Our solders, mostly kids, do us proud and are the best American ambassadors with rare exception. But ‘leaders’ screw this up in our name. To commit troops is a commitment which we should never do lightly because we have to commit to an end result.
Did you know that a plane with a flight plan does not get a clearance to take off until after it gets a clearance to land? If the pilot were never to hear from ground control again (never happens) that’s exactly what they would do.
Commit means completely. It is far superior to do nothing than a phony commitment. These ‘leaders’ are much worse then just phony and it is in our name.
Filkins:
We were the only people that could sort of bring all the Iraqi factions together, and then we left. You know, and so the thing doesn’t work without us. And you can see that in Iraq at a micro level, like when I talked to that deserter, who said as soon as the Americans left, the commanders started stealing all the money and everybody left, and everything fell apart. Or you can see it at the macro level. I mean, that’s what’s happened to the Iraqi state.
Jim Fallows wrote a 2002 Atlantic cover story before the invasion titled The Fifty-First State?. The summary:
Going to war with Iraq would mean shouldering all the responsibilities of an occupying power the moment victory was achieved. These would include running the economy, keeping domestic peace, and protecting Iraq’s borders—and doing it all for years, or perhaps decades. Are we ready for this long-term relationship?
The response from war supporters, if you’ll recall, was that this was alarmism, that no such commitment would be necessary. Iraqis would welcome post-Saddam democratic self-rule, tensions between Sunnis and Shiites were exaggerated, the reconstruction would be paid for with oil revenue, etc.
Filkins is saying that Fallows was right, that having invaded Iraq, it no longer works without us. And the U.S. public is, if anything, less interested in making Iraq our permanent ward than we were in 2002.
Thank you for finally admitting that Obama is a blithering idiot so firmly.
“The response from war supporters, if you’ll recall, was that this was alarmism, that no such commitment would be necessary. ”
I don’t recall anyone saying that Iraq wouldn’t be a long term commitment. Democrats said it would be a long term commitment at the time, which is why is was rather amazing that Obama didn’t do the diplomatic work to see that Iraq remained successful. Obama the diplomat, just announced we were going to pull out then dropped the mic and ran away. Not fighting an active war in Iraq doesn’t mean we sever our relationship with the country as Obama did.
How many times did we hear that having troops in Iraq like we do in Korea, Japan, and Germany was the wrong thing to do? Events have proved otherwise.
“Iraqis would welcome post-Saddam democratic self-rule”
In some cases they did and in some they didn’t. There wasn’t a universal Iraqi response.
“tensions between Sunnis and Shiites were exaggerated”
Don’t ignore the effect that proxy terror groups out of Iran and Syria had on Iraq. The specific intent of these insurgencies was to turn Iraqis against each other. These groups intentionally targeted Iraqi of different sects in order to foment a civil war. It is a myth that Sunni and Shia are incapable of working together with each other or living in the same country together. The Surge proved that myth false but there are any number of historical examples to choose from.
“And the U.S. public is, if anything, less interested in making Iraq our permanent ward than we were in 2002.”
Ya, Bush got worked over in that 2004 election. President Kerry didn’t cover himself in glory either or he wouldn’t have stepped down and let Obama have the nomination in 2008.
If we could dig up Kerry’s 2004 war plan for Iraq, maybe we could still use it. 🙂
I don’t recall anyone saying that Iraq wouldn’t be a long term commitment.
Donald Rumsfeld: I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.
Not fighting an active war in Iraq doesn’t mean we sever our relationship with the country as Obama did.
The only thing we severed was our military presence. The U.S. embassy in Baghdad remains the biggest in the world.
Don’t ignore the effect that proxy terror groups out of Iran and Syria had on Iraq.
It was obvious from the beginning that the war would empower Iran and Syria.
It is a myth that Sunni and Shia are incapable of working together with each other or living in the same country together. The Surge proved that myth false…
Can Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds live together in peace without a permanent U.S. military presence? The war architects promised us that they could. Experience suggests otherwise.
Yes, Donald Rumsfeld and a few people working for him like Paul Wolfowitz. As to not being interested in making Iraq a “permanent war”, we’re also not interested in making a permanent war that the US keeps getting pulled back into.
One of the things this episode demonstrates is that so-called “warhawk” presidents aren’t the worst sort of war makers. This situation didn’t happen because Obama eagerly jumped in, but because he tried to pull the US out completely.
“Donald Rumsfeld: I can’t tell you if the use of force…”
Use of force, Jim, i.e., active war per Wodun.
