Iraq for the Iraqis
(US Army Photo)
It’s a sign of the diminished role Iraq now plays in US politics that I managed to get through yesterday without writing anything about the historic handover of responsibility to Iraqis, the withdrawal of US forces from Iraqi cities, and the ensuing Iraqi celebration of the end of the daily experience of occupation.
Clearly, though, when you look back at the things liberals like me said about Iraq back in 2007 and thereabouts, you can find a lot of stuff that doesn’t look so much. General Petraeus’ post-midterms revamp of the tactical approach in Iraq achieved gains in security that look a lot more durable than I would have thought possible. At the same point, I think the overarching point I’ve been making about the US presence in Iraq since late 2004 remains incredibly valid—Iraqis don’t want an intrusive American military presence in their country and there’s ultimately no percentage in us trying to buck their will on this point.
It seems to me that if we’d begun to implement a phased withdrawal back in early 2005 when Iraq first got an elected government, we could have had a much better outcome than the one we got. Had we begun to implement one in late 2006 or some time in 2007, then we’d have been leaving a very messy situation behind us. Today in 2009 we’re in a lot of ways back to where we were four years ago—able for American forces to start leaving on a high note, confident that they performed their job with skill, and leaving Iraqi leaders with a handshake.
36 Responses to “Iraq for the Iraqis”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 1st, 2009 at 9:18 am
indeed.
luckily, six years is more than enough time to bury 100,000 corpses.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:24 am
Indeed, it doesn’t look so much.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:29 am
Before the wingnuts crow some more about how “the surge worked” and how we libruls were wrong to oppose it, they might remember that our opposition was based, in part, on having swallowed one of the Bush Administration’s lies – Condoleezza Rice’s October 2005 claim that our troops were practicing the “clear, hold, and build” doctrine already.
Since the ’surge’ was simply going to provide more troops to carry out that approach – which had clearly been failing for the previous year and a half – it made little sense to throw in more troops and hope that would make the difference.
It was only in the past several months that we found out that our generals in Iraq only found out that we were supposedly practicing ‘clear, hold & build’ when Rice announced that we were. And there’s no indication that we were practicing that doctrine, to any appreciable extent, between October 2005 and the end of 2006, as things got worse and worse in Iraq.
So the ’surge’ actually DID consist of trying something new, as well as providing the troops to do so. But we had no way of knowing that, because the Bush Administration lied to us about what they’d already been doing.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:32 am
Today in 2009 we’re in a lot of ways back to where we were four years ago
You know, except for the billions of dollars and countless lives lost since then. But sure, it’s all the same.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:34 am
The gains turned out to be more durable than expected when it became increasingly obvious that we were leaving. When choosing sides for or against the Americans ceased to be the defining reality of Iraqi politics, the situation became much more stable.
I’ve been saying since 2005 that the promise and reality of our withdrawal are tools we could use to influence the situation there, but until recently, withdrawal was seen as surrender, and giving up on having any influence over the situation.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:42 am
General Petraeus’ post-midterms revamp of the tactical approach in Iraq achieved gains in security that look a lot more durable than I would have thought possible.
If Iraq blows up in a few months does it mean those gains were less durable than you now think?
Note that 6 months into Obama’s presidency, the number of US troops hasn’t decreased at all, and the number of contractors is increasing. And that won’t change for at least 6 more months, until the Iraqi elections. What are MoveOn and CodePink doing?
July 1st, 2009 at 9:44 am
?
July 1st, 2009 at 9:47 am
I was one of the commentators who was cautiously optimistic at the time that a bottom-up approach of reducing violence through various means could work, even in the absence of success in the stated goal of reaching a top-down political settlement.
So, to all those other commentators who were so adamant in their insistence that this effort was a failure due to the lack of a political settlement, now is as good a time as any to say: I told you so.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:59 am
Jim W -
And I am one of these people who thought going into Iraq is stupid and will be costly with no obvious benefit to our national interest.
