Hubris, Hubris Everywhere
Progressives have sort of gotten beaten down enough that they’ve stopped saying this, but it’s still true that the stated purpose of the surge was to create a window of opportunity in which various Iraqi factions could achieve the sort of political reconciliation that would provide the basis for lasting peace in Iraq. And it’s also still true that that hasn’t happened. And it’s also still true that the fate of the so-called “Sons of Iraq” movement — armed Sunni militias who abandoned anti-American insurgency in favor of an alliance with the United States against AQI but who don’t like the idea of living in a Shiite-dominated Iraq — illustrates the point well. Shawn Brimley and Colin Kahl have an op-ed on this:
The “surge” strategy in Iraq, as described by President Bush in January 2007, rested on the belief that tamping down violence would provide a window of opportunity that Iraq’s leaders would use to pursue political reconciliation. But this has not occurred, despite the dramatic security improvements. Indeed, if the problem in 2006 and 2007 was Maliki’s weakness and inability to pursue reconciliation in the midst of a civil war, the issue in 2008 is his overconfidence and unwillingness to entertain any real accommodation with his political adversaries. America’s blank check to the Iraqi government feeds this hubris.
That’s the right diagnosis. Their proposed cure (”make continued security assistance conditional on Maliki carrying through on his commitments to integrate and gainfully employ the Sons of Iraq”) however, sounds a bit like wishful thinking to me. Why not just accept that it’s extremely difficult for the United States government to effectively micromanage political events in Iraq? Suppose we tilt a bit in the direction Kahl & Brimley advise and then Maliki starts feeling too weak to compromise again? Or suppose the SOI develop hubris of their own? Or what if a renewed focus on curbing Shiite ambitions causes a re-emerge of trouble on the Sadrist front that’s been quiet for a little bit now? It may well be true that Maliki is suffering from a case of hubris here, but I think there’s a parallel hubris in the American policy community that assumes an unrealistic capacity to shape events that have a logic of their own.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
11 Responses to “Hubris, Hubris Everywhere”
Leave a Reply
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 26th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Wait — I though The Surge ™ gave us Victory, and that we wouldn’t have had Victory without The Surge ™? Otherwise, why would John McCain and the GOP base their foreign policy argument on taunting Democrats for having had insufficient faith in The Surge ™?
August 26th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
” … make continued security assistance conditional on Maliki carrying through on his commitments to integrate and gainfully employ the Sons of Iraq …”
Well, if the US wants to make its continued close relationship with, and support for, Iraq’s government conditional on a Maliki commitment to incorporate anti-government terrorists and insurgents into his security forces, he might just say “no”, and go shopping for another backer. I’m sure he can find a couple of other large powers in this world who might be interested in bidding to pick up a useful Persian Gulf client state at bargain prices.
August 26th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I’m with you all the way Matt. Doesn’t it seem like the right thing to do given that violence is down is to silently transfer control of security to the Iraqi forces? The opposition to the pull-out movement is filled with people who just can’t stand to have a tarnished image. Well, its wrong, but OK. The way to a peaceful Iraq is to avoid having to declare victory or defeat.
August 26th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
The surge was designed to provide a window of opportunity in which a Republican could be re-elected to the White House.
What aspect of this ‘war’ — more accurately the world’s most expensive campaign commercial — hasn’t been carefully massaged for a specific effect on American domestic politics?
August 26th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
What Davis said, but also I just don’t buy that the administration’s optimal outcome is integration. It has always seemed to be the case that the administration’s preferred result is a western-leaning, pro-American business strongman. From Chalabi until now, the US has continually sought to install or co-opt a single leader to serve as the Iraqi stamp of approval on oil and basing rights. For a while, we had the surge and the payments to the SOI, but that was not by choice, it was the number two option after the number one option had made Iraq hell on earth. The surge gave Maliki time to consolidate power and now that he is using it to pick off adversaries one by one, we seem to be OK with that. It’s not that we hate or fear civil war, we just want our guy to win.
August 26th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Matt,
It’s not hubris to advocate conditionality — it’s pragmatism. There have been genuine security gains over the past year, and there is some chance of a soft landing that would be good for Iraqi and U.S. interests. Conditionality is not a cure all, and our influence is diminishing. But as we begin to draw down in 2009 we should be using every ounce of our remaining leverage at the strategic (presidential) and tactical levels–which, despite Maliki’s rhetoric, remain considerable–to push for a few political deals on Sons of Iraq integration, elections, and Kirkuk that would consolidate security gains (or at least minimize the prospects of backsliding).
Simply taking a hands off approach to Maliki et al. as we draw down won’t change things and it would almost certainly increase the risks that the withdrawal and its aftermath will be messy and chaotic. Hubris is staying forever OR leaving unconditionally and just hoping that things will work out. They won’t. Pragmatism is trying to play a bad hand well.
For further reading, I recommend this and this.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
wow is the title a reference to system of a down because if it is, wow.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Obama does seem a little a little reticent on the topic of the surge, I suppose for fear of somehow appearing “wrong.” But if there are more troops today, after “surge” has ended, then before it started, it doesn’t seem like a real surge, just an increase.
I think Obama correctly pointed out that there are multiple factors that led to decreased violence. But let’s suppose it was the surge. A violent city could put a couple cops on every corner and crime would decrease. But there are reasons why every city doesn’t do that. Throw a lot of troops in and violence goes down, but that can’t be sustained.
As you say, it was meant to be a temporary fix to allow for stabilization. A stable Iraq, one where we can leave, would be a sign of the surge working.
August 27th, 2008 at 6:04 am
Here are two articles that give you a flavor of the reality:
The Big Questions About Iraq
by Patrick Cockburn
http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick08262008.html
Sectarian Clashes Flare Up Again in Iraq
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/aali.php?articleid=13368
Maliki is cracking down on the “Awakening” groups, and sooner or later they’re going to go back to attacking the government. That’s inevitable. They probably will wait until the US is forced out of Iraq, OR until the elections next year when the makeup of the government may be changed dramatically as more nationalist parties and al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army seize a certain amount of power from the Iranian-backed Shia parties at the polls. If the nationalists get enough power to make a deal with the Awakening groups, further violence may be avoided.
But all of that implies the US has to get out by 2011, if not sooner. If the US finds a way to stay, nothing will change for the better in Iraq. Both the insurgents, al-Sadr, and Iran intend for the US to get out one way or the other. If Iran decides to up the ante by switching their support to al-Sadr from the ISCI and Dawa crowd, the US will find itself in a very untenable position very quickly. Iran is unlikely to do that unless there is no evidence the US is leaving big time - meaning no big US air bases that can support an attack on Iran and no thousands of combat troops.
Nothing has changed. One way or the other, the US IS getting out of Iraq within the next two years, regardless of what the neocons, the military-industrial complex, or the oil companies want.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Somewhat off topic…
Can your evil overlords provide a “Next” button so mere mortals can browse your wise entries without having to jump through hoops or in a manner more natural than using the “Archives”
August 27th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Good point. Best we can do now is use the browser back button to return to the home page, which hopefully will return to the current post, then we can scroll up or down to the next.
Pathetic usability here. And yesterday the servers crashed entirely and refused to take posts. If this keeps up, we’ll yearn for the crappy Atlantic servers.