“It was obvious from the beginning that the war would empower Iran and Syria.”
In the short run, yes. But, it also set the stage for long term reform in those countries. Political reform could not advance as long as everyone in the neighborhood had to keep looking over their shoulders to see what the bully next door was up to.
“Experience suggests otherwise.”
Like saying, can a baby eat, walk, and provide for itself? Well, no. It must be nurtured to grow to the point where it can do those things.
If you are saying that Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds can never be expected to behave like responsible people, well that is just out-and-out racism, of the “you know, those people…” variety. It is frankly shocking to me, the underlying theme of racist thought which underlies the philosophy of those who would write off the entire region, as though it were an irredeemable backwater of untermenschen.
“Donald Rumsfeld: I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today ”
So, what does that say about the commitment after the use of force is over? Did Rumsfeld ever say that we would have no relationship with a post-war Iraq? No.
“The only thing we severed was our military presence. The U.S. embassy in Baghdad remains the biggest in the world.”
No, Obama ceased all involvement with what was going on in Iraq. He took a hands off approach. He stopped all diplomatic efforts because under his view, we would sever all ties with Iraq. The size of our embassy has nothing to do with the Obama administration’s actions in regard to Iraq.
Any diplomatic efforts in Iraq under Obama were from the inertia of the Bush years and not due to Obama’s foreign policy goals. They happened in the absence of Obama’s leadership.
“It was obvious from the beginning that the war would empower Iran and Syria.”
You phrased it as a Sunni Shia uprising in Iraq because you have the stereotype that these two groups can never under any circumstances work together. While there are tensions between these two groups, the reality is that Iran and Syria caused the violence in Iraq, directed at Iraqis not Americans, with their proxy groups.
It didn’t empower Iran and Syria. Iran was under a lot of pressure. We had troops on both sides of Iran, which gave us diplomatic leverage that our “diplomat” President threw away. It also put pressure on Syria, where Syrians could see that even a shitty Iraq was better than their country. Obama’s actions empowered Iran and Syria, not the war in 2003.
“Can Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds live together in peace without a permanent U.S. military presence?”
Yes but what is wrong with a US presence? You can’t tell me Obama is dedicated to a long term relationship with Iraq and then a paragraph or two later say that we can’t have a base there. That mentality, that we can’t have a presence in Iraq, is at the heart of Obama’s policy of having no involvement with Iraq at all. Obama said we were done in Iraq.
Having troops in Iraq gives us leverage over the Iraqi government and it also shows our commitment. Words mean nothing in foreign affairs, especially from Obama. Actions mean far more. Why would Iraq think we would support them against regional rivals when we cut and run? Pulling our troops out forced Maliki to side with Iran. Obama abandoned Iraq, what did Obama think was going to happen?
One last thing, the invasion of ISIS from Syria is not a domestic Iraqi uprising because of unhappiness with political representation. ISIS is a group motivated by the desire for an Islamic Caliphate. This is not a view shared by all Sunni and certainly not all Iraqis.
I don’t know what it is about people who are so passionate in their anti-Iraq war views, they certainly are not anti-Obama’s wars, who know zero about the actors involved or anything about the wars in general. 2003 was a long time ago, it is time to update your talking points in recognition of the events that have transpired since then.
Umm.. how is that a “strategic mistake”? If pulling all the troops out of Iraq had caused it to turn into a giant pumpkin, so what?
We wouldn’t be having this discussion if we’d left our troops there, just as we’ve left them all over the world. There probably wouldn’t be a couple million refugees and a couple hundred thousand more dead people, either.
We definitely wouldn’t be having this discussion if we’d never gone in. That would have spared the world even more refugees and deaths.
There is no way to prove that counterfactual. It is quite possible that there would be even more refugees and deaths if we hadn’t gone in.
Jim, AQ existed prior to Iraq. It is impossible to say how that movement would have developed in the absence of the war in Iraq but it would still exist and still be bent on religious conquest.
“That would have spared the world even more refugees and deaths”
There was a lot of death under Saddam. He killed a lot of his own people on a yearly basis. As we have seen in Syria, inaction can also lead to a lot of death and suffering. And as we have seen in Libya, half-assed interventions can also lead to a lot of death and suffering.
We can all play the if we didn’t game. The first Bush made the mistake of not taking out Iraq at the time of the first Gulf War. Clinton made numerous mistakes in his handling of Iraq from the Oil for Food program to punting military action to his successor.
