Come On, Generals, Let's Move Fast
Nick Gillespie | June 30, 2005, 10:50am
The Libertarian Party has announced an exit plan for U.S. military in Iraq. The conclusion:
Our troops have completed their missions: the liberation of Iraq, the capture of Saddam Hussein, and the provision of security for the January 30, 2005, elections. American military personnel should be commended for accomplishing these difficult tasks and performing them in a courageous and selfless manner. We cannot continue to keep our servicemen and women committed to an open-ended, violent conflict in Iraq. By removing our troops in an orderly and systematic fashion over the course of one year, we will withdraw our troops on our terms while retaining the honor and respect that they deserve. By creating a direct aid program for Iraq, we give them the necessary funds to become an advanced, industrialized, democratic nation. By giving the Iraqi government full control over the disbursement of aid funds, we respect the wishes of the Iraqi people and foster the development of good diplomatic relations. Our exit strategy will help to end the senseless loss of American and Iraqi lives. It will ensure that Iraq is rebuilt in an efficient and expedient manner, at the lowest possible cost to the American taxpayers.
Whole thing, which echoes U.S. disengagement in Vietnam and is well worth reading despite your view on the invasion and occupation, here.
Lyrics to "Feel Like I'm Fixing To Die Rag," from which this post's title is taken, here.
Tip o' hat to many readers who directed me to the LP plan.
R C Dean | June 30, 2005, 2:34pm | #
Why is it, then, that the insurgents don't just stop their attacks now so as to create an image of stability and peace, thereby encouraging a withdrawal?
Because if they stop now, they create a breathing space for the civil government to take full control, take root, and gain legitimacy. If they stop now, their support dries up. The insurgency is like a shark - if it stops moving, it dies.
It's hard not to believe that the future beongs to China with its powerful synthesis of a deeply cultural authoritarianism and free markets.
LMAO at this one. Remember when people said essentially the same thing about Japan, before it sank into a ten year recession?
China is a deeply, deeply unstable country, with demographic and cultural tensions that are likely to tear it apart in decades to come. China has the kind of crony capitalism that works for a perhaps a decade or two, but lacks the kind of infrastrucute necessary for a truly dynamic, creative economy. China will be formidable, and due to its instability will be sporadically very dangerous, but the future belongs to societies with things like private property and the rule of law.
i'd be interested in hearing your plan for a victory, mr dean.
Sure thing, gaius. We do what we do best, what beat the Soviets. We play containment, we bombard the mideast with our culture, and we wear them down.
I define victory in Iraq as the establishment of a government that is viewed as legitimate by a consensus of the Iraqi people, and that has the ability to secure its own borders and stability against Islamists and Baathists. I don't give a crap if Islamist and Baathist nutballs don't accept the government, as long as the bulk of the Iraqi people do.
The road to that end is essentially what we are doing now. We do what we can to keep the insurgency down (personally, I would be much, much more aggressive on the Syrian border to cut the lifeline there) and buy time for the Iraqi civil society and security institutions to ramp up. Its a slog, but the way to a quicker victory involves offing the governments supporting the insurgents (Iran and Syria), which I am reluctant to do at the moment.
Right now, the insurgents have achieved none of the strategic milestones for success. We, on the other hand, are making progress.
Those of you who think Vietnam has worked out all peachy keen have short memories (for the millions killed after our withdrawal) and an odd willingness to overlook the fact that the Vietnamese are still ruled by brutal totalitarians.
Those of you who think the US military is played out are ignorant of military history and realities. The limits on US military activity in the mideast right now are entirely political, and not military at all.
Bill Woolsey | June 30, 2005, 3:52pm | #
The Libertarian Party plan gives the elected Iraqi government one year to stand up an army able to defend itself against the Baathists and Sunni Arab fundamentalists.
There is a major difference with Vietnam. North Vietnam was a state that was backed by a super-power.
South Vietnam was a very weak despotism. Its people didn't support its government. Most people were neutral in the struggle between the North Vietmanese state and the Saigon government.
The insurgents aren't an irregular army of a neighboring state. (There is no North Iraq.) There are no Baathist superpowers backing the a North Iraq or the insurgents directly.