So now it’s a good time to say: I told you so.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:17 am
Oh, you mean the Iraqi Study Group got it right? Another dog bites man story.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:40 am
Joe from Lowell:
The gains turned out to be more durable than expected when it became increasingly obvious that we were leaving.
This is debatable. If Iraq blows up after we leave, you will be proven wrong. The minority Sunni are still very bitter about losing power which they feel is rightfully theirs and the majority Shia seem to be less forgiving after having their holy shrines blown up (and haven’t been especially generous with providing social serivices).
Of course if it blows up people like Joe will switch and blame it on Bush and the initial regime change and will adopt a coldly “realistic” fuck ‘em/ live and let die attitude.
But I think it’s right we’re pulling out b/c that’s what the Iraqis want, hence the holiday. It’s just an unknown unknown what will happen. I’m still betting Sadr will be dead or scurry of to hide in Iran. He has been quiet of late, seeing the writing on the wall.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:43 am
Vermont Devil,
I agree that going into Iraq was a huge mistake. I’m talking about a completely different issue. This boils down to the relative importance (in 2005 onwards) of dealing with problems locally versus achieving a political settlement in the central government. My point is that I thought dealing with problems locally was a more promising approach.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:54 am
“It seems to me that if we’d begun to implement a phased withdrawal back in early 2005 when Iraq first got an elected government, we could have had a much better outcome than the one we got. Had we begun to implement one in late 2006 or some time in 2007, then we’d have been leaving a very messy situation behind us. Today in 2009 we’re in a lot of ways back to where we were four years ago…”
That, right there, is the heart of the matter. Not a terribly original or breathtaking analysis, but it captures the ultimate futility of our post-2004 Iraq policy.
The truly sad thing is that virtually all of the foreign policy “experts” who appear on TV news programs and the Washington Post editorial page are completely incapable of discussing policy at this modest level of complexity.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:17 am
Clearly, though, when you look back at the things liberals like me said about Iraq back in 2007 and thereabouts, you can find a lot of stuff that doesn’t look so much.
And there is a lot of stuff that conservatives like me said about Iraq back in 2007 and thereabouts that DOES look so much.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:23 am
It seems to me that if we’d begun to implement a phased withdrawal back in early 2005 when Iraq first got an elected government, we could have had a much better outcome than the one we got
This seems to me completely wrong. The conditions were not ripe in 2005 for a withdrawal. Al Qaeda in Iraq was still very strong, and Sadr was not yet defeated.
(Speaking of Sadr, remember a couple of years ago when Matthew claimed that Sadr had “checkmated” Maliki? Good times…)
July 1st, 2009 at 11:25 am
There’s a real tendency to focus on how things turned out in the end, which is important, but not the whole story. Had we successfully pulled back years ago it would have saved a lot of American lives and billions of dollars.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:58 am
Nice little pre-emption, Poptarts. Guilty conscience?
You’re right, there’s no way anything that happens in Iraq from here out can be traced to anything George Bush did. Why, it would be insane to attribute consequences of the invasion of Iraq to the president who invaded Iraq.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:07 pm
I’m with those above who suggest that it’s massively premature to think we’ve achieved Peace With Honor.
Iraq has a long way to go to demonstrate that it actually can get up a functioning national government and a monopoly of the use of force and get Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites to live in harmony. Cue John Lennon’s “Imagine”….
July 1st, 2009 at 12:11 pm
There were fissures in internal American politics this big after the War of Independence. Regional differences between North and South, for instance. However, the people and political elites of the colonies had spent years as comrades, fighting shoulder to shoulder against a common foe. The act of liberating the colonies from Britain, because it was carried out by the American people themselves, served also to fuse a common, unified national identity and purpose. These bonds held under the strain of our internal fissures, and the project of establishing a viable republic was able to survive them.
This didn’t happen in Iraq, because their “liberation” from Saddam was done by a foreign power. It’s a big question indeed whether the Iraqis will be able to overcome their own fissures.