But all of that focuses only on our own actions and ignores that there are other players who’s actions also help determine the outcome.
Um, we never went into Syria.
Or Libya. Or Yemen.
Or Nigeria and Tunisia.
“If pulling all the troops out of Iraq had caused it to turn into a giant pumpkin, so what?”
The thing is that there is more than one party who’s actions influence events. The invasion of ISIS caused Iraq’s current problems. Leaving troops in Iraq was supposed to be a hedge against unforeseen threats, show our commitment to a long term relationship with an ally, and give us diplomatic leverage in Iraq and the area at large.
Pulling our troops out didn’t mean that Iraq was destined to collapse. At the time, Iraq looked pretty good. Even now, Iraq isn’t collapsing from strife between competing domestic factions. They are under attack from a global movement bent on religious conquest and the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate.
Had we pulled our troops out and ISIS didn’t invade, Iraq would be just fine today.
If Australia was under attack from an ISIS and controlled large parts of the country, we would be there as fast as we could ship troops over. I don’t know why Iraq is any different other than some people think that because we went to war in Iraq in 2003, that we can never go back and it is that mentality that shows people have no concern for the Iraqi people, don’t think we should have any relations with Iraq, and don’t view Iraq as an ally.
It is in direct opposition to what our troops went through in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we made allies on the ground by training and fighting with their armies, made promises that we would be there to support the locals, and helped reform their governments. All of our efforts were based on the future commitment that we would not abandon our new friends and that we would stand with them against the ISIS of the world.
There is a real disconnect between the relationships created by the military and the promises they made in order to get these countries to fight back against the Islamist militants and our politicians. Our political class is stabbing our troops in the back just like they are Iraq and Afghanistan.
Usually we could discuss whether a President has led the nation into war or whether he got dragged into it by circumstances. In this case the operative phrase is that the President will be dragged through a war, much like a ball and chain that keeps us from doing anything effective or decisive.
If you created a chart listing each sides strengths, the US would have the overwhelming advantage in every column except for a few (like decapitations and crucifixion) except when it came to leadership, whereas ISIS would list Obama and Kerry instead of their own leadership as their assets, trumping the sums in all the other columns.
‘You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.’
Our solders, mostly kids, do us proud and are the best American ambassadors with rare exception. But ‘leaders’ screw this up in our name. To commit troops is a commitment which we should never do lightly because we have to commit to an end result.
Did you know that a plane with a flight plan does not get a clearance to take off until after it gets a clearance to land? If the pilot were never to hear from ground control again (never happens) that’s exactly what they would do.
Commit means completely. It is far superior to do nothing than a phony commitment. These ‘leaders’ are much worse then just phony and it is in our name.
Filkins:
We were the only people that could sort of bring all the Iraqi factions together, and then we left. You know, and so the thing doesn’t work without us. And you can see that in Iraq at a micro level, like when I talked to that deserter, who said as soon as the Americans left, the commanders started stealing all the money and everybody left, and everything fell apart. Or you can see it at the macro level. I mean, that’s what’s happened to the Iraqi state.
Jim Fallows wrote a 2002 Atlantic cover story before the invasion titled The Fifty-First State?. The summary:
Going to war with Iraq would mean shouldering all the responsibilities of an occupying power the moment victory was achieved. These would include running the economy, keeping domestic peace, and protecting Iraq’s borders—and doing it all for years, or perhaps decades. Are we ready for this long-term relationship?
The response from war supporters, if you’ll recall, was that this was alarmism, that no such commitment would be necessary. Iraqis would welcome post-Saddam democratic self-rule, tensions between Sunnis and Shiites were exaggerated, the reconstruction would be paid for with oil revenue, etc.
Filkins is saying that Fallows was right, that having invaded Iraq, it no longer works without us. And the U.S. public is, if anything, less interested in making Iraq our permanent ward than we were in 2002.
Thank you for finally admitting that Obama is a blithering idiot so firmly.
“The response from war supporters, if you’ll recall, was that this was alarmism, that no such commitment would be necessary. ”
I don’t recall anyone saying that Iraq wouldn’t be a long term commitment. Democrats said it would be a long term commitment at the time, which is why is was rather amazing that Obama didn’t do the diplomatic work to see that Iraq remained successful. Obama the diplomat, just announced we were going to pull out then dropped the mic and ran away. Not fighting an active war in Iraq doesn’t mean we sever our relationship with the country as Obama did.
