In a neat juxtaposition, the front page of the New York Times today carries an article outlining a draft agreement on the removal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq in 2011 right below another article which shows why it’s dangerous to rush for the
exits. This story focuses on tensions between the Shiite-dominated government of Iraq and the largely Sunni members of the Awakening, many of them former insurgents who have allied with U.S. and Iraqi forces. The Iraqi government, it seems, is targeting some Awakening members for arrest while dragging its feet on hiring others into the Iraqi Security Forces (as Peter has noted).
The merits of the individual cases are hard to sort out, and in any case don’t matter that much. The broader point is to highlight how fragile recent gains have been and how easily they could evaporate if U.S. forces leave too soon. (A point that General David Petraeus, now departing Iraq after the most successful turnaround by any American general since Matthew Ridgeway in Korea, makes in this interview.) At the moment there is still great distrust between different ethno-sectarian groups in Iraq, and, aside from the role they still play in patrolling the streets, U.S. troops perform another invaluable function: Much as in Bosnia and Kosovo, they serve as an impartial peacekeeping force that can be trusted by all sides even when they don’t trust one another.
The accord on pulling out U.S. forces, if implemented along the lines described by the New York Times, would probably not jeopardize the progress that has been made. If the reports in the Times and other MSM outlets are accurate, the U.S. and Iraq have agreed that U.S. combat forces would pull out of Iraq’s urban areas by next summer and out of Iraq altogether by the end of 2011—but only if the current rate of progress continues. That’s a notable difference from Barack Obama’s 16-month withdrawal plan which would pull all U.S. combat forces out by mid-2010 regardless of conditions on the ground. Of course both the draft U.S.-Iraq document and the Obama plan leave a big loophole: they only apply to combat forces, allowing the possibility that U.S. advisory and support forces in substantial numbers could remain in Iraq for many years to come. (The line between combat and support forces isn’t hard and fast; it might be possible to stay within the letter of an accord by changing the name of a brigade from Brigade Combat Team to Brigade Training Team.)
I hope it will be politically possible, both in the U.S. and Iraq, to keep a substantial force in Iraq beyond 2011—not, I hope, to engage in combat operations, and certainly not to suffer casualties, but simply to provide reassurance of American commitment to Iraqi democracy and to prevent any ethno-sectarian group from oppressing the others. Or even to guard against a military coup. In a country as embattled as Iraq, any number of things can go wrong. Only an American commitment can safeguard this fragile democracy and thereby safeguard our own interests in the region.
If one were to bump into Speaker Pelosi at an event, and were lucky enough to get her response on video, what question would you want to ask her?
Pelosi and Reid are over-rated an oozing with stupidity and partisan politicians.
Botox has finally affecting Pelosi’s brain and Reid manic-depression is showing.
Obama Messiah can only show leadership in dining in an expensive restaurant. What a fraud!
Pelosi and Reid do come across as bumbling fools. I, in fact, think they are.
So what’s the matter with our GOP leadership that they can’t take advantage of this? Makes me think the GOP leadership is even larger bumbling fools. I get so frustrated with the Republican leadership who loses battle after battle to the Wicked Witch of Botox County and Senator D’uh.
Ms. Rubin, I don’t mean to respond too seriously to a light-hearted comment…but what’s not to like in the performances of Reid and Pelosi is the detrimental effect this is going to have upon our republic. I know you probably agree. But the government is moving further and further into the market, reaching its tendrils further and further into our society and into our lives. And once government occupies a space, it is very hard to make it retreat. Interests are vested; people’s jobs are at stake; people come to rely on the flow of government money. This is going to take a long time to undo.
This is why Republicans really need to be at their best right now. This is not a time to sit back and enjoy watching the other party flounder. The Democrats did precisely that, I know; they offered no real solutions or fresh ideas when we were struggling in Iraq. Their mendacity still angers me, constantly and mostly unfairly criticizing the Bush administration but never offering constructive ideas–and I remember distinctly when Nancy Pelosi explained that it was not her job to come up with other ideas, since was the job of the Presidential administration. That still infuriates me, mostly because the lives of American soldiers were at stake.
But we should be better. For one thing, we cannot take it for granted that the failure of this initiative will lead to gains for Republicans; if it begins to look as though the Republicans will gain in the next election, the press will do its best to blame every one of the Democrats’ failures on us–and if the last election shows anything, it shows that a substantial portion of the American electorate will believe what the press tells them to believe. The Democrats’ approval rating still exceeds ours. We need to be better. We need to be better in coming up with ideas, and better in helping the President succeed in his fundamental obligations of protecting this country and keeping its economy free and strong. And if he won’t listen to our ideas, and won’t accept our help, at least we will have done our duty, and we can hope the American people will have seen that.
Given the political realities of who holds power right now, I don’t care if the moderates cut $50B or $100B of wasteful spending from the bill. There are two things that I want: (1) something that will actually stimulate private sector growth, preferably cuts in corporate and capital gains taxes, and (2) some legislative guarantee that we will return to fiscal responsibility. If the Democrats want to keep their spending, fine. I don’t like it, but I’m willing to sacrifice $50B-$100B in exchange for cutting the corporate rate 10% and cap gains 5%, and for a binding commitment from the Congress that as the economy turns around their free-wheeling spending stops and they divest from banks. The biggest danger is not spending too much this time around; it’s beginning a series of such “stimulus” bills, each one bigger than the last, all while inflation devalues everything we have in the bank. The Democrats say this is a temporary measure, not a permanent expansion of government; let them put that down in writing and sign on the dotted line.
Pelosi and Reid are characters out of Atlas Shrugged. Once upon a time I thought that Ayn Rand was a shrill polemicist caricaturing the left.
Appreciate the info guys, thanks