I’m not disagreeing with you or Yon Lance. I just think that when Yon says “civil war” he’s not meaning in the classical sense, or at least as it’s understood in the west.

yours/
peter.

If all civil authority were to suddenly abandon Los Angeles—every cop, fireman, judge, building inspector, etc.—criminal gangs would almost immediately start taking over every street and neighborhood they could. Looting would occur. Creators of value able to produce in an orderly civil environment would stop producing and flee. But would anyone call this a civil war? No. A true civil war is between intranational political entities violently battling over a political disagreement.

A civil war may certainly be chaotic, but chaos of it’s own virtue does not make a civil war.

yours/
peter.

I expect the situation to get better when we leave – but more importantly, I expect it to fail to get better while we stay.

I think that was the thinking in 1973-75 as well, was it not? Look what happened there. We had about as much business being in Iraq as we had being in Vietnam. Unfortunately the decisions for intervention were made and it became the responsibility of the American people (pro or anti-war) to take responsibility (or ownership if you prefer the current political jargon) for the mess our government made. That was not done in 1975 and millions of Vietnamese wound up homeless, exiled or dead. I cannot believe that you want the same thing to happen in Iraq and belive me it will if we pull out before the Iraqis are ready to step up and defend themselves from guerrilla fighters, Iranians, and whomever else wants to take power. If we make a commitment to the government of Iraq to support them militarily, economically, etc. post-US withdrawl then we need to honor it, again not like 1975.

The bloodbath is now…

No, that really starts when the US pulls out and either Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia or some combination of the above take an open, active role in Iraq.

Frankly, the starting point for figuring out a negotiation is listening to the demands of the opposing parties.

And, much like Harry Reid, you have again failed to give specifics here. Whom specifically would you like us to be negotiating with for this grand political solution? Also, what terms are we negotiating for? No one advocating the “political solution” seems able to answer these questions.

Also, as regards my miscontruing or manipulating your post, I certainly apologize if that is how my reply came across, however you did opine that there would be violence in Iraq post-US withdrawl and that there is nothing that we can do to prevent that. I’d like to think that we are a little bit more responsible than just allowing bloodbaths to happen (although I acknowledge that we have done diddly regarding the situation in Darfur, I think that the general consensus is that we are overstretched and that Darfur is a matter for the UN and also that Darfur is not a mess we made; Iraq is). Surely we have learned from the Vietnam experience?

The bloodbath is now, Omar, and those who condemn Iraq to it are a) Iraqis and b) very indirectly, and not intentionally – the U.S. counterinsurgency. I expect the situation to get better when we leave – but more importantly, I expect it to fail to get better while we stay.

I’m actually quite surprised glasnost. I thought liberals were all for spreading democracy, not condemning those working towards it to death or exile.

I’m all for spreading democracy, Omar.

Usually not at gunpoint, though.

Why: it doesn’t work. And to the extent it ever does, the collateral damage is often totally unacceptable.

You’ve manipulated and miscontrued my point fairly extensively in that last post. Hopefully this clears it up.

Omar, if you can grant that the Republican’s diplomatic junkets under Clinton were just as unconstitutional and ill-advised…

Absolutely. No argument at all from me there. I also was disgusten when Republicans called Clinton, “Not their President.” And equally disgusted when current leftists say the same about Bush.

Unless a Congressperson is deliberately tasked by the President to visit and negotiate with a foreign leader, they should not take the initiative to do so on their own. That is unconstitutional at best; treasonous at worst.

The thing is, as much as it’s not what we consider Congress to be there for, her trip was fairly routine.

Oh, come on. Routine… hah. Just a coincidence that Syria borders Iraq and Pelosi and others have been saying that Syria and Iran need to be included in negotiations regarding Iraq’s future. Please.

Lance, you’ve got a liberal posting here now? Cheers!

Who would that be? If you mean Joshua, then I am a liberal. The only major thing we disagree about is our continued presence in Iraq, and both of us realize it is a judgment call, not an ideological matter.

