The dangers in pulling out of Iraq

Max Boot, a military historian, argues against leaving Iraqis to fight their own civil war in today's Wall Street Journal.

Here, he says, are issues that bear serious consideration:

In the ensuing chaos, it is quite possible that al Qaeda terrorists would succeed in turning western Iraq into a Taliban-style base for international terrorism. Although the momentum at the moment is running against al Qaeda in Anbar Province, the tribal forces who are now cooperating with the Iraqi government would be incapable of defeating al Qaeda on their own. If the U.S. were to pull out, the tribes would likely go back to cooperating with al Qaeda for the sake of self-preservation. And a handful of American Special Operations Forces operating from far-off bases would be helpless to stop the terrorists because they would lack the kind of human intelligence now generated by U.S. troops on the ground.

. . .Daniel Byman and Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution, two serious Democratic analysts, issued a sobering study in January called "Things Fall Apart: Containing the Spillover From an Iraqi Civil War" that should be required reading for anyone calling for a pullout. Messrs. Byman and Pollack studied a number of civil wars stretching back to the 1970s in countries from Congo to Lebanon, and found that they are never confined within the borders drawn neatly on maps.

Civil wars export refugees, terrorists, militant ideologies and economic woes that destabilize neighboring states, and those states in turn usually intervene to try to limit the fallout or to expand their sphere of influence. "We found that 'spillover' is common in massive civil wars; that while its intensity can vary considerably, at its worst it can have truly catastrophic effects; and that Iraq has all the earmarks of creating quite severe spillover problems," they write. No surprise: After all, Iraq, with its oil wealth, has far more to fight over than Congo or Lebanon or Chechnya.

While a civil war is the most likely outcome in Iraq, it is not inevitable. Contrary to the common myth, Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis have not been at daggers drawn since the dawn of time. Until fairly recently, they lived peaceably side by side; intermarriage was common and major tribes still have both Sunni and Shiite components. The slide toward civil war occurred because of an implosion of central authority and a breakdown of law and order that allowed demagogues on both sides--the likes of Moqtada al Sadr and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi--to posture as the defenders of their sectarian groups. That dynamic, while strong, could still be reversed if the Iraqi government, with American support, were able to offer ordinary people what they most ardently desire--security.

He concludes:

The surge strategy may be a long shot but every alternative is even worse.

On what Bush is said to be reading

I don't know if this is reliable, but Gary Kamiya reports at Salon that these days Bush is reading Sir Alistair Horne's account of the 1954-1962 war the French fought in Algeria, "A Savage War of Peace."

In order to assess what Bush might conclude from this, Kamiya interviewed the British historian. Here are some excerpts from his report on that conversation:

Horne's book recounts the inevitable defeat of a colonialist power at the hands of a small but determined group of insurgents, the National Liberation Front, who effectively used terrorism to win their nation's freedom -- not exactly the sort of book you would expect Bush and his inner circle to curl up with. As Horne notes, the Algerian War "remains on the statute books as a prototype of the modern war of national liberation." Nelson Mandela's African National Congress guerrillas and Palestinian leaders both studied it, Horne points out. So did al-Qaida. And now, so has George W. Bush.

Asked to list the parallels he sees between Algeria and Iraq, this was some of Horne's response:

"The first one is the difficulty of combating insurgents with a regular army," he said. "Too heavy forces, too much collateral damage. The second is porous frontiers. . . The third is the tactic of targeting local police. In Algeria, the insurgents....realized that they couldn't beat the French army, so they attacked the local police who were loyal to the French. . . The French had to take the army back from search and destroy missions to protect the police. So both the police and the army were neutralized."

. . ."The fourth thing, and this is the painful issue, is torture or abuse," he said. "In Algeria, the French used torture -- as opposed to abuse -- very effectively as an instrument of war. They had some success with it; they did undoubtedly get some intelligence from the use of torture. But they also got a lot of wrong intelligence, which inevitably happens. But worse than that, from the French point of view, was that when the news came out in France of what the army was doing, it caused such a revulsion that it led directly to the French capitulation. And not only revulsion in France, but revulsion here. JFK, as a senator, took up the Algerian cause quite strongly partly because of the human rights issue."