Most importantly, about 80% of the Iraqi population is made up of ethnic or religious groups persecuted by the Baathists and with good reason to fear the Sunni Arab fundamentalists. The elected government has a great potential base of support, a 4 to 1 population advantage over the groups inclined to sympathise with the insurgency. Heck, the govenment of Iraq was elected by those very people!
A large portion of Iraq's oil is in areas mostly populated by groups who hate and fear the Baathists and Sunni fundamentalists. None of Iraq's oil is in areas largely populated by Sunni Arabs who are sympathetic to the insurgents--either Baathists or Sunni fundamentalists. A bunch of it is in a disputed area that will be hard for either side to control and capitalize upon. The elected government looks like it has the advantage on resources.
What the elected government of Iraq has to do is get busy and start focusing on survival.
Of course, if the Americans will do it all for them, they will be glad to waste their time whining, complaining, and begging.
Can't you just hear them telling us how they are doing us a big favor by letting us use their country to fight the Baathists and Sunni fundamentalists.
Heck, isn't that one of Bush's lines--we are fighting the Sunni fundamentalists in Iraq rather than here. Yes, let's just tell the Iraqi government what a big favor they are doing us.
Well, how long will it take the insurgents to figure out that the best way to hurt the Americans is to kill some Americans in America. I'm sure they are working on it right now.
Anyway, why is there this assumption that the elected Iraqi government, with the support of 80% of the population, can't defend itself against the insurgents? Sure, maybe they need a little time to get ready, but how long?
Why are the insurgents considered to be so powerful? There is no "North Iraq" with tanks ready to invade. There is no Baathist super power backing "North Iraq."
Why this assumption that the U.S. must build up a perfect army for the elected government and then turn it over when it is ready?
It's not like the Baathists still have tanks, helocopters, and tube artilery. Its not like the elected Government can't find bullets and rifles and APGs for a massive infantry army.
Gee, there might be a civil war? Of course! There is already a civil war. The insurgents are attacking the elected Iraqi government. The elected Iraqi government is attacking the insurgents. The U.S. is, of course, helping the elected Iraqi government, but there is a civil war.
One wonders when people talk about this civil war _if_ the U.S. withdraws are pointing out that they don't really accept Iraqi sovereignity. There is no civil war yet, right? It is the U.S. and its native auxilaries against the Iraqis. If we withdraw, then the Iraqis might start fighting each other rather than us? Catch on! They are fighting each other.
Those who have opposed the LP plan have to come up with something better that this empty Vietnam analogies.
What do you really want to do in Iraq? And why do you think that the Bush administration will do that (whatever it is you think should be done?)
Bush is a proven bumbler and a fool. His government is a faction riven mess where different groups lie to one another in an effort to pursue their private political agendas. And which of the embarassments has Bush fired rather than promoted?
Again, what do you really want to do in Iraq? And why do you think that Bush (or any likely Republican or Democrat) will do it?
Bill Woolsey | June 30, 2005, 8:15pm | #
I believe that U.S. government actions can influence the number of individuals willing to undertake suicide missions against American citizens in America.
For example, if the U.S. should decide on a program of genocide against all Muslim people, the result would be a large increase in the number of people willing to undertake suicide missions against Americans in America. What do they have to lose?
I suppose a sufficiently successful genocide would solve the problem. (I'm one of those God-fearing people who worry about eternal damnation, so that policy is off the table for me.)
Oddly enough, even a plan to abolish Islam, forcing all Muslims to convert to some other religion (or become atheists) would have a similar impact. My guess is that trying to implement such a policy will be so unsuccessful that it won't even have the desirable consequences of genocide. We would have plenty of angry, persecuted Mulsims making suicide attacks on the U.S. in perpetuity.
Simply occupying one part of the Muslim world, with vague plans to somehow reform the locals so that they are more appreciative of personal freedom, will probably have a less serious impact. Heck, secularism isn't quite so bad as enforced atheism, is it?
Moving to a strict Rothbardian noninteventionism would make the effort to recruit Muslims for terrorist attacks against Americans quite challenging, but probably not impossible.
Personally, I think the notion that many would be motivated to kill Americans because of the way we carry on over here is laughable.
Whenever I hear such claims, I wonder if those making the statement are really that foolish, or is it that they are hoping to fool someone else.
