The editorial team of the New York Times finally, today, wrote this (text also here):
- It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.
I could say this is long overdue… But more to the point, it is huge and significant.
This editorial is a long one, taking up an entire broad column in the paper. It went on to say:
- Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.
At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.
While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.
The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable of putting national interests ahead of sectarian score settling. The security forces Washington has trained behave more like partisan militias. Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.
Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.
A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months ago. Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda.
That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.
The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America’s allies must try to mitigate those outcomes — and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse. The nation needs a serious discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meet some of the big challenges that will arise.
I should note how very, very similar some of these editorialists’ thinking is to the argument about the need for a speedy and orderly withdrawal that I have been writing about since July 2005. (E.g., 1, 2, and 3.) Over these past two years some 2,000 US service members and many scores of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives.
One important point where the editorial– unlike the ISG report and much current thinking in the US political elite– mirrors the thinking I have always articulated about the diplomacy required to negotiate this speedy and orderly withdrawal is that it calls explicitly for a UN role. Not only in the section excerpted above, but also later on where it says:
- The United States military cannot solve the problem. Congress and the White House must lead an international attempt at a negotiated outcome. To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war.
It also, like the ISG, myself, and all informed realists, recognizes that Iran and Syria must be fully engaged in this diplomatic effort.
Where the editorial differs from my position is that it makes no explicit mention of the withdrawal being one that is generous to all the Iraqi people— i.e., that it not be a peevish, punitive withdrawal like the one from Vietnam that was followed by many long years of economic sanctions. The editorial does say that the US has an obligation to take in “many more” Iraqi refugees for permanent resettlement– and “The most compelling obligation is to the tens of thousands of Iraqis of courage and good will — translators, embassy employees, reconstruction workers — whose lives will be in danger because they believed the promises and cooperated with the Americans.” But how about the 26 million Iraqis who do not seek resettlement outside their country but who want, rather, to be able to live decent, hopeful lives within it? The US “owes” them just as much consideration, aid, and goodwill as those who seek resettlement.
(The editorialists show that they share the “migrationist” bias of much of the US’s culture when they say that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia “must share the burden of hosting refugees.” That seems to assume that most of the Iraqi refugees want to stay as refugees, which I am convinced is not the case. UN norms regarding the options offered refugees rightly stress that the highest priority of all should be given to creating the conditions that will allow them to return safely home.)
The editorial also does not come down unequivocally in favor of the policy that the withdrawal should be total. It says, quite worryingly:
- the United States will have to continue to battle terrorist forces and enlist local allies who reject the idea of an Iraq hijacked by international terrorists. The military will need resources and bases to stanch this self- inflicted wound for the foreseeable future.
The United States could strike an agreement with the Kurds to create those bases in northeastern Iraq. Or, the Pentagon could use its bases in countries like Kuwait and Qatar, and its large naval presence in the Persian Gulf, as staging points.
There are arguments for, and against, both options. Leaving troops in Iraq might make it too easy — and too tempting — to get drawn back into the civil war and confirm suspicions that Washington’s real goal was to secure permanent bases in Iraq. Mounting attacks from other countries could endanger those nations’ governments.
The White House should make this choice after consultation with Congress and the other countries in the region, whose opinions the Bush administration has essentially ignored. The bottom line: the Pentagon needs enough force to stage effective raids and airstrikes against terrorist forces in Iraq, but not enough to resume large-scale combat.
This implies, of course, that as the result of a negotiated agreement that allows the safe withdrawal of the US forces from all or most of Iraq, the other parties to that negotiation– including both the Iraqis and all their neighbors– would be quite happy for the US still to have a very broad mandate for unilateral action “to battle terrorist forces and enlist local allies” within Iraq “for the foreseeable future.”
Why should we expect that all the other parties to the withdrawal negotiation would be prepared to give the US military this kind of broad leeway for continued action inside Iraq?
No, it is just not politically feasible. Either an intra-Iraqi political entente will emerge that is strong enough to take on the anti-terrorist function inside the Iraqis’ own country, or the Iraqis and a new coalition of perhaps UN-backed supporters will find a way to do it. But to have US Special Forces continuing to run around like bulls in china stores inside Iraq even after the supposed conclusion of a “withdrawal” agreement? No, it’s not going to happen.
