Who's the Toughest?

Ann Althouse says:

Obama, I suspect, is simply weak on national security (which is why he was against the war all along).

This idea that Bush/Republicans are strong on national security is very strange. 9/11 happened on their watch, and almost 6 years later we still haven't gotten the guy who orchestrated it and Al Qaeda is as strong as ever. How exactly is that strong? As for Obama being weak, here's what he had to say recently: "It is time to end this war so that we can redeploy our forces to focus on the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and all those who plan to do us harm." To me, that sounds stronger than what we're doing now.

Do the Iraqis Want us There?

Sen. McConnell throws down the gauntlet:

Citing media reports, McConnell said some lawmakers in Iraq's parliament wanted a vote to ask the United States to leave.

"I want to assure you, if they vote to ask us to leave, we'll be glad to comply with their request," he said.

That's a bold statement. If the Iraqis actually do vote that way, are the Congressional Republicans ready to back him up?

He also says:

"What we are all discovering, however, it's very difficult to set up a functioning government in places like Iraq and Afghanistan."

Quite a discovery. Of course, quite a few people knew that before the invasions.

More on a Multinational Force for Iraq

Niall Ferguson argues that to pull all troops out of Iraq (as Barack Obama has proposed) would be irresponsible, as the the country (and region) would likely fall further into civil war. He may be right about that result, I fear. But is continuing the status quo the only option? It seems to me that it might be better to change the makeup of the occupying forces (as I argued here). A U.S. military presence will always stir up Islamic militants. The solution may be to pull our troops out, then organize a multinational force which includes significant numbers of troops from the region (OK, not Israeli troops, but all the rest).

Emboldening Terrorists

John Yoo argues: "If we falter now, it would be read as a "defeat" and embolden more terrorist attacks on us." It seems to me what was really emboldening was the Iraq invasion. It's now clear that if you attack America we'll get distracted and go after someone else.

"Wasting" of Military Lives

Michelle Malkin criticizes Obama for saying this:

OBAMA: We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged and to which we have now spent $400 billion and has seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.

She says that Obama argued that "each and every member of the military who volunteered to serve and died in Iraq wasted his/her life."

I think she's mis-characterizing his statement, though. He's not arguing that they wasted their lives by joining the military. He's arguing that Bush wasted their lives by sending them to Iraq.

What To Do About Iraq?

Many Democrats (and some Republicans) are calling for pulling out U.S. troops from Iraq. But the obvious question then arises: Can we really just leave and risk the civil war (if it is that) getting worse?

I'm very surprised that I haven't heard more support for the following idea for dealing with the aftermath of a pull out: Having an international coalition of troops step in. Sure, it would be hard to generate support, but I don't think it would necessarily be impossible. If the next U.S. President would stand up and say, "We made a mistake in invading Iraq, and now we need the world's help to mitigate the damage," it might be possible. No one wants to see the Iraq turmoil get worse and spread. This could be a way to prevent that.

The other alternative, of course, is to stay there for the indefinite future, incurring more casualties and watching the violence get worse.

Suggestions for Iraq

Glenn Reynolds asks for suggestions for things we could do to make the Iraq situation better. Here's mine: Do something selfless. Here's what I mean. Deserved or not, the U.S. has a really bad image in the Middle East in general, and among many Iraqis in particular. This is part of the reason for the violence there. I think we can improve our image by doing something that cannot be written off by skeptics as self-serving.

One proposal in this vein is a global mini-Marshall plan, to give lots of money for infrastructure improvements like building hospitals and schools, for training doctors, nurses and teachers, etc. Ah, some might say, we are already doing that, and they still hate us. The problem is, the way we are currently doing it is often through contracts with U.S. companies. That might be the most efficient way of doing things in terms of getting results, but it allows the critics to argue that the point of the war was to help companies like Halliburton make a profit. So instead, I propose that the U.S. government, together with other governments, offer some fairly large amounts of money to fund projects to be carried out by Iraqi companies. (If it's too hard to find Iraqi companies that can do it, then we can allow them to partner with other companies in neighboring countries.) Now, the projects can't be things these companies are unqualified to do. Obviously, we don't want to just throw money down the drain. Rather, I want to find actual useful projects that they are capable of taking on. The key, though, is to keep all the benefits going to Iraqis (or, on occasion, other companies in the region, if necessary).

