What Happens After We Leave? Posted by Michael Cohen

Michael Gordon has an important article in yesterday's New York Times that examines the "parallel universe" between what is being said on the campaign trail about Iraq and what is actually happening in that country.

The American officers I met were hardly of one mind on how to proceed in Iraq, but they were grappling with decisions on how to try to stabilize a traumatized country with a hard-headed sense that although there have been significant gains, a long and difficult job still lies ahead — a core assumption that has frequently been missing on the campaign trail.

The politicians, on the other hand, seemed more intent on addressing public impatience with an open-ended commitment in Iraq, either by promising prompt withdrawal (the Democrats) or by suggesting that victory may be near (the Republicans.)

. . . In the meantime, some senior officers seem utterly puzzled by the debate at home. “The one thing that befuddles is I have not heard any candidate describe what their short and long term goals are for Iraq, how it fits into their regional goals for the Middle East and transnational terrorism,” said the American officer. “Is their goal just to withdraw troops as fast as possible?”

In Gordon's piece lies an important critique of the Democratic position on Iraq. Democrats are clear about wanting to bring the troops home from Iraq, but none of them are particularly clear on what America should do after we leave. (I won't even get into what Republican candidates are saying about Iraq because it is, in general, so unhinged from reality and so vacuously presented that to do so would be the blogging equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel).

I mention this article in part because Glenn Greenwald, who for many is a voice for the progressive left, has written an 1800-word screed trashing the allegedly "pro-war" Gordon.  because,  According to Greenwald, Gordon is arguing "that the Only Serious Option is to remain in Iraq for a long, long time, and any politicians who refuses to accept this is being -- for that reason alone -- irresponsible and Unserious." I've long given up trying to understand the peculiar psychology behind Glenn Greenwald's incessant and occasionally unhinged attacks on the "serious foreign policy community," but this analysis is not only wrong, it's quite misleading.

Whether Greenwald wants to admit or not, Gordon's raises "serious" issues about American engagement in Iraq that not only progressives, but Americans of all political stripes, have been far too reluctant to address. (Until recently, I would have included myself in this analysis).

While I have been an adamant supporter of withdraw for some time I cannot escape the notion that the manner in which Democratic candidates are discussing the war is leaving out an important part of the equation: the aftermath.

For example, consider Hillary Clinton's plan for dealing with withdraw: Among other things she would, "support the appointment of a high level U.N. representative -- similar to those appointed in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo -- to help broker peace among the parties in Iraq" and "convince Iraq's neighbors to refrain from getting involved in the civil war." Good luck with all that. That's not a plan; that's wishful thinking.

Obama's plan isn't much better, but at least he appears to be contemplating the notion that the US might have to send troops back into Iraq if civil war breaks out. In general, however, it's hardly surprising that both candidates would want to avoid these tough questions.

For example, if we leave Iraq what happens to counterinsurgency efforts, which have largely been dependent on American arms and which have, at least in the short term, brought some success in stabilizing the country? What if the threat of American departure does not lead the Maliki government to move forward with real political reforms as all the Democratic candidates for President claim it will? If Iraq devolves into an orgy of sectarian violence what are America's responsibilities to stop the killing? Does America have a duty to stay in Iraq and protect Iraqi civilians? Are Americans willing to accept the fact that our departure from Iraq may further destabilize not only Iraq but also the entire Middle East?

These are not easy questions and I don't have the answers for them. Like many I wrestle with my extraordinary desire to see American troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, as well as my fear that if we leave Iraq prematurely we are consigning the Iraqi people to a terrible and bloody fate - one that we as Americans unfortunately must bear responsibility (even for those of us who adamantly opposed this war).

The left has been pounding the drumbeats of withdraw for quite some time and today most Americans seem to share their view.  But I wonder if most Americans would support withdraw if they knew it would lead to widespread sectarian violence? I suppose it is quite possible that like Vietnam we will decide that we are willing to concede defeat in Iraq; that we are willing to sit by and do nothing if Iraq falls apart. But that is a discussion we should be having as a country. Unfortunately, if Greenwald's missive is any indication, it's not a debate that many progressives seem willing to even engage in.

Indeed, Greenwald recklessly derides anyone who disagrees with immediate withdrawal from Iraq as "pro-war," whether it's Gordon or fellow NYT reporter John Burns (both of whom have no doubt spent far more time in Iraq then Mr. Greenwald) or Anthony Cordesman and Andrew Krepenivich, two men who can only laughably be considered "pro-war" and who have both thoughtfully considered and debated many of the questions that Gordon raises in his piece. Instead Greenwald prefers to cite Pat Buchanan for support -- a figure who has nothing but contempt for many of the beliefs that progressives hold dear -- simply because he bolsters Greenwald's own conspiratorial views about "American imperialism." Mr. Greenwald casts the desire to stay in Iraq as part and parcel of a larger US foreign policy attitude that the world is "our playground to run and control through military force."   But does he truly believe that American has no responsibility to the Iraqi people? Is he fully comfortable with the possibility that our departure my lead to terrible violence and regional instability? That doesn't seem very progressive to me.

The fact is, just because America may one day choose to withdraw from Iraq (and let's hope that day is sooner rather than later) it does not mean that we can simply wash our hands of the problems there. Even in Andrew Bacevich's brilliant takedown of surge proponents he seems to stop short of calling for immediate withdrawal, noting instead that we should "cut our losses and deal with the consequences of failure."

Dealing with the consequences of failure is undoubtedly America's best course of action
vis-a-vis Iraq. This will involve a serious debate by politicians from both sides of the political fence. It is unfortunate that Republicans have, rather than engaging on this question, used the war as a political tool for attacking Democrats. But progressives are no better if they play on the American people's desire for withdrawal from Iraq while ignoring the difficult questions that such a step could raise.

UPDATE: This post has been edited to correct some grammatical errors and eliminate repetition.

Comments

Apart from being badly written, this post expresses a view more consistent with John McCain's than with that of any other current Presidential candidate, at least as far as the future of Iraq is concerned.

It presumes n