The Way Out: First steps.

Republicans talk of political stability in Iraq created by a calmer security environment, which is facilitated by American military presence. Democrats want to force Iraqi political reconciliation by signaling to the Iraqi government that American forces won't be around forever by threatening a withdrawal of troops.

At this point, the basic aim of both parties is to convince Iraqi political parties that it is within their national interest to work together. The thinking goes that once all sides are locked into their positions within the government, the fighting will cease because militia bosses and their political patrons will be content with their place in the pecking order.

This logic fails to accept that the various warring parties do not want to resolve their centuries of religious, political, and ethnic differences, unless their sect is on top. Furthermore, this logic fails to accept that we are no longer in a "war". Instead, we should be simultaneously conducting a long-term police action along with deft diplomatic maneuvering designed to get a foreign government to act in American interests.

Let's then admit that diplomacy should take precedence over security, because political stability is the only condition under which we'll ever leave. And, by definition, diplomacy is using reward and punishment (or, "carrots and sticks" to use diplomatic vernacular) in order to get someone to act in your self interest.

What, then, is the carrot and stick that the US proposes to the Iraqis?

From the Republican perspective, there is neither: The Bush administration is obviously advocating that the sides reconcile, but without tangible motivation to do so either in terms of political or financial reward, without obvious punishment if they don't. No carrot, no stick, no progress.

From the Democrat perspective, at least there's a (proposed) stick: if the sides don't reconcile, they propose we leave. In other words, failure to make political progress will be punished by even greater levels of insecurity. Where is the Democrat carrot? If the Democrats are serious about a different course in Iraq, then there has to be a motivating factor for the Iraqis to work together.

SOLUTIONS:

One guaranteed carrot is exactly the opposite of what the Democrats have proposed: Turn our withdrawal from a stick into a carrot. If the sides take steps to pass legislation, then guarantee that each milestone achieved will be guaranteed to be met by a predetermined withdrawal of troops. It's unquestionable that the political parties' constituents want the US to go home. Make that promise, but attach it to progress.

Here's where the refocused stick comes in: taking the fight to them. Promise complete destruction without progress, and then show them by attaching punishment to lack of progress.

But also, solutions start by talking to the people who matter: the extremist warlords, not the government. Find out what they want, then work on a way to give it to them within an acceptable American framework. Peace in Northern Ireland finally looks like it's about to work because the erstwhile extremists -- Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley -- sat down and agreed to terms to live together. On the other hand, 2000's near Israel-Palestine Camp David Summit failed because Arafat couldn't placate the extremists back home.

Which is Worse?

Well, it's been a great break over the summer, but DeTocque should probably get back in action.
Read this piece in the FT, on Bush's speech regaring the future of the Middle East.

Frankly, and disappointingly, on the finer technical points of the US abandoning Iraq, it's rather hard to completely disagree with this doomsday scenario (though his choice of prose and delivery-style continue to induce fits of wretching):

His point is this: on a macro-level, a US withdrawl would very likely strengthen (nay, do I hear an "embolden"?) the influence of Iran, Syria et al, and could, in theory, lead to a some sort of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Fair enough. You can cobble together his logic from the article. It might be the worse-case, but hey, that's probably where this thing is headed, right?

So, DeTocque submits this, gentle readers:

The Bushies are talking themselves in circles (again). Since 2003, the public has heard, "Okay, even though we didn't technically find WsMD, the world is a better place because Saddam is gone." So, if we begrudgingly accept that the some group will remained threatened or repressed no matter which course on the space-time continuum we take, which is worse -- to leave Saddam in power, free to reign despotically but isolatedly over the Shi'a and Kurds, OR TO PERMIT AN ENTIRE REGION TO GAIN NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

How ironic, then: by trying to rid Iraq of it's WsMD, the Bush administration has given them to the rest of the reigon.

Managing war expectations

Today's news brings us the quarterly report on progress in Iraq... This is a Pentagon-produced, Congressionally-mandated report on the state of the war, and is often considered "propaganda," to use one law-makers phrase of choice. In the past, the report has painted a more glowing picture of the country than the ground truth would dictate.

Why, then, would the report issued today (and covering the last quarter of 2006) finally say, after so much semantic-related wrangling, that Iraq really is in a "civil war", and openly state that the last part of 2006 was the most violent in Iraq since 2003? The change in tone is striking.

The simple answer involves "managing expectations." It would not be too tough to believe that US military commanders (and the adminstration, for that matter), who just launched a controversial "surge" of some 30,000 troops, are hoping to set the bar as low as possible for the end of 2006 (conveniently in the "pre-surge" timeframe). Then, with even the remotest calming in Iraq, or the most modest calming of the situation during the first part of 2007, look for subsequent reports to point to improved conditions.

The Commander-in-Chief can then claim that the surge was the right strategy.

Democats on Iraq...

Are the Democrats opposing the Iraq war in the right way? How much can actually get accomplished by threating to cut off funding, either to US forces in Iraq, or those that are part of the "surge"?

If the Dems continue on their current trajectory, one wonders if they're tap dancing on that political mine field at little too heavily: The $20 in DeTocq's pocket says that there's no incentive to actually cutting cash to forces in the Iraq, because such a nix on appropriations would give the Republicans political cover. Think about it -- the Democrats vote to cut off funding, the US begins to bring forces home, Iraq slides further into all out chaos, and the Republican nominee in 2008 just hammers those vicious Congressional Democrats who killed the administration's plan to finally fix the whole thing.

On the other hand, there's no real effective way to oppose the war other than to cut off funding. The Dems can scream at the top of their lungs about what a misguided, mismanaged debacle this is, but Joe Voter wants to see something tangible from them... Given the country's mood and the type of historical precendent associated with a funding cut in Vietnam (where funds were actually cut to the South Vietnamese, not US soldiers), that probably resonates with people.

So where does that leave us? DeTocq bets on this: Exactly the same place where we were with the infamous "non-binding" resolution of a month or so ago. Dems will get really fired up and create tons of publicity about it, Republicans will pay lip service to opposing the idea, but secretly pray that the vote comes to pass. Then both sides will get embroiled in a drawn out debate on the "rules of the debate" which leads to exactly ZERO legislative action.

Yup, you heard it hear first -- the funding rhetoric just may be just that, rhetoric. Dems love the idea and would probably do it, but they will look for some sort of reason to not actually raise the issue on a technicality and then blame the Republicans, who would love nothing more than to have Democrats pass the bill.

Fun as usual, my friends.

Iraq War Spin Machine, take 367million

When Tony Blair announced that British troops were being pulled out of Iraq, on the surface it would seem like this would be a bad thing for the Bush administration. You would think...

Clearly not the case, however. According to some of your finer White House PR folks, this is apparently a good thing because it means that the security situation is good enough around Basra that the British forces had completed their mission and could return home. Perhaps if we let the British commanders, rather than Tony Snow, address the actual security situation around Basra, we might find a more realistic assessment... It might be quieter than Baghdad, but that's like saying a Rolling Stones show is quieter than The Who's. And we won't get fooled again, oh no.

Digressions aside, there's one aspect of the story that doesn't click in this spin machine, one significant question that remains unanswered:

If Tony Blair is bringing his forces home because the mission is complete, and not because he is trying to avoid a legacy as the lapdog PM who lead his country into its worst foreign policy 'misstep' since Suez (deep breath), then why can't the US ask Blair to redeploy some of his forces to Baghdad and al Anbar where, ahem, they could probably pitch in and help keep things quiet?