I hope for two results from all of this. First, an improvement in the U.S. image in the Middle East. And second, an economic boost for the Iraqi economy, which could help change some people's minds about the U.S. efforts there.

What do the Iraqis Want?

A recent poll suggests that:

Most Shia Arabs living in Baghdad have shifted in recent months from preferring the open-ended deployment of foreign troops in Iraq to wanting a one-year timetable for withdrawal. Nonetheless, a growing majority of Shias in the conflict-ridden capital say that if U.S.-led forces leave within six months there could be an upsurge in inter-ethnic violence.

So, there are two points here: (1) Shia Arabs in Baghdad want the U.S. out pretty soon, and (2) they worry at the same time that this could lead to more violence. Shias outside of Iraq agreed on the first, but were more likely to think that violence would decline if the U.S. left.

I think there's a good argument that U.S. troops are a big cause of the current violence. It is risky, though, to pull out in order to test that hypothesis.

Obama's Plan for Iraq

Barrack Obama has some thoughts on what to do in Iraq:

Obama envisioned a flexible timetable for withdrawal linked to conditions on the ground in Iraq and based on the advice of U.S. commanders. He also called for intensified efforts to train Iraqi security forces, U.S. aid packages tied to Iraqi progress in reducing sectarian violence and new diplomacy with Syria and Iran.

...

He proposed redeploying troops to Northern Iraq and to other countries in the region. He recommended boosting troop strength in Afghanistan, "where our lack of focus and commitment of resources has led to an increasing deterioration of the security situation there."

"For only through this phase redeployment can we send a clear message to the Iraqi factions that the United States is not going to hold together this country indefinitely — that it will be up to them to form a viable government that can effectively run and secure Iraq," he said.

Obama rejected proposals to add more troops to Iraq, an idea advanced by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., saying that without Iraqi cooperation "we would only be putting more of our soldiers in the crossfire of a civil war."

Well, it's a start. Training, aid packages, talks with neighboring countries. All of these could help.

Iraq: These are Not Plans

"A Pentagon review of Iraq has come up with three options — injecting more troops into Iraq, shrinking the force but staying longer or pulling out ... ."

OK, I suppose those are three things that could be done. But I don't think any of those really qualifies as a "plan" to deal with current crisis.

The Future of Iraq

My last post suggested a need for a strategy in Iraq. Here's what Henry Kissinger has to offer:

Kissinger ... called for an international conference bringing together the permanent members of the United Nations' Security Council, Iraq's neighbors — including Iran — and regional powers like India and Pakistan to work out a way forward for the region.

I think that's probably a good start.

I was struck by his general pessimism about a "victory":

If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible.

I'm not quite as skeptical as he is perhaps, but that kind of "victory" is not looking likely right now.

Troops in Iraq: More, Less or the Same?

John McCain wants more troops in Iraq, whereas the Dems want less.

There seems to be three dominant plans for Iraq right now:

1. Pull out quickly and hope everyone stops shooting at each other. (The Dems)

2. Keep troop levels the same and hope the Iraqis stop shooting at each other and us. (The Bush Team)

3. Send in more troops and hope the Iraqis stop shooting at each other and us. (McCain and others)

To me, all three of these plans lack what I would call a, for lack of a better word, strategy. They're just kind of hoping for the best. But isn't there something beyond these "hope" plans? Partition, maybe? Try to get more military support from others in the region? Isn't there something to discuss? I'm definitely curious to see what would happen if we decreased or increased the troop levels. But I have no great hope that this will solve the problem of large numbers of (armed) Iraqis who hate the current Iraqi government and each other.