. . .The fifth parallel Horne saw between Algeria and Iraq is the one that now confronts the Bush administration: an exit strategy. "In Algeria, the war went on for eight years, and the military, rather like the military in Vietnam, had a very good case for saying they were winning it," Horne said. "But de Gaulle decided they had to go. They were negotiating for months with the FLN, like the peeling of an onion. The French lost every bloody thing, including the rights to oil. They had to pull out all 1 million pieds noirs."

. . ."One of the worst things that happened in Algeria was what happened to the Harkis, the Algerians who were loyal to France," Horne explained. As he relates in his book, the Harkis were slaughtered by their vengeful countrymen after the French left, with an estimated 30,000 to 150,000 perishing.

"Absolutely appalling. I fear that we're going to have a Harki situation or much worse coming up in Iraq, because of the numbers involved. The savagery in Iraq is worse than what it was in Algeria."

Horne believes that America's exit strategy must take into account an updated domino theory. "When the domino theory was applied to Vietnam, it was much despised. People said it didn't mean a thing. But here I think it does, because an over-speedy exit from Iraq is going to leave a vacuum with possibly terrible consequences," he said.

"Take Saudi Arabia. Are we going to have another Iranian revolution there? I would
think it's really ripe for it. Even aside from al-Qaida, there's an awful lot of opposition to the Saudi royal family. And then you've got the question of Iran, which could emerge as the most powerful power in the area. So I'm just extremely glad I'm not George W. Bush because I don't know how you can get out gracefully."

After putting forth what he says was Henry Kissinger's idea, that maybe the U.S. should hire the Indian army as a "neutral people" to help provide security in Iraq, he went on to say he was actually quite optimistic about the prospects in Iraq - more so than most people he knows:

"Taking the long-term historian's view, one of these days they're going to start running out of suicide bombers. Even the Japanese ran out of kamikazes at the end of the last war. Remember the anarchist movement at the end of the 19th century? They murdered an American president [McKinley], two French presidents and a Russian czar. Everyone was terrified of the anarchists who walked around with a bomb with a fuse burning. Then suddenly one day, they disappeared. They just simply disappeared. This is my optimism, that this may happen."

As far as the Democrat's policy of calling for phased withdrawals, Horne reportedly had this to say:

"If Barack Obama is going to run on a ticket of saying we are going to pull everything out by such and such a date, that seems to me to be -- I don't want to sound as though I'm an ardent hawk, because I'm not -- a real ticket of encouragement to the insurgents."

On what he thinks should be done to achieve Middle East peace in general:

"I have a Jewish ex-Baghdadi friend in New York, Ezra Zilkha, who has made a huge fortune in banking. This is what I'd call the Zilkha plan. Take the worst place in the world, the most miserable, inefficient, god-awful, messed-up place: Gaza. Make a mini-economic miracle there. Create something like Dubai. Have a duty-free port. Dubai has nothing that Gaza hasn't got. It's got the sea, and if the Israelis would let them use it, it's got natural gas.

". . .This is the only hope for the Middle East, to somehow neutralize the mullahs by creating a small economic miracle.

". . .Don't you think, when you look at Islam -- and I don't want to get my knees shot off or my head taken off -- you see the most terrible incompetence compared to the rest of the world? Take Pakistan compared to India. India is the most enormous mess, but it's a democracy and it works. Pakistan has always been a disaster. Name me one single Islamic country that has been a success. Turkey, but it's secular. Take England. One of the troubles we have with the Muslim population is economic. Within our Asian population, the Indians' earnings are something like 10 times that of the Muslim population. This must say something."

". . . In terms of European history, they're at the time of the Inquisition."

