The Iraqi Insurgency

Von at Obsidian Wings criticizes Kerry for arguing that we need a specific timeline for pulling out of Iraq.  He gives the usual argument that any timeline will encourage the insurgents to simply wait us out.  Now, a case can be made that he has misinterpreted Kerry's comments; taking the whole speech in context, Kerry could easily be interpreted as saying that we need to be more specific about our goals, in order to evaluate whether we're achieving them and in order to better determine how to improve our progress.

But I think an argument can be made for a specific timeline.  Most Iraqis want us out of Iraq, the sooner the better.  The insurgency is a fairly loosely organized affair, mostly obsessed with booting us out.  There seems rather good reason to think that if we had a specific timeline for pulling out, one of the major effects of that timeline would be to undercut recruiting for the insurgency.  The less we appear to be an occupying power trying to steal their oil, the less resentment we generate, and specific plans for pulling out in the not too distant future clearly make us look less imperialistic.

Similarly, an American pull-out would increase the legitimacy of the current Iraqi government.  Combine a strengthening of the government with a weakening of the insurgency, and there is reason to think a fairly rapid withdrawal would in fact be the best possible thing for Iraqi stability.

I think what we should in fact have done is to hold elections much sooner after the invasion, and left rather soon after the elections.  I have heard that this is what General Garner recommended at the time.  The problem with that plan is that the Republicans, for all their appearance of unity, had diverse goals in Iraq.  Some just wanted to get Hussein.  Some wanted to show off how powerful our military is.  Both of those goals would have been served by the quick election and withdrawal approach.  However, some wanted to create a model democracy in Iraq, and elections in a country with no democratic traditions are inevitably going to produce something far short of the desired model, so many members of the model democracy crowd felt an irresistable urge to stay around and meddle, in hopes of shaping the democracy into something more to their liking.  I sympathize with the model democracy crowd, but external shaping never helps things; leaving Iraq an imperfect democracy and hoping it would improve over time would probably have been the best way to pursue that objective.

Still others wanted to turn Iraq into a model of American economic policy.  That would certainly require long-term meddling; no rapidly constructed elected government could be expected to produce the kind of economic reforms the right-wing economic idealists wanted.  And, last but certainly not least, largely allied with the economic idealists are the war-profiteers, who wanted Iraq to be as open as possible to American business.  Again, a more or less democratically elected government, if it were given real power, could be pretty confidently expected not to give that crowd everything they wanted.

Thus, I think the relatively incoherent policy the Republican administration has been pursuing in Iraq has been a result of their inconsistent objectives.  It's clear that the economic objectives have been most influential in determining policy, but the other objectives have also had some influence.  However, none of our goals are served by an insurgent victory, and I hope everyone agrees that long-term occupation is not in the interests of America either.  I maintain that at present, the primary effect of extending the occupation is to increase the perception that the Iraqi government is an American puppet, and so that as far as American interests are concerned, a rapid withdrawal is by far the most desirable strategy, and for the reasons given at the outset, we should not only begin planning such a withdrawal, but publicize the timetable we intend to follow, just as Senator Kerry has recommended.

Comments

[Stirling Newberry]

The call for a time table is, indeed, misguided, because it will, indeed, lead to more not fewer, US deaths. The insurgents will know forces are leaving, and therefore cannot strike back as effectively, and that their targets will be exposed in withdrawal.

In war, retreat is often the most dangerous option, and the most vulnerable moment. In many battles, more than half of the dead and wounded came during the retreat.

[Protagoras]

Certainly you are historically correct about retreats in battle. Withdrawing from a territory in warfare is not the same from retreating from a battle, however, and even apart from it just not being a battle, the situation in Iraq is in many other ways quite different from traditional battle.