Time to Quit Iraq (Sort Of)

[SHRED]

August 18, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

Time to Quit Iraq (Sort Of)

By EDWARD LUTTWAK

Chevy Chase, Md. — Many Americans now believe that the United States is depleting its military strength, diplomatic leverage and Treasury to pursue unrealistic aims in Iraq. They are right. Democracy seems to interest few Iraqis, given the widespread Shiite proclivity to follow unelected clerics, the Sunni rejection of the principle of majority rule, and the preference of many Kurds for tribe and clan over elected governments. Reconstruction was supposed to advance rapidly with surging oil export revenues, but is hardly gaining on the continuing destruction inflicted by sabotage and thievery. And in any case, it is unlikely that the new Iraqi interim government will be able to oversee meaningful elections in a country where its authority is more widely denied than recognized.

Yet few Americans are prepared to simply abandon Iraq. For one, they are rightly concerned that to do so would be a mortal blow to America's global credibility and encourage violent Islamists everywhere. An outright withdrawal would leave the interim government and its feeble forces of doubtful loyalty to face the attacks of vastly emboldened Baath regime loyalists, Sunni revanchists, local and foreign Islamist extremists and the ever-more numerous Shiite militias. The likely result would be the defection of the government's army, police and national guard members, followed by a swift collapse and then civil war. Worse might follow in the Middle East - it usually does - even to the point of invasions by Iran, Turkey and possibly others, initiating new cycles of repression and violence.

Thus the likely consequences of an American abandonment are so bleak that few Americans are even willing to contemplate it. This is a mistake: it is precisely because unpredictable mayhem is so predictable that the United States might be able to disengage from Iraq at little cost, or even perhaps advantageously.

Here's why: In Iraq America faces several different enemies, as well as some remarkably unhelpful nominal allies. As things stand, their intense mutual hostility now brings no advantage to the United States. But all could be unbalanced by a well-devised policy of disengagement, and forced to stop harming American interests and possibly even serve them in some degree.

<SNIP>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/18/opinion/18luttwak.html?th

[bemildred]

1. More Orwellian bullshit from the NYT.

His basic argument is that we should threaten to take our
baseball and go home. This is ludicurous, a credible threat
must be something the threatenee is afraid of.

I will not even address the repetitious and disingenuous cant
about "what Americans want" and the snippy "you'll be sorry" tone.

[Larkspur]

2. It never occurred to this guy that if we had treated the Iraqis as human

beings after we booted out Saddam and immediately helped out the local Iraqis with economic help and provide security to the poorest neighborhoods, that this insurgency would have been nipped in the bud.

But no, our Pirates on the Potomac saw Iraq as a great place to loot, that is to experiment with privatization policies that they can't quite convince Americans to accept.

We lost the greatest opportunity to win the hearts and minds of local Iraqis right after we took control of the country. It was very obvious that we didn't care about the people's welfare when we protected the Oil Ministry and allowed looters to ransack Iraq's native treasures.

The United States and our puppet Iraqi exile-stocked interim government are Saddam version 2.0 in the eyes of the local Iraqis.

[PATRICK]

3. The real story

While Bush continues to endlessly screw up his bloody dream we can only wait to see what exactly the mess will be when Kerry actually has a chance to do ANYTHING about the doomed legacy.

This is very bad stock tragedy we are simply allowing Bush to blunder through. That this is an immediate national crisis that CAN be addressed now does not even occur to the national conscience gatekeepers.

Gee, maybe the little weasel can pull it off for the good old USA, the NYT ponders. All this reasoned involvement with the ME situation is facetious as it is inconsequential. The NYT is a hapless, gutless spectator musing over Bush's disasters as if they are genuine, legitimate or possible issues.