[Finally, after blaming European colonialism at least in part for what he sees as the backwardness of the Islamic world, Horne reportedly made the following comparison:]

"Vietnam is the new Malaysia, it's the new Taiwan. You go to Saigon and you think it's a sort of an American fantasy. By contrast, look at Algeria. What a mess. In Algeria, in the civil war that started in 1990, perhaps 200,000 were killed, and nobody knows quite what they were fighting for. It's like the Thirty Years' War in Europe. Vietnam suffered far, far more during its war, in terms of casualties and destruction, than Algeria did. I think the Muslim world ought to take a serious look at that and ask themselves why.

Civil war will be a tragedy for Iraq but not necessarily for America says Fukuyama

Political scientist Francis Fukuyama writes in yesterday's Los Angeles Times:

The presence of U.S. forces has itself been a spur to terrorist recruitment, but as it becomes clear that we are on our way out, it will be easier for Iraqi nationalists to turn against the foreign jihadists (as they have already begun to do in Al Anbar province).

An intensifying civil war will be a tragedy for Iraq, but it is not the worst outcome from a U.S. standpoint to have a number of bitterly anti-American groups duking it out among themselves.

Civil wars eventually come to an end when one side wins (unlikely, in this case) or when the parties exhaust themselves and drop their maximalist aims.

The war is not lost, despite the assertions to that effect by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). But victory is not around the corner either. We need to start figuring out how to leave this zombie-like zone now.

Why Bush vetoed the Iraq spending bill

Why bother reading the media's spin when you can go right to the source? But for those of you too busy to read all what the President said, below are the salient points of his statement. From the President of the United States, George W. Bush:

Here is why the bill Congress passed is unacceptable. First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq. That withdrawal could start as early as July 1st. And it would have to start no later than October 1st, regardless of the situation on the ground.

It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength — and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq. I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure — and that would be irresponsible.

Second, the bill would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat. ...That means American commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C. This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops.

Third, the bill is loaded with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror. . .

Our troops are carrying out a new strategy with a new commander — General David Petraeus. The goal of this new strategy is to help the Iraqis secure their capital, so they can make progress toward reconciliation, and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and fights extremists and radicals and killers alongside the United States in this war on terror.

In January, General Petraeus was confirmed by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate. In February, we began sending the first of the reinforcements he requested. Not all of these reinforcements have arrived. And as General Petraeus has said, it will be at least the end of summer before we can assess the impact of this operation. Congress ought to give General Petraeus' plan a chance to work.

In the months since our military has been implementing this plan, we've begun to see some important results. For example, Iraqi and coalition forces have closed down an al Qaeda car bomb network, they've captured a Shia militia leader implicated in the kidnapping and killing of American soldiers, they've broken up a death squad that had terrorized hundreds of residents in a Baghdad neighborhood. . .

Even as sectarian attacks have declined, we continue to see spectacular suicide attacks that have caused great suffering. These attacks are largely the work of al Qaeda — the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting. The objective of these al Qaeda attacks is to subvert our efforts by reigniting the sectarian violence in Baghdad — and breaking support for the war here at home. In Washington last week, General Petraeus explained it this way: "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of all al Qaeda's global campaign."

Al Qaeda — al Qaeda's role makes the conflict in Iraq far more complex than a simple fight between Iraqis. It's true that not everyone taking innocent life in Iraq wants to attack America here at home. But many do. Many also belong to the same terrorist network that attacked us on September 11th, 2001 — and wants to attack us here at home again. We saw the death and destruction al Qaeda inflicted on our people when they were permitted a safe haven in Afghanistan.

For the security of the American people, we must not allow al Qaeda to establish
a new safe haven in Iraq. . .

Thank you for listening. May God bless our troops.

Is Iraq Vietnam yet?

Too bad I can't find the cartoon that mocked all the endless comparisons between the Iraq war and Vietnam that showed the kids in the back seat of a car traveling cross-country with the caption: "Are we there yet?"

But in an attempt to answer that question, here are some sobering thoughts from yesterday's Washington Post.

