Can We Decrease the Violence in Iraq by Leaving?

[AuntiePinko]

Dear Auntie Pinko,

Whenever the talking heads speak about withdrawing troops from Iraq, they say it would cause complete chaos.

Says who? Are those the predictions of the "they'll greet us as liberators" guys?

I think it might be that the violence will decrease as we leave. Is any think tank looking into a “Peace Now” option? I mean if the recent studies saying over 70% of the Iraqi people want us out, don't you think it's possible that if we got out the violence would begin to decrease?

Madonna
Dacula, GA


Dear Madonna,

I honestly don’t think any expert, or think tank, or pundit, or diplomat, or general, or any other source of wisdom could predict with reasonable accuracy whether the violence in Iraq will increase or decrease when we leave. There are really only two things that can be said with any certainty, and those are:

1. The violence will continue to increase as long as there is an American presence in Iraq; and

2. If we leave Iraq we will see a decrease in the number of American military personnel killed and horribly maimed by the violence in Iraq.

Making decisions based on known certainties, rather than speculative assumptions, would normally be a prudent strategy for any leader. While undoubtedly there is a great deal of information on the situation that remains unknown to the general public, it is hard to imagine what information would be so compelling, as to set aside known certainties in favor of a poorly (at best) justified rationale for either continuing the ruinous course we are on, or increasing our involvement. Especially since, based on those two known certainties, increasing our involvement could reasonably be expected to both speed the rate of increase in the violence in Iraq, and swell the number of American military personnel killed and horribly maimed.

Auntie doesn’t understand it, either.

Even a modest survey of the history of the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire makes it clear that conflict among the many tribal and religious groups in the region has been prevented only by a combination of strong authoritarian regimes, and having a unifying focus for conflict outside of tribal and religious differences. Brutally repressive puppet governments installed by Western powers provided the one, and the existence of Israel has provided the other. The end of the Cold War and the increasing dependence of Western industrialized powers on Middle Eastern oil resources cut the strings of the majority of those puppet regimes. And although most of the powers in the region would emphatically deny it, I suspect that on a pragmatic level they have begun to internalize the reality that Israel is not going away, no matter what. As a wall to push against, Israel is still useful, but it no longer has the unifying effect that it once exerted.

Prior U.S. governments have recognized these evolving, if discomforting, realities. Their approaches have varied in levels of engagement and resources invested in diplomacy, but they have exercised caution with regards to actual military involvement. The disaster in Beirut in 1983 was a grim reinforcement to that caution, and when the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait threatened to become the event that would finally break apart what frail stability remained, Mr. Bush Sr. carefully engaged both regional and NATO allies in a sharply limited military response.

Many US Presidents have made many mistakes in the Middle East over the last few decades. Indeed, aside from the initial Camp David accords, it is hard to find an example of highly successful US engagement. Their own instincts for prudence, combined with unvarnished reality as presented by State Department experts, has left many Presidents making the choice between being criticized for not doing enough in the Middle East, and making a really grave blunder.

Mr. Bush Jr. chose to ignore the counsel of those who had lived for decades with the unsatisfying realities of the Middle East, in favor of vigorous action to achieve some resolution, or at least to break the stalemates and nudge things in a direction desirable to his conception of American interests. Had it worked, he would doubtless have found a place in history as a bold and visionary leader who accomplished a signal victory for peace and stability in the region. But it never had a chance at working. Wishful thinking is no substitute for a functional foreign policy.

I haven’t answered your question about whether American withdrawal would diminish the violence in Iraq, Madonna, because I just don’t know. I don’t think it’s likely. In fact, I think we might even see an immediate spike in sectarian violence as Americans leave. However, in the long run, I think that without the provocation of American military presence, the various factions and powers with an interest there would manage to sort out some probably highly unsatisfactory arrangement for keeping a lid on the worst of the carnage. And I very much doubt that would happen if we remained there.

I’m sorry I can’t be more optimistic about this, but there is a ray of hope to brighten our holidays: The new Congress is likely to be far more responsive to the will of the American people than the previous legislative body, and they are certainly going to be much more assertive in taking actions that oppose the Administration’s wishes. With that in mind, try to celebrate the various sentiments of hope and enlightenment and compassion for our fellow-humans that the year-end holidays evoke, and look forward to a better New Year than we’ve seen in many years! Thanks for asking Auntie Pinko!

Auntie Pinko will be celebrating the holidays and return January 4th.

[TheFarseer]

1. I think the violence will increase either way

They are going to fight each other no matter what we do.

[Warpy]

2. Exactly. We didn't start all this stuff and we can't stop it.

I feel certain that all this would have boiled over as soon as Hussein kicked the bucket some time in the next decade or so. There is no way they would have accepted either of his offspring as strong man.

Stupid just stepped in the doo doo when he ousted Hussein, created a power vacuum while his cronies stole the place blind, and allowed the civil war to get going as the various tribes, ethnicities, sects and even families try to fill the power vacuum. The civil war, IMO, was inevitable in a country whose boundaries were set by the British Empire without regard to what the people living there thought about it.

There is no way we can salvage this. We might have done so at the beginning by starting a sort of Marshall Plan to get the Iraqis back to work rebuilding their country, but Stupid's cronies were more interested in stealing than in repairing the deep damage. Even that was a long shot.

The only choice we have is to get out now or be thrown out later. There is no way to win an occupation in a country that doesn't want to be occupied.

Well, there is, but I doubt most people would approve of murdering every male over the age of five.

[Mnemosyne]

3. It will increase with certainty following * co's insanity of late.

It would have to decrease in numbers if we pull out, if not in intensity, simply due to a lesser number of targets. As for intensity; who knows? They are recovering many tortured bodies almost daily lately.

This entire administration needs committed. :nuke: :grr: :nuke:


Thanks Auntie! Have a great holiday.