One of the most prominent arguments of the many congressional Democrats and fewer congressional Republicans who oppose Bush’s “surge” is that the larger the number of American troops in Iraq, the smaller is the need and the incentive for the Iraqi government to make the political compromises required to tame sectarian violence. They aver that the most promising approach to reducing the violence is to threaten the Maliki government with the withdrawal of our troops.
At the same time, these representatives and senators are among those who are most adamant in believing that Maliki and his Shi’a cohorts have no intention of making concessions, as their true intent is to exact revenge on the Sunnis.
Does this make any sense?
If the paramount objective of the Iraqi government is to do unto the Sunnis what the Sunnis did unto the Shi’a, it follows that Maliki and his friends should oppose the surge and support the withdrawal of our troops, as their presence has prevented the sectarian violence from being even worse than it has been. Further, the threat that the surge’s opponents advocate would be an empty threat. Indeed, it would be worse than empty, as implementing it would help, not hinder, the fulfillment of the government’s objective.
Said in another and simpler way, the threat of withdrawal makes sense only if it’s assumed that revenge is not at the top of the Maliki government’s to-do list. And, yet, the surge’s opponents, who want to threaten withdrawal if the Iraqi government doesn’t do our bidding, are convinced that revenge is at the top of the list.
It doesn’t make any sense.
An excellent analysis Marc, but I can assure you that it is too simple for the Inside the Beltway types to comprehend. Let me warn you; pointing out the obvious self-contradictions in their positions only makes them mad.
And here is something else that does not make sense. Hillary Clinton says she is not for cutting off funds for the US troops in Iraq but she IS for cutting off funds for the Iraqi troops! And that is supposed to get us out faster?
Hillary must have misread her calendar. The time to cut off funding for the Iraqis is when our troops are already gone, thereby ensuring a jihadist victory – just as was done in the case of post-Paris Peace Process South Vietnam.
Not really. As it has been reported elsewhere, the so called battle against radical elements that sought to kill all of the ayatollah’s were actually enemies of Moqtada al Sadr. Hence, the Shiite government will not oppose our surge, so long as they can use it to their advantage (to vanquish their enemies) and yet leave the Shiite militias which have blended back into the population intact.
Yet, they fear an American withdrawal because they know they are not yet strong enough to defeat the Sunnis and will only achieve a bloody stalemate…that is why they want us to handle the killing.
I’m not saying I personally believe this, but there is an argument to be made for it.
Marc,
I think you are overstating the requirement for coherence and logic. Today’s political diologue has little of either and is essentially characterized by 1. anti Bush, whatever this entails, 2. Acting in accordance with the polls 3. Acting responsably towards what is percieved to be in the country’s best interest – Be it Feingold/Kusinich or Kyl/Leiberman. Only group 3 makes any pretence towards coherent and logical positions – you can disegree but they are at least consitent.
The other way to look at the situation in Iraq is a rational attempt by the various factions to position themselves properly AFTER the US leaves. Given the US political environment, the only question seems to be whether it will be in the next 6 months or the next two years. In any case, the most important thing for most of these groups to consider is what they can do to make sure they get as big a piece of the pie as they can after the US leaves.
Obviously, calculations like we see now are done under the assumption that there will be no stable political process with ordered succession and rule of law. As a theoretical problem in political science, it’s a fascinating question of how you develop the society to the point where such assumptions are no longer valid. As a practical issue, it’s tragedy unfolding.
And Steve MacDonald, I tend to agree w/you that consistency is not often a valued commodity in politics. Whether it’s because of media bias (intentional ideological bias or just the bias for sensational stories to sell papers) or bad thinking or something I can’t think of, consistency is an insignificant virtue.
If you assume that the Iraqi government feels it is incapable of protecting itself after the US troops leave, then the most likely choices for self-preservation for that Iraqi government after the US troops leave is to choose a closer alliance with Iran or Syria in an effort to keep control. Those are not good choices for the US or the World.