Aw, the guy who’s favorite war has killed between 100,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis suddenly develops a humanitarian concern for them, when faced with the prospect of Americans not killing them. Too bad this sentiment didn’t occur to you before the war.
Oddly enough, you didn’t think it was right when the Iraqis wanted us to leave in 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007.
I think the Shiites have been waiting us out this whole time, and we’ll just have to see what they’ll do. Iraq is not, and never has been, in our hands. Iraq for the Iraqis indeed.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:18 pm
If we’d announced our intention to withdraw before the 2005 elections and had been credibly pursuing that goal, there is a good chance the Iraqi Sunnis wouldn’t have boycotted the election and taken up with the international jihadists. In turn, no jihadists, no escalating campaign of terror attacks on Shiite target in an effort to spur a civil war.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I think the Shiites have been waiting us out this whole time, and we’ll just have to see what they’ll do. Iraq is not, and never has been, in our hands. Iraq for the Iraqis indeed.
In other words, let ‘em slaughter each other. Not our problem. Nice.
“There were fissures in internal American politics this big after the War of Independence. ”
Yeah that would be analogous if Britain had invaded America and removed its genocidal dictator.
But is true the France meddled with America’s sovereignty on one side of the fight and after the war France and Britain “meddled” supporting different factions.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Joe from Lowell:
The gains turned out to be more durable than expected when it became increasingly obvious that we were leaving.
and Joe
I think the Shiites have been waiting us out this whole time, and we’ll just have to see what they’ll do. Iraq is not, and never has been, in our hands. Iraq for the Iraqis indeed.
? So the durable gains were illusionary? So you want us to pull out to allow them to slaughter each other? Nice…
July 1st, 2009 at 12:37 pm
I think the Shiites have been waiting us out this whole time, and we’ll just have to see what they’ll do. Iraq is not, and never has been, in our hands. Iraq for the Iraqis indeed.
I think the Shiite government is tired of being called traitorous by the ethnic cleansing Sadr, among other thing he’s done, and will go after him hard after we leave. Americans have been pushing for political solutions but without that counterweight, he’s a history.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:38 pm
You’d prefer, of course, to slaughter them ourselves. You’d prefer the slaughter of the past six years.
No, that doesn’t give you the moral highground.
No, it would be analogous if France had run the British military out of the colonies by itself, and proceeded to occupy and govern the colonies itself. But, you see, that didn’t happen. It’s NOT analogous, because the colonists liberated themselves – and as we saw, things went very differently afterwards.
They didn’t occupy the country and take over the running of it. They didn’t even try to influence our internal governance once the war was over. You are using a vague word – “meddle” – for the purpose of muddying distinct concepts.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:41 pm
It’s unclear how durable they are. More durable than they appeared to be in early 2007, certainly.
You keep writing this, and it really doesn’t serve any purpose except to make you feel better about how throughly your faction has been repudiated by the American public. At this point, it’s just you drawing attention to the fact that you’re bitter.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I think that will depend on what Sadr does between now and our withdrawal, and that the outcome of the government “going after him hard” without the American military standing behind it would be enough in doubt to encourage Malaki to seek conciliation – conciliation that Sadr just might be receptive to once it becomes clear that we are honest-to-Allah leaving.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:47 pm
How you can write this, and apparently believe it, after your preferred policy actually, verifiably, unquestioningly led to mass slaughter, ongoing mass slaughter that we can read about every day, is beyond me.
We know for sure what happens when we do things your way: mass slaughter. There could not possibly be a less convincing argument you could make against abandoning the neocon Iraq project.
It’s like Bernie Madoff saying “Don’t take your money out of my fund; you might lose it!”
July 1st, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Poptart’s Glenn Beckish pining for mass slaughter – man I hope it happens, because then I’ll totally be right! – does highlight an interesting difference between Iraq War supporters and opponents.
Iraq War supporters look at the sectarian violence of the past several years and say “That’s what those people are like.” So, of course they assume that the outcome of an American withdrawal will be Iraqis slaughtering each other.
