hillary has done better - "start withdrawing right away (60 days) and do so at a practical pace until we are gone." Obama, being the amateur that he his, has damned himself. "Out entirely within 16 months." Thats less than 1.5 years. There is no way that will be accomplished without hell breaking loose, and his chickens coming home to roost.
What is so "...unrealistic..." about Iraq being a self-sustaining democracy that is politically strong enough to manage it's internal issues and militarily powerful enough to defend itself from it's neighbors? That is the oft-explained definition of "Victory" there...and the goals are not just worthy, they are definitively possible!
What the "Fail at all costs" crowd do however, is refuse to participate in any rational discussion of how those determinations should be made in a reasonable manner. Instead, that crowd views it as unless the defined goals (that they refuse to even acknowledge) aren't achieved in full yesterday...we have failed. No matter the necessary predicates that must be in place, no matter the civil and military success, no matter the real progress, since the defined goals were not realized immediately...The Failure crowd will always find a way to define us toward their preferred outcome.
Just listen to them...99 & 44/100% of Iraq is safe, stable, and functionally recovered from it's time under authoritarian rule. Yet, when a single buffoon, needing the help of the entire nation of Iran to do it, manages to blow himself up in a goat corral next to remote tent in the middle of nowhere, all you hear from them is "FAILURE!...get out!!!" Should the buffoon manage to find his way to town and take a few innocent women and children with him, their yapping gets even louder.
Unfortunately for all of us, the yapping ankle-biters of the Failure crowd won't even allow themselves to be part of the necessary discussion about how to stop Iran's interference? Stop THAT, and the goals will be achieved sooner and everyone in Iraq...including The troops...will be safer.
But there are no political points in that for the left, now is there?
We bought a war we simply can't afford. Al Qaeda is winning because we are sacrificing our kids and spending money we don't have. Iraq has cost us the ability to even try to find and punish Al Qaeda. With oil at $110 a barrel the Iraqis could all be rich and happy if they would just stop killing each other for no apparent reason. Why is it the US's obligation to referee a fratricide? If there were a peaceful solution it would leave Iraq a Shea theocracy with close ties to Iran. We've got to get out with all possible haste.
OBAMA SHOULD POUND ON HILLARY'S ISRAEL-IRAN STATEMENT, BELOW
.........................................................
We need a debate with Hillary on one very important issue----
Hillary's public pronouncement on ABC that she would ... "‘totally obliterate’ Iran if Iran attacked Israel."
America needs answers to the following questions and then America can vote on :
(a.) whether it is prepared to engage in an all-out - possibly nuclear - war in the Mideast, and
(b.) would Hillary seek authorization from Congress before starting such war, or launching any other retaliatory military action against Iran, and
(b.) whether Hillary's response to ABC’s question was ‘reasoned and appropriate’.
----
If the US elects to surrender in Iraq there will not be a virtual news black-out (re. Viet Nam) of the consequenses. This time the boat people and the mass murders will be brought to public attention through the internet.
Let's see how brave Hill' or Barrack H. really are
The tenor of the comments on this page, given the political leanings of the NYO, suggests that the canard with which the Democratic candidates have been comforting themselves - that America wants out of Iraq at any cost -- may be erroneous. Which leads one to wonder, is it real, or is it manufactured by a mainstream media too sympathetic to the candidates to do any good?
If AQ has stated (which they have) that Iraq is the central battlefront for them, should we leave and go digging in the mountains of Afgahnistan, a much more dangerous terrain? Are the Democrats suggesting we postpone military action in the war on terror? If so, what do we do to defend ourselves, because I feel that with some extra time on their hands, the terrorists (AQ in Iraq) will again be plotting for new locations to serve as battle-fronts (namely the U.S.) If we withdraw without stability, terrorists will claim victory, use it as propaganda, and be re-emboldened. Just look at Israel's failure to pacify Hezbollah in '06. Hezbollah came out even stronger. The citizenry in the region will back a winner, partly why the Anbar Awakening occurred. They saw we could stand up and take out AQ in Iraq. However we got to Iraq, it is now a central stage in the war on terror. For those who don't think it is a real war, I think you're being misled and are naive.
