Thomas E. Ricks: The war in Iraq isn't over

[bigtree]

The main events may not even have happened yet.

Sunday, February 15, 2009; Page B01

{snip}

President Obama campaigned on withdrawing from Iraq, but even he has talked about a post-occupation force. The widespread expectation inside the U.S. military is that we will have tens of thousands of troops there for years to come. Indeed, in his last interview with me last November, Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told me that he would like to see about 30,000 troops still there in 2014 or 2015.

Yet many Americans seem to think that the war, or at least our part in it, is close to being wrapped up. When I hear that, I worry. I think of a phrase that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz often used in the winter of 2003, before the invasion: "Hard to imagine." It was hard to imagine, he would tell members of Congress, the media and other skeptics, that the war would last as long as they feared, or that it could cost as much as all that, or that it might require so many troops. I worry now that we are once again failing to imagine what we have gotten ourselves into and how much more we will have to pay in blood, treasure, prestige and credibility.

I don't think the Iraq war is over, and I worry that there is more to come than any of us suspect.

A smaller but long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq is probably the best we can hope for. The thought of having small numbers of U.S. troops dying for years to come in the country's deserts and palm groves isn't appealing, but it appears to be better than either being ejected or pulling out -- and letting the genocidal chips fall where they may.

Almost every American official I interviewed in Iraq over the past three years agreed. "This is not a campaign that can be won in one or two years," said Col. Peter Mansoor, who was Gen. David H. Petraeus's executive officer during much of the latter's tour in Iraq. "The United States has got to be willing to underwrite this effort for many, many years to come. I can't put it in any brighter colors than that."

article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021301648_pf.html



I think Ricks' is a valid view IF you believe the U.S. military can do more good than harm in Iraq. I'm of the view that our very presence is destabilizing and counter-productive to an escalating degree, with every day that we choose to remain - for whatever reason.

I also believe the Obama administration shares Ricks' assessment, from the very top down.

[1620rock]

1. It's not a war it's an occupation. US out of Iraq NOW.

[bigtree]

2. whatever you call it

. . . Ricks thinks a significant number of our troops will still be there trying to win or solve one thing or the other.

We've been trying for years now, but it's nearly impossible to get these leading journalists and media to use the term 'occupation'. I use the term, but, for the purposes of this article, I'll just leave him to his own phrasing.

[sendero]

3. It is not a campaign..

... we can win in an INFINITE number of years, and we should just leave.

[bigtree]

4. supposed to happen any time now

. . . just like we've been told.

Waiting for that.

[bigtree]

5. .

[Postman]

6. It's a crime what the Bush Administration did to Iraq.

Whatever you're views of Saddam Hussein, Iraq was not the clusterfuck it is today.

There were not armed sects gunning for control of areas like the mafia under Hussein.

People inter-married under Hussein's rule.

Iraq was a STABLE country in the region acting as a check against Iran (although I have no problem with Iran or Iranians)

Iraq was a secular country under Hussein, not a splintered Islamic State.

The US should be in front of the ICC for what it did to Iraq and Iraqis.

[leftchick]

7. Oh Horse Shit!

You can not win a fucking occupation! Ask France, Russia, England and US history (Vietnam?). Get them the fuck out now. I saw ricks on some show this past week and if I didn't know better I would think he is on the DoD payroll.

sorry, I am grouchy this morning.

[Postman]

9. I was thinking the same thing.

I'm sorry, any cheerleader for the disaster in Iraq, no matter what their excuse, seems fishy to me.

[bigtree]

16. Ricks is certainly promoting the military view

It's useful in it's representation of the military priority, but we need to make our own judgments about continuing, well short of the involvement Ricks thinks we're already committed to.

[DCBob]

8. I think Ricks is right. The worst is yet to come...

The only thing keeping the lid on it is 150,000+ US troops and $10B/month -- that is unsustainable.

[ShortnFiery]

10. It doesn't have to be. The Iraqi people, come what may, want OUR American troops OUT OF THERE.

I say, we comply with what The People of Iraq WANT.

Let them sort it out themselves while emphasizing anything bad happen on the USA mainland, the RSVP will be back to the M.E. :shrug:

[DCBob]

11. There should be referendum during the next elections on whether US troops should stay or not.

That will help President Obama politically if/when things do deteriorate after we leave.

[bigtree]

15. there is, as you may know

. . . an upcoming referendum on the Status of Forces Agreement that Bush negotiated with Maliki. If they reject that agreement then our forces have to be out in 10 moths, I think, under their law. Looking forward to that.

[mmonk]

12. We need to leave and let what will happen happen.

It was a failed geopolitical move that will continue to pull our bankrupt ass down if we insist on trying to control it and its economics through occupation.

[H2O Man]

13. Interesting.

I recently watched him being interviewed on this topic. I was reminded of something that Malcolm X used to say: that if you stick a knife 12 inches deep into another person's back, you either take it out, or you don't. You can't pull it 6 inches out, and say that you have withdrawn the knife. And if you take it all the way out, you can't expect your victim to thank you for your kindness.

If the Obama administration pulls the knife out six inches, it will surely not be a withdrawal. And if he does withdraw the knife entirely, then the nation of Iraq will not thank the US for their kindness. And that is the key, in its most tragic sense, to the future of Iraq. If we withdraw, we are not going to have a government there that considers the US their friend, and that allows the Cheneyites to have control of their nation from a safe distance.

[bigtree]

14. the distinction I make

. . . when I consider Iraq without the U.S. presence is the difference between the needs and concerns of the enabled regime and those of the Iraqi people themselves.

The impression I get, along the lines of your analogy, is that the government probably would not stand in its present form without the U.S. presence and the advantage we've given the Iraqi military over those communities which would be in a decisive position to challenge that rule if given the protection and support against their Shiite-dominated government rivals that is leveraged against their resistant communities.

In fact, you can see the same thing in Afghanistan where the protected communities naturally lead in the 'elections' and ensure the enabled regime in assumed authority.

If we are really serious about Iraqi 'democracy' we would be compelled to 'let the Iraqis sort it out'. Unfortunately, that means more armed conflict for Iraqis without the protection of our oppressive forces. It may not be such a tragedy, as many predict, for Iraqis to fight their own battles. Already, this morning, there is a report of Maliki moving his military against 'al-Qaeda in Iraq' in Mosul.

The outcome of those military skirmishes and the political reaction of Iraq's new Parliament may well provide the democracy that we pretend to represent with our heavy-handed nation-building. But, that won't happen in any truly representative way while the Iraqi regime is operating behind our military assistance which carries with it our decidedly compromised, destabilizing agenda.

I actually think the Iraqis are ready to make that move. Maliki seems confident that his regime will prevail without us. We should allow Iraq to proceed without our paternalistic presence, if not our influence altogether.