Iraq War opponents look at the sectarian violence and see fault line that was deliberately exploited by the al Qaedists and various extremist politicians. We see the consequences we predicted of the invasion coming true.
The Sunni/Shiite Civil War was a consequence of our invasion. We drew terrorists from throughout the Arab world – remember “flypaper?” – into Iraq, where they proceeded to conduct a campaign of terror against Shiites in an effort to spark a civil war. We allowed Iraq fall into anarchy, leading people to turn to local sectarian militias for protection. We lingered in occupation, causing the most militant groups, the ones that were fighting to drive us out, to increase their popular support.
Turning around and saying the Iraqis can’t help to slaughter each other unless we save them is just so much butt-covering.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Hear, hear. The Iraqis have good reason to thank us for killing-the-shit-out-of-them into Freedom From Saddam. Happy Independence Day, Iraq!
July 1st, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I think that will depend on what Sadr does between now and our withdrawal, and that the outcome of the government “going after him hard” without the American military standing behind it would be enough in doubt to encourage Malaki to seek conciliation – conciliation that Sadr just might be receptive to once it becomes clear that we are honest-to-Allah leaving.
That’s not how I see it. Both your type of anti-war person and Sadr mocked the Maliki government as stooges and puppets. And Sadr ethnically cleansed Sunni neighborhoods adding to the vicious circle of violence.
Not too long ago, unpromted Maliki went after Sadr’s forces in the south. Sadr fled to Iran. The Americans were surprised.
Naomi Klein’s “authentic force of Iraqi resistance” Sadr will be dead or hiding in Iran. I doubt Maliki will seek reconcilliation with him. Hopefully you are right that the Americans leaving will force reconcilliation between the Sunnis, Shia, Kurds etc. But so far the signs aren’t good. But if they want us out so we should leave. This isn’t old school imperialism.
And it’s good Saddam is gone and the sanctions are ended.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Funny, but it always seemed to a whole lot of other, wiser folks that we could have had an even better outcome if we’d never gone in in the first place. Which is a helluva lot shrewder than little Matt Y. was saying at the time. Little Matt Y. wants to put it past him, but he thought the war was just dandy in the beginning.
Today in 2009 we’re in a lot of ways back to where we were four years ago—able for American forces to start leaving on a high note, confident that they performed their job with skill, and leaving Iraqi leaders with a handshake.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Which is a helluva lot shrewder than little Matt Y. was saying at the time. Little Matt Y. wants to put it past him, but he thought the war was just dandy in the beginning.
Funny thing is that Matthew now believes that he was wrong about BOTH of the most important decisions in Iraq – the initial invasion AND the surge. And yet Matthew holds himself out as some kind of expert on foreign policy.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Joe from Lowell,
I agree with you that we were wrong to intervene in the first place, but I don’t think you fully appreciate why we simply cannot leave right now. If we leave, Iraq falls to the Jihadist hordes. Period. We are currently holding the line, in Iraq, between civilization and barbarism. It would be unfair to the Iraqi people and above all to the religious minorities (Christians, Mandeans, Jews, and Yazidis) to abandon them to ‘democracy’ which will sooner or later devolve into Jihadist orgies of death.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Poptarts,
So did Dawa’s “Badr Brigades,” ie, Malaki’s Interior Ministry. In fact, they carried out a great deal more of the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis.
Anyway, how many times have you and your confederates written Sadr’s obituary? I recall a long series of such confident proclamations going back to 2004. The fact is, his movement is a significant political force.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Hector,
I never thought I would write this, but Hector, you need to pay more attention to history.
Other than the period of our ill-fated occupation of Iraq, there has never – never, in recorded history – been a time when the central government in Baghdad was unable to exert effective political control over the Mesopotamian hinterlands. Never.
It has only been the foreign conquest and occupation, and the resistance to it among Iraqis, that brought about a situation in which the government was unable to secure the country, and “jihadist hordes” were able to operate freely and even take over parts of the country.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
[...] about Iraq that looks like it was intended to be a gracious partial admission that much of his earlier whining [...]