Dear Jason:
Thank you for another Iraq withdrawal "analysis" that totally ignores the devastating economic consequences of leaving Iraq.
Fact: Oil is the life blood of the American economy. Over 60% of the earth's oil reserves reside within a 1,000 mile radius of Basra, and Iraq exports 2.5 million barrels of oil per day that represents almost all of the differential between global supply of 85 million barrels per day and global demand of about 82 million barrels per day.
Fact: Oil prices will skyrocket far above their already high levels if America elects a President who removes America's 160,000 security troops from Iraq.
Fact: Al Qaeda's most likely first objective after the USA departs Iraq would be the destruction of Iraqi oil infrastructure that the Iraqis need to sustain themselves. Al Qaeda understands that this would trigger radically higher oil prices which would wreck the American economy while filling the pockets of their financial sponsors with more cash to finance Al Qaeda operations against the USA.
Fact: The American economy is staggering under the burden of the additional $400 billion the USA is paying for oil each year than it was on the day voters made the dumb mistake of electing a democrat congress that began demanding a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq with no regard for the economic consequences. The annual oil cost for America could easily go up by multiples of $450 billion if the USA abandons Iraq.
Fact: The $125 billion the USA is investing in Iraq each year to defend its vital access to Middle East oil is only costing 75% of Americans $5.00 per person per month as insurance against the massive increases in oil prices and the economic devastation that would follow an American retreat from Iraq. They spend a lot more on car insurance.
Fact: America consumes about 7.5 billion barrels of oil per year so oil prices would only have to rise by $17 per barrel to offset the $125 billion and oil prices would rise by many multiples of that $17 if the USA abandons Iraq to chaos. Therefore, it is much more cost effective for America to stay in Iraq than to leave based on oil prices the very negative economic consequences of higher oil prices.
Fact: Not one politician or pundit can describe any credible scenario in which oil prices do not spiral out of control if the USA leaves Iraq to chaos that threatens its oil exports of 2.5 million barrels per day and sets up Al Qaeda and Iran in Iraq where they can aggressively threaten the weak Arab Gulf States that control about 40% of global oil reserves.
The only rational solution to Iraq and oil prices is for Americans to unite in their determination to stay in Iraq to defend the global access to Middle East oil at tolerable prices while helping the Iraqis to build a friendly democracy and increase their oil production from 2.5 million barrels of oil per day to their 8 million barrels per day potential.
These actions would cause oil prices to fall dramatically, spark an economic boom and trigger the collapse of Al Qaeda, and the hostile, oil dependent regimes in Iran, Russia and Venezuela. The Democrats retreat "strategy" would have the exact opposite effect.
To my mind, whether to continue fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the most important issue of this election.
On Iraq, the Democrats are engaged in a "who was for the war before they were against it" style argument and try to outdo each other on how soon our troops will come home. Further, they use the good war/bad war tack to differentiate between Afghanistan and Iraq. But this struggle has moved well beyond our mission to "get Bin Laden" wherever he may be. It is now a war on two fronts to ensure the victory of Muslim moderates over extremists.
That said, McCain will have to prove the war in Iraq is winnable and worth our continued sacrifice, and that the loss of Iraq and Afghanistan will come with severe costs to America's interests and the pursuit of human rights in those countries. He will need to set himself apart from the simplistic Bush mantra of "stay the course."
One thing is for sure. No matter how we feel about Bush getting us into this quagmire, we had better think very carefully about where we go from here. Do we want to leave the Shia extremists free to conduct their so-called honor killings against women? Their abduction and murder of anyone who disagrees with them? Do we want to give Al Quada free rein to terrorize other Iraqis? Does anyone doubt these things will happen without a US presence?
