Why is the Administration So Desperate to Stay in Iraq?
From the NYT: Comment Stings Iraqi Leader on Eve of Obama Visit
This is the second time that the Bush Administration has pressured the Iraqis to “clarify” what seems to be a pretty clear sentiment. They want us to set a timetable for withdrawal, a timetable that looks an awful lot like that which is being proposed by Senator Obama. Once the Iraqis made their views clear, the matter ought to have been settled, but the Bush Administration does not seem to want to accept it. Why?
The strategic argument is flawed. At this point, there is nothing more to achieve militarily. The Iraqi military is not a particularly effective force, but it is certainly capable enough to deal with the residual threat posed by the remains of al Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgent groups. The Iraqi army is not capable, however, of disarming all the large sectarian militias. But that is a political task and not a military one, and it is in any case not a task that the United States ought to assist in. There is no benefit for the United States in being a kingmaker among domestic Iraqi factions. If we aspire to any role in Iraqi politics, it should be as an honest broker. But the honest broker role is not a military one and does not require military force.
The safety of the troops argument is flawed. Some worry that withdrawing American forces too rapidly will threaten the safety of American troops. It is true that in military operations, redeployments are particularly risky times. But those are cases where there is an opposing force ready to take advantage of it. At this point, our forces are not taking casualties due to the concerted efforts of enemy army, they are taking casualties from opportunistic attacks on roads and mortar attacks on fixed facilities. Our casualties in Iraq are now purely a function of time spend on the ground. The longer we stay, the more casualties, the faster we get out, the fewer. This does not mean by itself that we ought to leave faster of course, but it does suggest that there is no good troop-safety argument for an even slower withdrawal than in being currently proposed.
Ultimately, the case for not setting a timetable has to do with the end goal. The Administration and its allies believe that a long-term American presence in Iraq would stabilize the region and help contain Iranian influence. They don’t want a timetable because they don’t want to leave. Ever. That is a naive position, as it is both politically untenable and strategically vacant. And yet, it is, in fact, the current policy of the United States.
[…] Crossposted from: Why is the Administration So Desperate to Stay in Iraq? […]