James Fallows: Just leave Iraq

[TayTay]

James Fallows, in an article on HuffPo, says that he has changed his mind about what to do about Iraq. He previously subscribed to the idea that the US shouldn't abandon Iraq because that could cause more suffering for the innocent. (A view I myself had up until Feb when the Grand Mosque blew up.) Fallows, one of the earliest and best writers about all the mistakes that went into the debacle in Iraq now says:

The findings of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, as related through obviously authoritative leaks, mark a shift in the debate — and a change in my mind. This is not because the group has come up with a “good” idea where everyone else has failed. (To be fair, its ideas don’t seem worse than anyone else’s either — and they usefully straddle the divide between “cut and run” and “stay the course” by saying that the troops have to leave, but without saying exactly what the timetable is.) Rather it is because of the implied conclusion on which the panel’s findings (as reported) are based: that things are not going to get better, and the time for cutting losses has come.

This of course is entirely contrary to the Bush Administration’s position, which as of the president’s latest statement today still asserted that American troops must stay until “the job is done.” It’s at odds with many liberal hawks, and conservative hawks too, who say that the U.S. “can’t afford to lose” so must stay until we “win,” whatever that means. In fact, “winning” now amounts to some combination of: (a) leaving without appearing to be chased out; (b) leaving without an immediate upsurge in violence; and (c) leaving without al Qaeda-etc trainers quickly filling the vacuum, especially in the Sunni regions. Yes, we can’t afford any of those consequences of losing. But — because of misjudgment, mismanagement, and failures we will be ruing for years — they appear to be what’s in store.

If it is not in our power to prevent these disasters, then it is better to do as little extra damage to ourselves as possible before they occur. Sure, it is theoretically in our power to do more in Iraq. It’s just not possible in the real world. To start with: we’re not going to double the size of our military to sustain an open-ended presence in Iraq.

So the choice is between a terrible decision and one that is even worse. The terrible decision is just to begin leaving, knowing that even more innocent civilians will be killed and that we’ll be dealing with agitation out of Iraq for years to come. The worse decision would be to wait another year, or two, or three and then take that terrible course. If we thought a longer commitment and presence would lead to a better outcome, then the extra commitment might be sensible. But nothing occurring in Iraq in the last year has given rise to any hope that things are getting better rather than worse. (This, by the way, is the reason I have changed my mind: the absence of evidence that the chances for a “decent” departure will improve.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-fallows/getting-out-of-iraq-what_b_35294.html

[ProSense]

1. Great article!

How much more common sense needs to be injected into the debate before the Decider and the rest of the deniers face reality?

[beachmom]

2. This is a big deal. I read Fallow's article about why training

Iraqis was taking so long. He gave a prescription which included having trainers do long deployments and be fluent in Arabic so that they can establish relationships with Iraqis. I read the article, and thought -- damn, I'm not sure we're up for the task, Mr. Fallow. But he thought it was very important to do the best thing for the Iraqis. When Fallow has given up hope, well, then, you can be assured that it's over for us.

I told my sister today -- what is it that we can count on in Iraq? Well, if we remove our troops from the streets, then they're going to stop dying. And that's it. Any other action we take has no guarantee to make things better, will probably fail, and will result in more American deaths.

[sandnsea]

3. Doing the 'right' thing - as opposed to the 'compromising' thing

That's been really bugging me about this whole Iraq Study Group. This is too important for such able-minded people, and they area, to compromise away the right course of action. If our troops are keeping some area secure, or subduing any violence, then by all means someone needs to stand up and give the specific examples. Absent of that, our troops aren't doing anything except becoming the target of everybody's animosity. Our troop presence should be a separate issue from resolving the problems in Iraq. They've got nothing to do with Sunnis and Shi'ites fighting each other.

[ProSense]

4. How about this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2996942&mesg_id=2996942