Iraq : The Logic Of Disengagement

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Things were so much better for us and the Iraqis when Saddam was in power. Saddam didn't have any WMDs so he was no threat to the U.S., but he did have plenty of power in his own country which he could use to keep all these little terrorist groups in line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda makes you think about the wisdom (some called it obsession, really) with Saddam Hussein.

And it kinda makes you think whose strategic interests and security were actually advanced and strengthened by Saddam's removal. Cause sure as hell it wasn't America's...

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
This is one of the worst analogies I've ever seen. You think Napoleon was offering democracy? Napoleon?? Emperor Napoleon the ruthless warlord who overthrew the First Republic in France??? Yeah, those provincial Spanish, can't even recognize a liberator when they see one.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry but that's the record for ya. Dispute it if you want but there it is, staring at you.

Let me briefly elaborate: Napoleon was offering to the Spaniards something like an "enlightened monarchy", with his brother at the throne. That kind of monarchy would have been extremely better than the regime that Spaniards had known until then. As Luttwak points out (and as is well known), Spain was ruled feudally with almost all the peasants leading lives of misery, the likes of which one could see perhaps only also in Russia. Napoleon was not offering a parliamentary republic, but one would think that the Spaniards would jump at the opportunity to adopt the improvements offered by the French emperor through their French-imposed "king" Joseph -- and then take it from there.

But, no. The Spaniards, in 1808, chose instead to take up arms against the invader, in order to be able to decide their country's affairs on their own. They chose guerilla warfare, aka insurgency.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
What about just putting Saddam back in power. I'm all for it at this point (not joking).

He is secular, he can maintain order and prevent civil war, and as an added bonus we can claim that we left the country exactely as we found it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apart from all the dead people and blown up stuff.

[nicky g]

On a BBC debate last week an ex-senior MI6 officer argued that most of the insurgents were nationalists rather than jihadis or Baathists, and that once the foreign troops left they would swiftly end any cooperation with the likes of "al-Qa'ida in Iraq" and boot them out. Perhaps a little optimistic but I think there's an element of truth to it.

Putting Saddam back in power is a stupid idea.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Things were so much better for us and the Iraqis when Saddam was in power. Saddam didn't have any WMDs so he was no threat to the U.S., but he did have plenty of power in his own country which he could use to keep all these little terrorist groups in line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda makes you think about the wisdom (some called it obsession, really) with Saddam Hussein.

And it kinda makes you think whose strategic interests and security were actually advanced and strengthened by Saddam's removal. Cause sure as hell it wasn't America's...

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to finish that thought Cyrus?

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly this is one of the worst Iraq ideas I've heard. I still have a hard time believing you're serious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.

There's no going back to the ways things were. The damage to America (the causualties, the reputation, the fuel to the fire of Islamic terrorism) is done and with 30k+ Iraqis dead, the rest of Iraq had better be doing much better than they were before in the longer run. So yea, terrible idea with Saddam. I think you only mention this as a better solution than a ten year US occupation or Iraqi civil war. I am defnitely not convinced either has to happen. Interesting article OP.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Edward Luttwak is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies -- and certainly not a dove. His article on Iraq, in Foreign Affairs magazine, offers his argument and proposal for America disengaging from the quagmire.

Here's a sample (with emphases added), which one would be advised to read carefully :

[ QUOTE ]
Given all that has happened in Iraq to date, the best strategy for the United States is disengagement.
<font color="white"> . </font>
The endless sequence of major acts of violence proves that U.S. military forces are unable to fulfill their security role.
<font color="white"> . </font>
While the U.S. armed forces are formidable against enemies assembled in massed formation, they are least effective at fighting insurgents. Insurgents strive to be especially elusive, and as targets diminish, so does the value of American firepower. This wasm demonstrated in Vietnam in many different ways over many years and is unnecessarily being proven all over again in Iraq, damaging the reputation of the United States, wasting vast amounts of money, inflicting added suffering on Iraqis at large, and taking the lives of young Americans, whose sacrifice, one fears, will soon be deemed futile.
<font color="white"> . </font> <font color="white"> . </font>
A withdrawl, however, would not leave the insurgents vitcorious : Even if the official Iraqi army and police remain as ineffectual as they now are, the Shi'a and Kurdish militias are far larger and better armed than the insurgents, and would crush them soon enough.
<font color="white">. </font>
Disengagement would call for the careful planning and scheduling of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from much of the country--while making due provisions for sharp punitive strikes against any attempt to harass the withdrawing forces.
<font color="white"> . </font>
But it would primarily require an intense diplomatic effort, to prepare and conduct parallel negotiations with several parties inside Iraq and out. All have much to lose or gain depending on exactly how the U.S. withdrawal is carried out, and this would give Washington a great deal of leverage that could be used to advance U.S. interests.
<font color="white">. </font>
The United States cannot threaten to unleash anarchy in Iraq in order to obtain concessions from others, nor can it make transparently conflicting promises about the country's future to different parties.
<font color="white"> . </font>
But once it has declared its firm commitment to withdraw--or perhaps, given the widespread conviction that the United States entered Iraq to exploit its resources, once visible physical preparations for an evacuation have begun--the calculus of other parties will change.
<font color="white"> .</font>
In a reversal of the usual sequence, the U.S. hand will be strengthened by withdrawal, and Washington may well be able to lay the groundwork for a reasonably stable Iraq. Nevertheless, if key Iraqi factions or Iraq's neighbors are too shortsighted or blinded by resentment to cooperate in their own best interests, the withdrawal should still proceed, with the United States making such favorable or unfavorable arrangements for each party as will most enhance the future credibility of U.S. diplomacy.
<font color="white">. </font>
The United States has now abridged its vastly ambitious project of creating a veritable Iraqi democracy to pursue the much more realistic aim of conducting some sort of general election. In the meantime, however, it has persisted in futile combat against factions that should be confronting one another instead. A strategy of disengagement would require bold, risk-taking statecraft of a high order, and much diplomatic competence in its execution.
<font color="white"> . </font>
But it would be soundly based on the most fundamental of realities: geography that alone ensures all other parties are far more exposed to the dangers of an anarchical Iraq than is the United States itself.


[/ QUOTE ]

The man makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't suprise me that you would think so.

This is drivel. Unintelligent and uninformed drivel.

[lehighguy]

Germany and Tokyo are different. We defeated the people themselves, not the leaders. There was no one left to oppose. If your willing to kill half the population of Iraq in order to ensure a complete surrender then that is another route to pursue, but I don't think it's worth the effort.

The rest of the world knew that by not invading they were committing a sin of ommision. Anyone he killed would be a result of people letting him do this. They were ok with that because the alternative was worse, we should be too.

They deserve him. If they really don't want him back they shouldn't be giving us a hard time. If the majority really don't support the insurgents they should be actively helping Americans hunt them down. The Iraqi people are as responsible for teh insurgency as the insurgents themselves.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kinda makes you think whose strategic interests and security were actually advanced and strengthened by Saddam's removal. Cause sure as hell it wasn't America's...

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to finish that thought ?

[/ QUOTE ]

You want to underestimate this forum's intelligence -- fine, I'll play along.

It is, of course, Israel.

And this is not something new. I have posted about the major winner of the Iraqi invasion a number of times here, and my remarks were met with ironies by the extreme pro-Israel faction of this board, along with sneers such as "Pay your tax donations to Israel and shut up!"

Which is always kinda heart-warming, y'know.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
This is drivel. Unintelligent and uninformed drivel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, what else would you expect from Edward Luttwak, right?

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Kinda telling, though, that all you could do as rebuttal was to hit the Quote button and graffiti an insult underneath Luttwak's text.