Yes, we could just leave and let the Sadrists and Al Quada fight it out. And the bloodshed, involving thousands of innocent Iraqis, will be on America's hands. All the world will see it happening on television. America will not be proud.
Iran is actively pursuing nuclear technologies, is actively pursuing long range missile technologies, has a leader that has called Israel a false regime, denies the historicity of the Holocaust, and has said Israel needs to be wiped off the face of the map. To deny that Iran's past actions threaten a massive genocide is either to deny what was said, or claim it meant something else. Iran also trains extremists specifically to kill Americans.
Iran is bordered by Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Turkmenistan. Perhaps we ought to continue working on building a strong pro-American government in Afghanistan and Iraq to support the moderately pro-American governments in Pakistan and Turkey. This would serve the goals of reducing the threat of war between Iran and Israel (promptly joined by US, England, and several Muslim countries most likely), and build a strong alliance around a known enemy.
Why would we give Iraq to Iran? Would a large conflict in the Middle East beginning with attacks between Israel and Iran really save any lives?
Yeah, Johnny is gonna shred either of these democratic clowns on the war. We have a troop withdrawal plan too. Lets win.
However, don't be so sure that our boy can survive the onslaught of messiah Obama or the attack of the 50 foot woman. They are the richest party of the poor I've ever seen and one of them is going to be left standing for battle. Go Johnny go...
The Democrats’ position on Iraq leads me to wonder why they aren’t making the same argument on Afghanistan. For if they regard Iraq as such an utterly hopeless case, what possible cause for optimism can they advance regarding Afghanistan? I very much suspect, in fact, that having abandoned Iraq, an Obama or Clinton Administration would soon find pretexts for the abandonment of Afghanistan. If there’s one thing we can say for sure about the Democratic presidential hopefuls, it’s that neither of them has the stomach for a fight with Islamofascism.
It's too bad neither Democrat has the stomach to fight Islamofacism. It will be the defining fight of the next 100 years.
I can't wait until Obama takes office and finds his options are sorely lacking. His lobotomized supporters will be so angry.
Can't wait.
We are wining the war and the democrats want to forfeit how stupid is that. We are winning becuase they are not in charge of a single nation any longer. Saddam who if not outright allied with them helped them by directing attention to himself through the 90's is now dead. We are focused on destroying them and hopefully will remain fully in engaged in destroying them before they get a chance to destroy us. The media apprears to be the willing accomplices in this with its trumpeting every little little set back as Tet 68 while every set back the enemy suffers gets little or no coverage. so come November and if the situation is improved what will the Democratic candidates do?
We are wining the war and the democrats want to forfeit how stupid is that. We are winning becuase they are not in charge of a single nation any longer. Saddam who if not outright allied with them helped them by directing attention to himself through the 90's is now dead. We are focused on destroying them and hopefully will remain fully in engaged in destroying them before they get a chance to destroy us. The media apprears to be the willing accomplices in this with its trumpeting every little little set back as Tet 68 while every set back the enemy suffers gets little or no coverage. so come November and if the situation is improved what will the Democratic candidates do?
This war has been escalating for thirty years, and neither isolation nor containment could have prevented it. The hegemonic forces of globalization are now clashing with the hegemonic forces of Sharia, while terrorists and tyrants lick their chops awaiting the spoils. There is only one way to minimize the blood shed, and the question before the American people in November will be which candidate understands this sad but true reality.
Of course, there will be Peace Talks, just like there were on Vietnam.
We altready know Saudi Arabia offered to send troops if needed and, who knows, the mentally challenged in the State Dept. migh remember the phone number of the Arab League and see what they are willing, and unwilling, to do to help the troops move to the helicopters, like they did in Vietnam.
What is so difficult about that! Just don't call it A Surrender, call it A withdrawal, you know, like "We don't have a Recession but an Economic Slowdown! Got it!"
Then, there is the matter about the Real Recession that may turn into an ugly Global Depression and, contrary to the views of mentally challenged Economists, propounded since FDR, WARS DO NOT LEAD TO Properity.