Also, quite honestly, once the US commits to a firm date for a total withdrawal, the entire political dynamics within Iraq will change. The motivation for Iraqis to give any sustained support to the rootless agitators of Al-Qaeda would be diminished considerably, if not completely. This whole idea of the US needing continuing permission to operate inside Iraq “to combat the terrorist forces” is a dangerous canard.
Nevertheless, the appearance of this editorial today is a really, really welcome sign that the US elite is shifting significantly in the right direction!
Another sour spot, the editorial notes:
“Just as Iran should come under international pressure to allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis. Turkey must be kept from sending troops into Kurdish territories.”
“Fascinating” that the NYT can’t bring itself here in this context to mention Saudi Arabia…. the unmentionable big $ gorilla (guerilla?) in the room…. :-{
Yet the editorial is a fine start
Yes, rather revealing and indeed fairly hilarious that, in naming “Sunni powers”, all they could come up with was (Alawite/Shiite-dominated) Syria?
yes, this is a step in the right direction and I hope it bears fruit really, really soon….
Americans think they know all about the Middle East because they have read the pontifications of a bunch of self-appointed experts in the mainstream media that have then been repeated ad nauseum by ignorant reporters, TV pundits and radio talk show hosts (I have tried to educate some of our local talk show hosts, but so far the only real effect I have seen is that one of them stopped insisting that Bin Ladin is pronounced bin LuhDEEN – though he still says bin Lawdin, even though I told him it is pronounced like the word “lad” as in young boy – and more are saying MALiki instead of MuhLEEEEEkeeee, and fewer of them seem to be saying eye-rack). They probably assume that Syria’s government is Sunni because it is a Ba`thist government, and they are conditioned to believe that the Ba`th party is a Sunni party.
Wow.. this NYT editorial is the first good news in a long time. It looks really like an important shift. I just wonder how much time will be needed before we begin to see its implementation. It seems even more important than the victory of the Dems at the last elections. Naturally, it comes with its flavor of ethnocentrists attitude. The main one have already been underligned by Helena : the need to pay compensation to the Iraqi and for a total withdrawal without any bases left in Iraq or ME. After all, the US has lost the war and this come with a price. In particular, the leaders who have drawn the US in this unjust war should also be impeached and condemned : will the MSM stand for it ? Anyway, the withdrawal and the recognition that the war is lost is the first, long awaited step.
In complement to the problems shown by Helena, two other paragraphs at the end of the editorial got me angry, aka that :
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia must share the burden of hosting refugees. Jordan and Syria, now nearly overwhelmed with refugees, need more international help. That, of course, means money. The nations of Europe and Asia have a stake and should contribute. The United States will have to pay a large share of the costs, but should also lead international efforts, perhaps a donors’ conference, to raise money for the refugee crisis.
Washington also has to mend fences with allies. There are new governments in Britain, France and Germany that did not participate in the fight over starting this war and are eager to get beyond it. But that will still require a measure of humility and a commitment to multilateral action that this administration has never shown. And, however angry they were with President Bush for creating this mess, those nations should see that they cannot walk away from the consequences. To put it baldly, terrorism and oil make it impossible to ignore.
So the US start a war of agression, but when things turn out bad, others should pay the price. The US has only admitted a ridicule number of refugees (7000 out of 2Mio outside refugees and 2M displaced persons in Iraq itself). Now she wants the neighbouring country to take care of the victims she has caused. She also wants the EU courntries to come to rescue .. or they will be deprived of oil and subjected to terrorism.
When does Iraq get to place bases in the U.S.?
Christiane, I agree with everything you said.
I have been going through a new and very comprehensive report released last month by Global Policy Forum titled “War and Occupation in Iraq”. As much as it has my stomach tied into a permanent knot of anger and outrage, it is absolutely necessary reading for anyone who is concerned with what the United States is doing in Iraq and in this world. You can access the 117 page report in PDF format here.
Of course, the invasion itself was an act of utterly unprovoked aggression, which is the ultimate war crime, and therefore everything that flows from that act constitutes a war crime. However, in order to truly appreciate the scope and magnitude of criminality of the war and ongoing occupation, a person MUST read this report. If there is not some international criminal action against those who perpetrated these crimes, it will be an outrage of historical proportions.
The true sweep of this crime and all the major and “minor” subcrimes is, quite honestly, hard to take in.
Well, the NYT article also included the following, “Iraq’s leaders — knowing that they can no longer rely on the Americans to guarantee their survival — might be more open to compromise, perhaps to a Bosnian-style partition, with economic resources fairly shared but with millions of Iraqis forced to relocate. That would be better than the slow-motion ethnic and religious cleansing that has contributed to driving one in seven Iraqis from their homes.” Once more US op-ed writers uncritically mix arguments for withdrawal with ideas that will create even greater problems in the future, both for Iraq, the region and for the United States.
