A Middle Way on Iraq Posted by Shawn Brimley

I commend Michael Cohen for his recent post on Iraq.  I find the characterization many make to any proposal short of rather rapid withdrawal as simply the ramblings of “very serious people” to be short-sighted in the extreme.

We absolutely have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people.  We invaded their country, destroyed much of their infrastructure, and spent several disastrous years stumbling around making things worse.  Does this obligation require us to stay forever?  Absolutely not, but it does require that we be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in.

The “surge” was not a success – there is no evidence I have seen that the political deals essential to preserve a semblance of sustainable security have or will be made anytime soon.  The recent de’Baathification law looks like the legislative equivalent of Swiss Cheese, and I certainly don’t think it is evidence of real political progress. What the Kagan/Keane/O’Hanlon position gets wrong in my view is the notion that if we just commit to sticking around long enough, the political actors in Iraq will at some point work out their differences enough to maintain a level of security which would allow America to withdraw most if not all of its troops.  The assumption is that all the ingredients are there – we just need to stick around long enough for the solution to bake itself.  Of course, it’s possible this would occur at some point in the near or far future, but hope is not a plan - certainly not worthy of the sacrifice demanded of the troops we put in harm’s way, and certainly not worthy of the added risk we incur to our other national interests. 

However, I think many Democrats swing too far in the other direction.  Their assumption is that our presence either makes things worse, or makes no material difference other than to simply prolong or delay the inevitable civil war.  Pulling out quickly (which I define as 1 or 2 brigades a month until “all combat troops” are out) is libel not only to simply erase the real security gains that have been made (some surge related and some not), but would threaten to upset the precarious nature of Iraqi politics even further, and dramatically accelerate the centrifugal sectarian tensions back to - or worse than - 2006/2007 levels.

Both these positions – “all in” or “all out” – surrender any bargaining leverage the United States has in Iraq.  It is unconscionable to me that the Bush administration has absolutely refused to use the very real leverage we have in Iraq toward pushing through some meaningful progress on the political front.  Even a cursory read of the draft “Statement of Principles” (the precursor to the ongoing status of forces agreement that the White House is pursuing) reveals that the Iraqi government desires continued economic, diplomatic, and security assistance – especially continued support of the ISF and a protection against external aggression.  This provides us with real leverage that we need should have started using many months ago. The Kagan/Keane/O’Hanlon position is all carrots, the “all out now” position is all sticks – a middle way that attempts to use both is long overdue.

The time to try such a plan is now, precisely when American leverage is high.  Senator Obama’s position in this regard is perhaps the most detailed. In his Foreign Affairs article he stated: 

“The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces…”

“This redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets the security, political, and economic benchmarks to which it has committed. But we must recognize that, in the end, only Iraqi leaders can bring real peace and stability to their country.”

Senator Clinton has articulated very similar positions in recent months.  In January on Meet the Press, the Senator stated:

“… you know, from my perspective, part of the reason that the Iraqis are doing anything is because they see this election happening and they know they don't have much time, that the blank check that George Bush gave them is about to be torn up.”

“The point of the surge was to push the Iraqi government to make these tough choices… The point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side. It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.”

Both of the leading Democratic candidates for President understand the importance of trying to create leverage derived from a willingness to tie the size and pace of an American withdrawal to political progress in Iraq. 

My best guess is that if a Democrat wins in November, he or she will begin to withdraw enough troops to accomplish two immediate goals. First, to reduce our military presence to a point that is militarily sustainable.  Second, to demonstrate to the Iraqi actors that we will not be around forever, but are willing to stay to provide the types of assistance they want as long as they make real political progress. 

It is impossible to tell whether using the size and disposition of our forces will succeed, but the “all in” position provides no incentives for Iraqi actors, and the “all out” position is, in my view, a premature gamb