Technical developments do, but we have competition now, from the Europeans and China. Maybe, Republicans should wake up and see that THIS war does not lead to Propserity. C'mon, Wake Up! Will Ya!! To continue doing the same thing over and over, while expecting different results is a sing of insanity, or worse.
I'm still waiting on an argument from the pro-war crowd that explains to me the gains of this indefinite troop commitment. Newsflash: Our military force in Iraq raises the price of oil, too, as speculation over our continued fighting (without a heckuva lot of solutions) inflates oil prices as much as a potential AQ attack on Iraq's oil infrastructure.
Here's a cold reality: The Iraq security forces are cowards. A thousand of these guys deserted in the Basra attack. A successful, democratic Iraqi state is dependent on those security forces being strong enough to fight and kill those who would cause the disruption of that government. So, why are we playing military support to a group of individuals who are not as committed to their freedom as we are? Can anyone think of a democracy that is stable built on such a paradigm? And so far, the ONLY argument coming from the Republicans is: give them more time.
Here is a simple question: What kind of state in Iraq are we fighting for? Unless we move the state of Iraq to Canada, Iran will continue to have influence in the country. It will still be dependent on the willingness of individuals to stand and defend it, and it will rise or fall based upon the willingness of the Iraqi people to move forward.
They have a choice: Choose freedom and combat these monsters or choose chains and suffer the consequences.
But it's their choice.
We need to stop keeping them from making it.
Remove the security blanket and let's find out if six years of babysitting has been worthwhile.
What happens when the US leaves Iraq and bin Laden calls it a victory for al-Qaeda and rallies the jihadist to Afganistan to use the same tactics. The Soviets had their asses handed to them because chasing them in the treacherous terrain in Afghanistan it's much more difficult to kill them. Let's not pretend the Soviets didn't want to kill bin Laden when he was with the mujahadeen.
Here's the stats, compare the ten year Soviet occupation of AFghanistan with the US combined ten years in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting jihad.
http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/afghanlosses01.htm
I expect they are a little low since they are official Russian stats. Better to fight Islamic jihad in sand than mountains and treacherous terrain of AFghanistan that gives the enemy an advantage they don't have in Iraq.
"The long history of un-welcomed armies on foreign soil is they either absorb the locals or fail."
Nonsense. As proof I offer Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Greece, or any other Old NATO countries. And that is just in the last century. If you want to go back a ways look at China. The Chinese have a long history of absorbing the unwelcome armies.
Then there is the Warsaw Pact. The Soviets did not absorb Eastern Europe even after 2 generations of effort. Yet you cannot really claim they failed to conquer eastern Europe.
The simple fact is that 90% of insurgencies fail. Another fact about 4th generation warfare is that it tends to be multi-generational. The Irsh have been trying to get rid of the English for over 1,000 years. The Basque/Spainish thingie was going on when the Romans invaded Spain over 2000 years ago, so there is no telling how long they have actually been fighting. 100 years is nothing.
America has occupied Germany and Japan since 1945, S. Korea since 1950. We need to withdraw from those nations BEFORE we withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan.
"A thousand of these guys deserted in the Basra attack."
A LIE! It was less then 200. Which is very low for an Arabic Army. If you had ANY knowledge of Military affairs, you would know that 50% desertation rate is about the average for Arabic armies, and has been for the last 1500 years or so. One of the reasons Europeans beat Arab armies most of the time despite being seriously outnumbered was Europeans fought for glory while Arabs fought for loot. Loot is not much good to a dead man, so when the going got tough, the Arabs got going. Off somewhere not so dangerous.
This is because the European military that ruled the world for several centuries has it's roots in the Feudal system that was created to protect Civilization from Vikings. They had to stand their ground because if they didn't, there was no place they could run to. The Arabic military root is in robbing caravans and lifting sheep. So they would flee to fight another day.
Basara was an important victory for the Iraqi Army. Sort of their "Breeds Hill" only a real victory rather then a well fought defeat.