Reidar.
Well, the NYT article also included the following, “Iraq’s leaders — knowing that they can no longer rely on the Americans to guarantee their survival —
Reidar., the problem it’s not what you call ““Iraq’s leaders” , these guys are a bunch of corrupted thug chosen by US hold in Green Zone protected by occupied forces.
From start those people when they cam to Iraq, Iraqi don’t like them and don’t believe in them, the time tells Iraqi were right, what they doing is just to bring Iraq to a complete failed State and they just waiting for a retire in US or UK with multi millions in banks after years they live on social welfare before 2003 despite some who hold high degree of professionals but its approved these guys just a thugs nothing more that.
Back to your thoughts, Whitehouse already doing his job/work and the time soon will come to hear “Soft Partitioning”
We all need to keep in mind Blood Borders, How a better Middle East would look
By Ralph Peters will tell all the story of new ME whatever we like it or not that the bunch mark for ME.
“The only way out of what is considered to be a full-fledged civil war is a “soft partition” that would split Iraq up into Kurdistan, “Shi’astan” and “Sunnistan” and to share oil-revenues, Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Edward Joseph, an Iraq veteran and scholar at the School of Advanced International Studies, said during a panel discussion in Washington Thursday.
O’Hanlon and Joseph said partition should only be considered as a final option if the surge doesn’t work.”
http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Analysis/2007/07/09/analysis_soft_partition_urged_for_iraq/1043/
“Floated by Edward Joseph of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, the plan is being circulated to the White House.
Under the Joseph-O’Hanlon plan, Iraqis would divide the country into three main regions, with each section assuming the primary responsibility for its own security and governance, similar to what Iraqi Kurds already have in Kurdistan.”
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7007834892
ليس سرا ان حكومة نوري المالكي تعيش أيامها الأخيرة في غرفة العناية الامريكية المركزة التي يقدم لها دافع الضرائب الأمريكي الأموال اللازمة من دون أن يعرف بالأخطاء الرهيبة التي تقترف باسمه، فالرئاسة الأولى من الناحية الدستورية، ليست سوى خيال الماتا ومهددة باستقالة احد نواب الرئيس، مما يخلق إشكالا آخر لحكومة المحاصصة الطائفية والعرقية، لا يقل حدة عن الإشكال الذي خلفه إقصاء رئيس البرلمان العراقي وقيام كتلة التوافق بتعليق عضويتها فيه، ليرتفع بذلك عدد أعضاء البرلمان المتوقفين عن العمل إلى 85 عضوا، وهو عدد مرشح للزيادة.
لقد أدى زواج المتعة بين المؤسسات الدينية والطائفية من جهة والديموقراطيين والليبراليين من جهة أخرى، بسبب الظروف المحيطة بسقوط النظام الدكتاتوري، إلى ولادة هذا المسخ المشوه للحكم، الذي اغرق العراق في لجة الحرب الاهلية غير المعلنة، وجعلته ساحة لمن يشاء ليفعل ما يشاء دون أي اعتبار لوجود وحياة ومستقبل ملايين العراقيين الذين أصبحوا مشردين ومهجرين داخل بلدهم، ناهيك عن أربعة ملايين لاجئ عراقي في دول الجوار، فالمحاصصة الطائفية والعرقية وحتى الكتلوية داخل الحزب أو المجموعة التنظيمية الواحدة أدت إلى تهميش الهوية الوطنية العراقية واختزالها لصالح الهوية الفئوية أو الطائفية أو العرقية وأحيانا حتى لصالح القائد المبجل ولمن يدور في فلكه.
http://www.asharqalawsat.com/leader.asp?section=3&article=427516&issue=10451
Worth reading Reidar by a Kurdish politician, it’s very interesting and clear what’s happening in Iraq now.
We’re not leaving Iraq, per se. We’re merely keeping a massive military footprint there for, say, the next fifty years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070902031_2.html
Reidar,
Any tentative excitement I might have felt over the NYT editorial was quickly dashed, for the reason you cited, in addition to others.
Aside from the fact that it is absolutely none of any American’s business or right to decide what is good for Iraq and Iraqis, what part of the fact that the Iraqis overwhelmingly do not want this is not registering with these people?