As fighting in Iraq enters its fifth year, an increasing number of experts in foreign policy and national strategy are arguing that the biggest difference may be that the Iraq war will inflict greater damage to U.S. interests than Vietnam did.

Here is a sampling of what these experts told the Post:

Former defense secretary William S. Cohen: "In terms of the consequences of failure, the stakes are much bigger than Vietnam. The geopolitical consequences are. . . potentially global in scope."

Ret. Air Force Gen. Charles F. Wald: "It makes Vietnam look like a cakewalk. . . Worst-case scenarios are the most likey thing to happen."

Gary Solis, Vietnam War vet and former instructor on the Law of War at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point: "Most of my military acquaintances agree that the issues in our departure from Vietnam will pale beside those that will be presented by an Iraq withdrawal."

But do read the whole thing. You'll even find a counteropinion or two.

An Iraqi implores Congress: "This war must be won"

Blogger Omar Fadhil at Iraq the Model writes from Iraq:

I said it before and I say it again; this war must be won. If it is not the world as you in the United States know it today (and as we here in Iraq dream for it to become) will exist only in books of history. The forces of extremism that we confront today are more determined, more resourceful, and more barbaric than the Nazi or the communists of the past. Add to that the weapons they can improvise or acquire through their unholy alliance with rogue regimes, combined with their fluid structure and mobility… well, they can be more deadly than any forces we have faced in the past. Much more.

The political game the Democrats are playing has gone farther than it should have. Before they took over the congress they were complaining that there had been no feasible plan for winning the war. Now that such plan exists and thousands of American soldiers are working hard with the millions of good Iraqis to make it work, they wish to turn their backs on it.

I understood that by winning a majority in the legislature the Democrats were supposed to guide America to victory by correcting the mistakes of the past. Obviously I was wrong; they have put all their efforts into making sure the exact opposite outcome happens.

Just look at this one example of how the terrorists are going to make benefit from the defeatism of democrats. Al-Jazeera, the unofficial mouthpiece of al-Qaeda posted this on the same day the House passed the wretched bill: "Dadullah said: 'Thank God, he is alive, we get updated information about it. Thank God, he plans the operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.'"

In no time al-Qaeda and all similarly extremist factions will start boasting about how America is fleeing Iraq under the heavy blows of the “Mujahideen” planned by OBL himself.

The Democrats just offered al-Qaeda victory on a silver plate. For free. An imaginary victory for sure, for now, but it can still be used by al-Qaeda to promote their ideology of death and attract more recruits.

“America’s will can be broken, America is not invincible,” they will say in a thousand ways. Is this the kind of message you want to send to the enemy?

Reconsider your position before it’s too late. For us and for yourselves.

He says more, but read the whole piece.

What to make of Senator Reid's grandstanding on Iraq

From the editors at the New York Post:

To be sure, Reid won't risk calling for an immediate pullout. He cautioned his party's bug-out-now wing to be patient, despite "the restlessness" of those who "voted for change in November [and] anticipated dramatic and immediate results in January."

The problem, said Reid, is that "George W. Bush is still the commander-in-chief -and this is his war."

And there's the real problem: From the start, Reid and the Democrats have seen the war in Iraq as a partisan opportunity.

They refuse to present a unified front to the rest of the world - especially to America's enemies - because, in their pinched view, to do so would be to weaken their own prospects for retaking the White House in 2008.

From Jonah Goldberg at The Corner:

I've long thought Reid was mostly an empty suit but not the sort of guy to get furious at. He's no ideologue, just a fixer-type. But when he says that he won't believe General Petraeus no matter what the General says, it's really pretty outrageous, particularly when Reid begins the interview by invoking Petraeus's judgment in his own defense. Apparently, he's pocketed all he needs from the General and so why bother listening any more. I'd rather he just put his hands over his ears and yelled "Nah-nah-nah-woop-woop-woop — I'm not listening — nah-nah-nah!" then listen to his soporific sophistry. Watch the clip here.