Of course, I think Joshua and I are liberals. I consider you not liberal, but a thoughtful leftist. Hopefully you consider us thoughtful, even if you want to expropriate the label liberal from us. Good to have you hanging around. I hope you know I really mean that. I learn when I discuss issues with you. Hopefully, on rare occasions, it is true for you as well.

Omar, Glastnost just pointed out that Pelosi and Reid take flak when they try to enact their own ideas (like negotiations).

Do they? Outside of the right-leaning blogosphere, I’ve yet to see either taken down a notch by major MSM figures.

Do you want them to drive the diplomatic process, or do you want them to obey the Constitution (fulfill it, even) and use their war powers to restrict the Executive?

I believe that they are trying the old shoot everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy. They are engaging in unconstitutional negotiations with foreign leaders and they are trying constituional limiting of the Executive’s war powers. My problem is that Reid and co. spend a great deal of time calling this Bush’s war and attacking the President and General Petraeus the actual commander on the ground. They do not, repeat not, provide any solutions to the situation other than saying that the war is lost militarily and that some ambiguous political solution is necessary. Again I ask, whom does Senator Reid believe we should be negotiating with (specifics, please) and what terms does he want (again, specifis)? Short of definitive answers to both of these questions, I must presume that Reid is simply using political theater to gain some sort of advantage for his party while simultaneously weakening the positions of those who have provided a specific strategy and are now trying to carry it out (the President and General Petraeus). I’m not so much bothered by Reid’s opposition to the current plan as I am by his political posturing and failure to submit an alternative concrete plan. Or, to borrow the rhetoric of endless right-leaning sites, “it’s easy to snipe from the peanut gallery; it’s hard to actually lead and provide plans once you are in power.”

Omar, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can’t formally negotiate with anyone, and would probably be hounded to politcal death if they tried to even informally negotiate.

Try telling them that. Speaker Pelosi’s trip to Syria wasn’t to examine economic opportunities there. It was a direct challenge to Bush, “You negotiate or we will.” Constiution be damned!

Frankly, the starting point for figuring out a negotiation is listening to the demands of the opposing parties.

Whom exactly? Which opposing parties? The Iraqi government? The Baathists? The Iranians? The Syrians? Al-Sadr? Again, no straight answer here.

Also like Gaza, when we leave, those who remain are quite likely to fight among themselves. That’s unavoidable. Another twenty years in Iraq will not prevent it.

So, essentially you have condemned Iraq to a bloodbath for twenty years and, oh well guess the Iraqis who were dumb enough to support the Coalition forces will just have to tough it out right? Do the events of 1975 in SE Asia simply not matter to you?

I’m actually quite surprised glasnost. I thought liberals were all for spreading democracy, not condemning those working towards it to death or exile.

Frankly, the starting point for figuring out a negotiation is listening to the demands of the opposing parties. The core demands of the Baathists that are the real engine of the insurgency are… surprise… a U.S. withdrawal. It’s kind of like the Gaza evac – a negotiated withdrawal would be better than a unilateral one, but either would work. Also like Gaza, when we leave, those who remain are quite likely to fight among themselves. That’s unavoidable. Another twenty years in Iraq will not prevent it.

However, a negotiated withdrawal – which is, basically, the political solution – might tamp the violence down to a minimal level – a lot further than will ever be achieved with ‘the surge’.

Our supposed leaders (Reid, Pelosi, etc.) are quite intent that the situation in Iraq is no longer within the province of the military. They believe that it is no within the sphere of politics and diplomacy. Wonderful. Grand. More power to them. Why the $%^! haven’t they told us how they plan to conduct this diplomacy? Hey, Harry Reid wants to ride in on a white horse and “rescue” America from the Iraq “quagmire,” great I’m behind him. How does he plan on doing this? He has been remarkably quiet about his actual ideas and remarkably loud about President Bush and General Petraeus ideas. Sorry, Harry. When you and Nancy tell us EXACTLY what you are negotiating and with whom, then you get my support (if I like the terms); until then you and your merry band are nothing more than amusing political theater.