How many times did we hear that having troops in Iraq like we do in Korea, Japan, and Germany was the wrong thing to do? Events have proved otherwise.
“Iraqis would welcome post-Saddam democratic self-rule”
In some cases they did and in some they didn’t. There wasn’t a universal Iraqi response.
“tensions between Sunnis and Shiites were exaggerated”
Don’t ignore the effect that proxy terror groups out of Iran and Syria had on Iraq. The specific intent of these insurgencies was to turn Iraqis against each other. These groups intentionally targeted Iraqi of different sects in order to foment a civil war. It is a myth that Sunni and Shia are incapable of working together with each other or living in the same country together. The Surge proved that myth false but there are any number of historical examples to choose from.
“And the U.S. public is, if anything, less interested in making Iraq our permanent ward than we were in 2002.”
Ya, Bush got worked over in that 2004 election. President Kerry didn’t cover himself in glory either or he wouldn’t have stepped down and let Obama have the nomination in 2008.
If we could dig up Kerry’s 2004 war plan for Iraq, maybe we could still use it. 🙂
I don’t recall anyone saying that Iraq wouldn’t be a long term commitment.
Donald Rumsfeld: I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.
Not fighting an active war in Iraq doesn’t mean we sever our relationship with the country as Obama did.
The only thing we severed was our military presence. The U.S. embassy in Baghdad remains the biggest in the world.
Don’t ignore the effect that proxy terror groups out of Iran and Syria had on Iraq.
It was obvious from the beginning that the war would empower Iran and Syria.
It is a myth that Sunni and Shia are incapable of working together with each other or living in the same country together. The Surge proved that myth false…
Can Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds live together in peace without a permanent U.S. military presence? The war architects promised us that they could. Experience suggests otherwise.
Yes, Donald Rumsfeld and a few people working for him like Paul Wolfowitz. As to not being interested in making Iraq a “permanent war”, we’re also not interested in making a permanent war that the US keeps getting pulled back into.
One of the things this episode demonstrates is that so-called “warhawk” presidents aren’t the worst sort of war makers. This situation didn’t happen because Obama eagerly jumped in, but because he tried to pull the US out completely.
“Donald Rumsfeld: I can’t tell you if the use of force…”
Use of force, Jim, i.e., active war per Wodun.
“It was obvious from the beginning that the war would empower Iran and Syria.”
In the short run, yes. But, it also set the stage for long term reform in those countries. Political reform could not advance as long as everyone in the neighborhood had to keep looking over their shoulders to see what the bully next door was up to.
“Experience suggests otherwise.”
Like saying, can a baby eat, walk, and provide for itself? Well, no. It must be nurtured to grow to the point where it can do those things.
If you are saying that Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds can never be expected to behave like responsible people, well that is just out-and-out racism, of the “you know, those people…” variety. It is frankly shocking to me, the underlying theme of racist thought which underlies the philosophy of those who would write off the entire region, as though it were an irredeemable backwater of untermenschen.
“Donald Rumsfeld: I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today ”
So, what does that say about the commitment after the use of force is over? Did Rumsfeld ever say that we would have no relationship with a post-war Iraq? No.
“The only thing we severed was our military presence. The U.S. embassy in Baghdad remains the biggest in the world.”
No, Obama ceased all involvement with what was going on in Iraq. He took a hands off approach. He stopped all diplomatic efforts because under his view, we would sever all ties with Iraq. The size of our embassy has nothing to do with the Obama administration’s actions in regard to Iraq.
Any diplomatic efforts in Iraq under Obama were from the inertia of the Bush years and not due to Obama’s foreign policy goals. They happened in the absence of Obama’s leadership.
“It was obvious from the beginning that the war would empower Iran and Syria.”
You phrased it as a Sunni Shia uprising in Iraq because you have the stereotype that these two groups can never under any circumstances work together. While there are tensions between these two groups, the reality is that Iran and Syria caused the violence in Iraq, directed at Iraqis not Americans, with their proxy groups.
It didn’t empower Iran and Syria. Iran was under a lot of pressure. We had troops on both sides of Iran, which gave us diplomatic leverage that our “diplomat” President threw away. It also put pressure on Syria, where Syrians could see that even a shitty Iraq was better than their country. Obama’s actions empowered Iran and Syria, not the war in 2003.
“Can Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds live together in peace without a permanent U.S. military presence?”