President Bush reacts to Dem's war spending bill

I guess you could call him resolute: President Bush reiterated his promise to veto the Democrat's war spending bill:

Here in Washington, members of both parties recognize that our most solemn responsibility is to support our troops in the war on terror. Yet, today, a narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law, and brings us no closer to getting our troops the resources they need to do their job.

The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq. They set rigid restrictions that will require an army of lawyers to interpret. They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal without regard for conditions on the ground. And they tacked on billions for pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror. This bill has too much pork, too many conditions and an artificial timetable for withdrawal.

As I have made clear for weeks, I will veto it if it comes to my desk. And because the vote in the House was so close, it is clear that my veto would be sustained. Today's action in the House does only one thing: it delays the delivering of vital resources for our troops. A narrow majority has decided to take this course, just as General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out a new strategy to help the Iraqis secure their capital city.

Amid the real challenges in Iraq, we're beginning to see some signs of progress. Yet, to score political points, the Democratic majority in the House has shown it is willing to undermine the gains our troops are making on the ground.

Democrats want to make clear that they oppose the war in Iraq. They have made their point. For some, that is not enough. These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen. Our men and women in uniform need these emergency war funds. The Secretary of Defense has warned that if Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April the 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so would their families.

The Democrats have sent their message, now it's time to send their money. This is an important moment -- a decision for the new leaders in Congress. Our men in women in uniform should not have to worry that politicians in Washington will deny them the funds and the flexibility they need to win. Congress needs to send me a clean bill that I can sign without delay. I expect Congress to do its duty and to fund our troops, and so do the American people -- and so do the good men and women standing with me here today.

Congressional Democrats scramble to get on record in favor of a timetable for Iraq

The New York Times reports that House Democrats scrambled today to find the 218 votes they need tomorrow to pass legislation that would set a timetable to bring American troops home from Iraq.

This is in spite of the fact that as White House spokesman, Tony Snow, put it, the legislation will have "zero chance" of surviving a presidential veto. The Pentagon's has also warned that the legislation could harm the troops.

Snow went on to point out that: “You have people on Capitol Hill trying to buy or cajole votes for a bill that’s not going to pass.”

According to the Times:

The House Republican leader, Rep. John A. Boehner of Ohio, said that passage would “without question lead to failure” in Iraq. He predicted that Congress ultimately would provide the war-fighting money without conditions...

“We will no longer be a rubber stamp for a failing policy that has cost us so much in blood and treasure,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader.

David Brooks eviscerates the Democratic timetable for Iraq

David Brooks takes apart Senator Carl Levin's (D-MI) strategy for Iraq in his op-ed column in today's New York Times.

First Brooks sums up what this strategy is: "[Levin argues that] Iraqi leaders have been shirking their duties and it’s time to force them to get serious." How to do that? Via the Democratic timetable resolution, of course, which, as Senator Levin himself said, "will deliver a cold dose of reality to Iraqi leaders.”

"But" as Brooks asks, "does anybody [really] think that Iraqi leaders, many of whom have seen their brothers and children gunned down, need a cold dose of reality delivered from the U.S. Congress? Does anybody buy the Levin model of reality, which holds that Iraqi leaders are rational game theorists who just need to have their incentives rearranged in order to make peace?"

This logic is just plain silly, according to Brooks. As far as he is concerned, there are only two serious positions when it comes to Iraq:

One serious position is heard on the left: that there’s nothing more we can effectively do in Iraq. We’ve spent four years there and have not been able to quell the violence. If the place is headed for civil war, there’s nothing we can do to stop it, and we certainly don’t want to get caught in the middle. The only reasonable option is to get out now before more Americans die.

The second serious option is heard on the right. We have to do everything we can to head off catastrophe, and it’s too soon to give up hope. The surge is already producing some results. Bombing deaths are down by at least a third. Execution-style slayings have been cut in half. An oil agreement has been reached, tribes in Anbar Province are chasing Al Qaeda, cross-sectarian political blocs are emerging. We should perhaps build on the promise of the surge with regional diplomacy or a soft partition, but we certainly should not set timetables for withdrawal.