But, since you brought him up, wasn’t it Clemenceau who also said that war is too important to be left to the generals? He might have been on to something.

The whole military versus economics versus politics vs. culture or whatever argument gets tiresome. It is as if many people want to prove there is a right way to do everything, some magic bullet. If things were done right the Arab Israeli conflict would end, Rwanda wouldn’t have happened, WWII could have been avoided, yadayadayada. Well there isn’t. Not that those things might not have happened differently, they certainly could. Different things would be wrong afterward, new problems and complexities emerge, different mistakes made.

We often analyze mistakes made by those in power at any one time, and of course know we wouldn’t have made them. Typically though you would have made many of them, no matter how beyond belief stupid they seem now. You would have made different mistakes in addition, many you won’t even be aware of, and if you are, you are likely to misdiagnose what the real problem with the course was.

Worse still, success is a much poorer teacher than we believe. If you are successful your efforts were unnecessary, the problems now attached to your efforts, the inconveniences and even tragedies seem a high price to pay for something that now seems like such a non issue.

Hence my problem with much criticism of Clinton by conservatives. Had he done many of the things which might have avoided 9/11 he would be an object of ridicule now for impinging upon our air travel, increasing domestic surveillance for a supposed threat, the infringement upon our financial privacy. Invade Afghanistan over the prior bombings? A venture that would be treated at this point (do you doubt we would still be there?) with even more contempt than Iraq. Conservatives would be railing against his pretensions of nation building. To their credit many conservatives have admitted that is exactly what they would have done, that 9/11 changed things in their mind. His very success (not that any of these policies would have been wise or chosen) would be used against him. We see the same now, as Bush’s many failures and errors seem clear, the things which would have gone badly and avoided we do not know about.

There is no right way. The politics of Foreign Policy is at best a set of rules of thumb, assumptions about other peoples motives and reactions which can never be determined, and beset with more behavioral biases than any other field I can think of. You mentioned Clemenceau, so I will as well:

“War is a series of catastrophes that results in victory.” — Georges Clemenceau

Okay, a cliche by now.

I would generalize that to all of foreign policy, especially the political aspects however, and suggest what is interesting is not its truth, but why it is true. The things I have touched on above are the main reason. We are always looking back and critiquing, and certainly we should. Our critiques however must take into account that this statements truth is no accident. It is the very atmosphere within which foreign and military policy operates. At best we can incrementally improve, and success, whatever that might be, will come unexpectedly and the result of constant efforts made until success is available, not from brilliant and well executed planning, which pretty much seems to not exist, and probably cannot exist. Great plans are waylaid by our ignorance, and the ignorance is so vast, that their is no evidence being amongst the most knowledgeable gives one any advantage over the truly ignorant. Conversely, truly frightening courses of action have ended up being tremendously successful, see our policy towards Japan in the lead up to WWII.

The collapse of the Soviet Union, the rise of the Bolsheviks in 1917, both nearly unthinkable mere months before they occurred. Yet, the actions of those working for it were important, and up to their success looked as if one were tilting at windmills.

Petraeus’ job is to stay in the game until the opportunity for success presents itself, to provide an environment where it is more likely, not assured. That is unsatisfying to many. They want benchmarks, plans of how this is all supposed to turn out, and if the path isn’t along those lines it is a failure and shows inadequate strategy or planning. Unfortunately nothing in history supports the notion that such a plan can be prepared. The plan is at best an approximation for forward progress, nothing more and can be no more.

He is doing exactly what I believe needs to be done to do that. It is as well planned as it can be given the inherent limitations we as a species possess. It may not even be apparent until afterwards what that turning point was, usually in cases like this that is the way it works. Until then economic, political and military efforts will all have to be applied, and as deftly as we can. There will be set backs, betrayals and misjudgments. There always are and always will be. Ultimately there may come such a deterioration that we are unable to hold things together at all. That will be when failure must be acknowledged in my eyes. I wish him god speed.