Yes but what is wrong with a US presence? You can’t tell me Obama is dedicated to a long term relationship with Iraq and then a paragraph or two later say that we can’t have a base there. That mentality, that we can’t have a presence in Iraq, is at the heart of Obama’s policy of having no involvement with Iraq at all. Obama said we were done in Iraq.
Having troops in Iraq gives us leverage over the Iraqi government and it also shows our commitment. Words mean nothing in foreign affairs, especially from Obama. Actions mean far more. Why would Iraq think we would support them against regional rivals when we cut and run? Pulling our troops out forced Maliki to side with Iran. Obama abandoned Iraq, what did Obama think was going to happen?
One last thing, the invasion of ISIS from Syria is not a domestic Iraqi uprising because of unhappiness with political representation. ISIS is a group motivated by the desire for an Islamic Caliphate. This is not a view shared by all Sunni and certainly not all Iraqis.
I don’t know what it is about people who are so passionate in their anti-Iraq war views, they certainly are not anti-Obama’s wars, who know zero about the actors involved or anything about the wars in general. 2003 was a long time ago, it is time to update your talking points in recognition of the events that have transpired since then.
Umm.. how is that a “strategic mistake”? If pulling all the troops out of Iraq had caused it to turn into a giant pumpkin, so what?
We wouldn’t be having this discussion if we’d left our troops there, just as we’ve left them all over the world. There probably wouldn’t be a couple million refugees and a couple hundred thousand more dead people, either.
We definitely wouldn’t be having this discussion if we’d never gone in. That would have spared the world even more refugees and deaths.
There is no way to prove that counterfactual. It is quite possible that there would be even more refugees and deaths if we hadn’t gone in.
Jim, AQ existed prior to Iraq. It is impossible to say how that movement would have developed in the absence of the war in Iraq but it would still exist and still be bent on religious conquest.
“That would have spared the world even more refugees and deaths”
There was a lot of death under Saddam. He killed a lot of his own people on a yearly basis. As we have seen in Syria, inaction can also lead to a lot of death and suffering. And as we have seen in Libya, half-assed interventions can also lead to a lot of death and suffering.
We can all play the if we didn’t game. The first Bush made the mistake of not taking out Iraq at the time of the first Gulf War. Clinton made numerous mistakes in his handling of Iraq from the Oil for Food program to punting military action to his successor.
But all of that focuses only on our own actions and ignores that there are other players who’s actions also help determine the outcome.
Um, we never went into Syria.
Or Libya. Or Yemen.
Or Nigeria and Tunisia.
“If pulling all the troops out of Iraq had caused it to turn into a giant pumpkin, so what?”
The thing is that there is more than one party who’s actions influence events. The invasion of ISIS caused Iraq’s current problems. Leaving troops in Iraq was supposed to be a hedge against unforeseen threats, show our commitment to a long term relationship with an ally, and give us diplomatic leverage in Iraq and the area at large.
Pulling our troops out didn’t mean that Iraq was destined to collapse. At the time, Iraq looked pretty good. Even now, Iraq isn’t collapsing from strife between competing domestic factions. They are under attack from a global movement bent on religious conquest and the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate.
Had we pulled our troops out and ISIS didn’t invade, Iraq would be just fine today.
If Australia was under attack from an ISIS and controlled large parts of the country, we would be there as fast as we could ship troops over. I don’t know why Iraq is any different other than some people think that because we went to war in Iraq in 2003, that we can never go back and it is that mentality that shows people have no concern for the Iraqi people, don’t think we should have any relations with Iraq, and don’t view Iraq as an ally.
It is in direct opposition to what our troops went through in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we made allies on the ground by training and fighting with their armies, made promises that we would be there to support the locals, and helped reform their governments. All of our efforts were based on the future commitment that we would not abandon our new friends and that we would stand with them against the ISIS of the world.
There is a real disconnect between the relationships created by the military and the promises they made in order to get these countries to fight back against the Islamist militants and our politicians. Our political class is stabbing our troops in the back just like they are Iraq and Afghanistan.
Usually we could discuss whether a President has led the nation into war or whether he got dragged into it by circumstances. In this case the operative phrase is that the President will be dragged through a war, much like a ball and chain that keeps us from doing anything effective or decisive.
If you created a chart listing each sides strengths, the US would have the overwhelming advantage in every column except for a few (like decapitations and crucifixion) except when it came to leadership, whereas ISIS would list Obama and Kerry instead of their own leadership as their assets, trumping the sums in all the other columns.
‘You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.’
If you are going to take Vienna, take Vienna.