On the other hand, I suspect many more Muslims would be inclined to kill American Jews in America for the gifts they give to Israel. Or attack Americans for giving money in exchange for oil, when the money benefits some apostate regime--say, the Saudi monarchs. Or vengence against American named corporations selling weapons to some regime they oppose. In other words, free trade, free investment, free "gifts" could result in terrorism in America.
But less than under various other possible policies.
The number of people that hate the U.S. isn't fixed. The number of people who hate the U.S. so much that they are willing to carry out terrorist attacks isn't fixed either.
You know it. I know it. Who is there to fool? There is no need to pretend. What is it that you really have in mind?
Bill Woolsey | July 1, 2005, 7:47am | #
I define a civil war as a war between two groups seeking control of the same nation state.
The elected Iraqi government seeks control of Iraq. Most Shia appear to favor Shia majority rule for all of Iraq, and the Shia control the elected government.
The Baathists also seek control of Iraq--a return to power. There appear to be various Iraqi Sunni fundamentalists who also want control of Iraq, though not a return of the Baathists to power. Various organizations of Iraqi Sunni clergy make it clear enough.
There are also some Al Quaeda types who consider this a battle between the U.S. and the Muslim world--presumably part of their plan of rebuilding the Caliphate. But there aren't too many of those.
The various groups of insurgents are fighting the elected Iraqi government. And that is a civil war.
I don't believe that a civil war requires that there be only two sides. There could be five or ten factions all fighting one another. Or there could be multiple factions in coalition. Or some groups fighting other groups while leaving still other groups alone.
Anyway, those who claim that there would be a civil war after the U.S. withdraws should explain what it is that would happen that is so different.
Perhaps more of the Sunni Arabs would join with the insurgents if they were simply fighting the elected government rather than the U.S. This is contrary to what many of them say, but maybe.
Or perhaps the elected government is only seeking Sunni participation because the U.S. is making them. My impression is that they are doing it because Sistani insists and the Shia parties need the votes he can bring. I suspect some of them believe they must give their leading spiritual leader's words some respect if they want to enjoy heaven and avoid hell--along with more mundane political considerations.
Is it that the elected government's forces would commit more atrocities against Sunni Arab civilians, if the U.S. left? Perhaps.
Until just now, I hadn't considered the possibility that this "civil war" talk means that the Sunni factions would become more unified if the U.S. withdraws. Perhaps, but I don't see why.
I, the evil conquer | July 1, 2005, 2:05pm | #
There are two big lessons Vietnam teaches that are relevant to Iraq:
1) Don't fight a war if you don't intend to win. We intended (at first) to win in Korea, but settled for partition. We aimed for partition in Vietnam and lost it all. It's all out or nothing, half measures are stupidity.
2) Don't misunderstand what's happening on the ground with the common people.
Americans have never, even to this day, understood what was going on with the Vietnamese people. I strongly suspect the same is true of Iraq.
Americans don't know why the communist guerillas won against the French. It was because -- only because -- the Viet Minh were fighting the French imperialists. That is the only reason the Viet Minh got any popular support.
The communists
never had popular support in the south. The common people by and large were terrified of the Viet Cong, and hated them.
If we'd knocked the communists out of the North by going for Hanoi when the opportunity was there, the communists would not later have gotten popular support as they had against the French.
Why? Because there would have been a Vietnamese gov't in place. American backed, yes. But the common Vietnamese knew the communists were bad news. They would not have willing given any broad support to communist guerrillas.
And if China had invaded later? Gee, I can't think of anything that would have united the Vietnamese people behind a common cause better than a Chinese invasion.....read the history books.
We misunderstood Vietnam. Odds are very good we're misunderstanding Iraq by the same token. Instead of understanding, we have our own axes to grind.
Should we be in Iraq? Should we have been in Vietnam? Or Korea? It doesn't even matter now. What matters is, "now what?"
Now is the time we have to let them hash it out for themselves. We don't understand Iraq nearly as well as we think we do.
When it's over, then will be the time to say "now, do we really want to get tangled up in these kinds of disasters in the future?" At that time I will be in the front ranks shouting "NO!"
But the time for that is not here yet.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
