Robert Kaplan argues strongly against the US leaving Iraq, or threatening to leave.
An emerging school of thought says that the only real leverage we’re going to have is the threat of withdrawal … . That’s a bet, not a plan. [emphasis mine] You could also bet that any timetable for withdrawal will lead to a meltdown of the Iraq Army according to region and sect.
Do we even have a choice of when to withdraw? Or will the decision be foisted upon us?
What we should all fear is a political situation in Washington where a new Congress forces President George W. Bush to redeploy, and Bush, doing so under duress, makes only the most half-hearted of gestures to engage Iraq’s neighbors in the process. That could lead to hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq, rather than the tens of thousands we have seen.
This web-only article went live this morning. Thanks to a friend for letting us know. Read it in it’s entirety.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « D.R. Congo “Justice”
- » What if 9/11 never happened?
COMMENTS / 9 COMMENTS
alec added these pithy words on 23 Oct 06 at 6:24 pmIndeed, I agree whole-heartedly with Kaplan. We can’t just leave but find myself conflicted in the ways Kaplan does. The occupation is obviously accomplishing nothing and I don’t believe there will be any future reversal (James Baker or not) that will lead to rebuilding Iraq instead of refortifying it. How do we compromise between the ‘dead end’ of staying the course and the prospect of a very serious civil war that may serve as a vacuum for Middle East regional powers?
What really scares me about Iraq is not American involvement exacerbating the situation, but what the scenario may look like if we disengage from Iraq entirely. Would Syria and Iran stand by idly as a sect. conflict is fought between the Sunnis & Shiites of Iraq? What would happen to the restless Shiite minority of Saudi Arabia?
And what happens with the third (and oft ignored but increasingly important) part of this equation—the Kurds. Turkey has already displayed its displeasure with the occupation of northern Iraq and claimed that Kurdish resistance & ‘terrorism’ is being harbored in Kurdish Iraqi areas. As soon as American and British troops leave, what prevents Turkey from exercising its military in Iraq? Nothing frankly.
von Kaufman-Turkestansky added these pithy words on 23 Oct 06 at 6:59 pmKudos to those who advocate planning! And isn’t there a saying about the 7 “p’s”? “Proper prior planning prevents p…-poor performance”? Oh well. The thing is, I do not have much time for the yellow chicken-hawk journalists who advocated going to war so wholeheartedly in 2003. It’s easy now to say, “when I said go and get ‘em, I expected you would plan properly!” These editorialists proably do not feel any responsibility for lives lost. But they should.
Chirol added these pithy words on 23 Oct 06 at 7:33 pmAlec: This may be the fever talking but the first thought that popped into my mind. Well then, we just withdraw to the north! What’s to keep us from protecting the one state that works. Turkey won’t attack then and neither will Iran. However, should they go into Iraq we get a legitimate counter attack and maybe more room for the Kurds. Lay the trap, let them come to us.
Not that we want to get into anymore fights, that would be bad. Just food for thought, or discussion rather! I’m sure it’s a crazy idea though. At least we get one functioning state though! Better than none.
Rommel added these pithy words on 23 Oct 06 at 9:37 pmChirol,
I’ve always thought all along – after reading about all of the success in Kurdistan and the outlook of the people and their plight – that we should only concern ourselves with that part and let the Arabs slug it out. That leaves open the problem of genocide that Kaplan mentions, but in case of any neighboring power coming in we would have a great card to play (i.e. if Iran took over Shia south, we could take “east Kurdistan” and maybe even the Azeri part).
I know the world isn’t RISK but it might work. As it stands all solutions are wretched anyway.
Younghusband added these pithy words on 23 Oct 06 at 11:35 pmThe Economist sums up after looking at a few different options:
The only honest alternative is indeed probably just to go, and let one side win. America did that in Vietnam and Britain did it in Palestine. After much suffering, Vietnam turned out well enough, regional dominoes did not all fall, and America went on to win the cold war anyway, not least because communism was a nonsensical and unloved system and the peoples on whom it had been foisted were eager to ditch it. Maybe something similar will happen in Iraq, not least because the rival versions of theocracy on offer from Iran and al-Qaeda are nonsensical too. But just going would be a fantastic gamble, not only with America’s global power and prestige but also with other people’s lives. Better, still, to stay.
subadei added these pithy words on 24 Oct 06 at 12:34 amEr, Vietnam may have turned out well enough, but then that was after the genocide of Pol Pot. The “cut and run” aspect in Vietnam may have satiated the masses here in the US but it played out poorly for millions in southeast asia.
The conundrum of simply allowing the arabs to slug it out is the real possibility of a Shiite victory and the ensuing overt sympathy and support of a Shia Iraq by Iran. As the initial protests of certain sunni states shortly into the recent Israeli/Hez/Lebanese conflict arguably illustrate, the sunni states are a tad worried about Iraqs rise in power.
subadei added these pithy words on 24 Oct 06 at 12:35 amer, sorry, the last sentence should have read “...Irans rise in power.” lol
alec added these pithy words on 24 Oct 06 at 3:21 amPol Pot was in Cambodia, not Vietnam. And I don’t get the idea of the Vietnam parallels on the ‘let a side win’ idea. This won’t be an ideological civil war, but a tribal/sectarian conflict. If one side wins, it may try to iradicate the other from Iraq.
subadei added these pithy words on 24 Oct 06 at 10:43 pm“Pol Pot was in Cambodia, not Vietnam.”
In short, North Vietnam (post Tet offensive)was directly involved in the rise of Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. As for the parallels, I drew none. The two paragraphs are two separate responses.
