My thanks to blogfriend Georg Wolf—whose Atlantic Review blog I read regularly, and who is now working for The Atlantic Community think tank in Germany—for pointing me to a noteworthy post.
Here’s an excerpt:
- While the American public and policy debate revolves largely around exit strategies and redeployment, there is apparent consensus among European policy analysts that American troops should remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future. In contrast to both European media opinion and the prevailing views of American liberals, our respondents supported sustained troop levels. Many consider the announcement of a timetable for withdrawal to be counter-productive and even outright dangerous, saying that lack of American involvement would drive Iraq into further chaos.
Many of those interviewed focused on military strategy as a means to political reconstruction in Iraq, rather than an end in itself. Winning and losing the war, a theme in the American discourse, was not discussed. The US focus on military progress was, in fact, largely viewed as damaging to priorities in rebuilding the country. Dr. Reidar Visser, a research fellow at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs who also runs the Iraq website Historiae, observed that the main problem [with the current strategy] is the heavy emphasis on security instead of creative political initiatives to encourage national reconciliation. And Dr. Jean Y. Haine of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute warned that the tendency for the Pentagon to control civilian aspects of reconstruction is not a recipe for success.force protection will remain the highest priority. In other words, the game is tipped in favor of the spoilers.
However, the reigning sentiment was for continued military involvement to secure a still tenuous security situation, and against any rushed exit from Iraq for the sake of short-term political goals. For instance, Mark Burgess, Director of the World Security Institute (WSI) in Brussels, argued that the refusal to provide a timetable for withdrawal without fulfillment of specific political achievements “is necessarily flexible and realistic about what is achievable. In the words of Jan Techau, of the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), œwithdrawal should be the last resort if the current improvements turn out to be short-lived. Yet most of the analysts we asked did not expect the US to stick around for too long: Etienne de Durand of the Institute Francais des Relations Internationales (IFRI) said that while the Bush administration will want to avoid the appearance of, and the blame for, defeat by almost any means.[b]eginning in 2009, I expect what you call Edward’s plan (fast withdrawal) to take place in one way or another, except that it’ll take more than 12 months.
In his email to me, Joerg said this: “In the past, most Europeans have strongly criticized the US policy in Iraq, but now we don’t want you to pull out. Of course, it’s pure self-interest. I find it newsworthy, however, because it indicates that Europeans still believe that the US is able to stabilize Iraq, while more and more Americans doubt whether the US can end the civil war and the insurgency.”
A while ago, Claudia Roth, a Green leader and resolute do-gooder, encouraged German companies to invest in the Kurdish North, citing the stability of the area. Of course, people like her are more than willing to help with humanitarian projects after we have done the dirty work.
As one of those consulted and quoted as part of the Atlantic Community survey – I would like to make a couple of clarifications. Firstly, and more widely, I do not see any discrepancy between criticizing US policy in Iraq and arguing against any immediate withdrawl. It is not an either or thing. Secondly, arguing against such a pullout does not – in my case anyway – so much indicate faith in America’s ability to stabilize Iraq as an acceptance that this would only make things worse at this point. In short: America’s policy in Iraq leaves a lot to be desired but a quick pull-out would make matters worse – America needs to stay in Iraq but it also needs to come up with a better strategy. Unless this happens a quick US pull-out could yet become the least bad option.
“the tendency for the Pentagon to control civilian aspects of reconstruction is not a recipe for success….force protection will remain the highest priority. In other words, the game is tipped in favor of the spoilers.â€
I will admit that it would be desirable for the U.S. Military to not have to accomplish the reconstruction effort – but who else would it be? International agencies seem to be equal parts disnterested, incompetant, and incapable. U.S. Government agencies other than the DoD are about as bad off.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute no doubt is a very thoughtful and studious group, but is yet another think tank that never has to get its hands dirty while making their absurd pronoucements about the people who are up to their armpits in alligators.
To paraphrase Stalin: “How many divisions does the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute have?” And what are they being used for?
Of course. The Europeans know the middle-east is a mess and they know that it is it’s chief supply of Oil and American is the stabilizing force in the region. I say let’s pull out all our troops from the middle-east and Europe and end NATO and devote our resources to renewable energy. No more American blood and gold for European problems!