I know what you're thinking; a melodramatic title. But what's at stake here is much more urgent and profound than the average quality of discourse on the matter would lead you to believe. An alien from outer space would look at what currently passes for debate about the Iraq war and detect absolutely nothing about the real issues at stake.

Permit me an apologia. I am inevitably read as one who supported this war from the start and will now scramble to do anything to continue to justify it and argue that success is possible. I did support this war from the start, and at this precise moment in time, I do argue for its continuation. But know this: my position is not simple inertia. Had I not possessed a naive faith in the U.S. government's ability to succeed in 2003, I would not have supported this war; my position today is based on what I see now as the consequences of their earlier failures, which we need to confront urgently. Anyone who wants to discuss these consequences needs to be able to refer to what we learnt from our earlier experiences, but also not be too wed to his or her views in 2003, 2004 or 2005. By my frank admission that I was naive and wrong in 2003, 2004 and 2005, I hope you will think seriously about what I have to say now.

This write-up has been occasioned by the release of the White House report on the Iraqi government's progress on benchmarks. The result of this report: eight satisfactory marks, eight unsatisfactory, and two categories not rated. A perfect split, and you would have been foolish to expect anything other. This report was always going to show some good and some bad, and hence was always a terrible indicator of what to do next: as if anyone could reasonably expect the surge to show revolutionary progress in a few short months. Let's just quickly recap all the damage that had been done to Iraq before the Americans even realized what was going on and initiated this new strategy, their first proactive and decisive change of tack.

Saddam Hussein's dictatorship did catastrophic damage to the relations between Sunni and Shi'ite in Iraq and created personal and communal animosities which are well within living memory. Then, the Americans arrived, their leaders convinced that Saddam Hussein was essentially Hitler and they were re-enacting World War II for the MTV generation: the same results with an even cheaper price. The drive to Berlin from Normandy was called Operation Cobra. Guess what the drive to Baghdad was called? Cobra II.

Because Iraq was Germany and Saddam was Hitler, they believed all that was necessary was to get rid of the dictator and the rest would sort itself out, because the only dichotomy that they saw between people in Iraq was the regime (oppresive) and "the Iraqi people" (oppressed). Had these people really been disciplies of Leo Strauss, they might have pondered for a second the close relationship between a regime and the sort of man it feeds off and engenders, and the fact that there is no dictatorship on a countrywide scale without hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of little dictators. Saddam Hussein didn't have a gun to the head of every Iraqi; every Iraqi had a gun, and it was either oriented outward from within the regime, or downward in shame and defeat.

Given this reality, it seemed just about the worst thing one might do was to decapitate the regime and tell everyone to go home, thanks for playing. Because the Iraqis didn't go home to create a magical democratic wonderland, they went home to brood on past injustice and to worry incessantly about the future. It's called a security dilemma: armed groups are constantly insecure about each other's intentions, and they often decide to act first to try and gain the upper hand rather than wait out events and hope that the other group doesn't decide to take the initiative. It's especially operative where groups have already spent decades despising and killing one another.

And what has happened since that glorious day when Saddam was gone? The Iraqis have killed each other in ever increasing numbers, while the Americans largely sat by and watched, afraid that if they interfered they might make themselves even more despised. Let's please abandon this notion of poor, virginal Iraq clamped beneath the corrupting and murderous American jackboot. There has never been more than one American soldier for every ninety Iraqis, and nowadays the figure is more like one for every two hundred. The U.S. military footprint turns out to have been made by a stiletto, not a jackboot; and that's precisely the problem. The Americans aren't directly responsible for the large number of deaths occuring in Iraq every day, the Iraqis are: but the Americans created these conditions and then did nothing to stop the acceleration of the violence. They broke it, and in my moral university that means they ought to do something about fixing it.

Here I'm likely to run into another objection: that the departure of American forces from Iraq will somehow stop the violence, as if death and evil only existed in this world due to the projection of American power. I've got news for you: if you think Iraq is violent now, you wouldn't want to see it after American troops withdrew. Before the surge, armed groups in Baghdad vied to gain advantages against one another which could be exploited when coalition forces withdraw, as they eventually must – one way or another. While the political process is moribund and security is uncertain, armed groups seek these advantages over one another by force. They reason that whoever controls the most of Baghdad when full sovereignty is restored will control the destiny of Iraq; and they conclude correctly. In concrete terms, this would mean the brutal expulsion of the capital's Sunni population to the western part of the country, from where they would proceed to make war against Shia Baghdad.

American forces are, for now, the only available mechanism which stops this process continuing at breakneck speed. The security dilemma will become particularly acute the moment the Americans leave, when there's everything to play for between the sects. There's a reason the Shia militias and death squads don't habitually and constantly target American forces, and it isn't because they want to be best buddies with Uncle Sam for ever and ever. It's because the occupation benefits them by allowing them to be in the best position to realize their goals once American forces eventually leave, which any observer can see is clearly going to happen within the lifetime of the people involved - unless they're so stupid as to get themselves killed by the Americans beforehand, of course.

The reason it's taken so long to make progress in the Sunni Triangle is because the Americans have appeared to be the patrons of the Shia for so long, and only the murderous behavior of al-Qaeda in Iraq has really driven the Sunnis to the Americans in large numbers; it's doubtful they still really trust them, but they can at least hope to attain a relationship with them similar to the Shia. It should be noted that this is an entirely different matter to a genuine healing of the pain and mistrust between the communities themselves, but as I have said, we will not see the true reckoning in this regard until American forces are gone - and I don't see any reason to believe that this latter event happening is going to make Sunni and Shia, ex-Baathist and Sadrist, embrace one another and become paragons of peace, regional stability and moderation. Again, we broke it; leaving won't make it better; what do we do?

I don't know. The surge has led to a decrease in the level of violence and genuine gains in Anbar province and Baghdad. The idea of the surge was that if violence was allowed to decrease for long enough, then the political process might be able to get under way and healing and reconciliation could come about. But if this was going to work, it would clearly require longer than a few months, which brings me back to the clearly premature White House status report. But that report is an indication of the speed at which the wheels of democracy move, and they move especially quickly away from anything which calls upon citizens to make the ultimate sacrifice on an altar made largely of solid uncertainty.

Many people are apt to say that all this considered, the proper thing to do is just to leave, because there's no way that the situation can be resolved. This isn't to mention the horrible consequences that leaving would have for the Iraqi people, as the Americans would then remove the last impediment to massive inter-communal violence, namely themselves. It would also have huge ramifications for regional stability, aid the rise of Iran, and lead to Arab governments and Israel orienting themselves away from the U.S. - not totally, but some. All that stands before this eventuality are the flimsy mechanisms of democracy, the few months that can be snatched here and there from the American political process to try and bring to anything like a satisfactory conclusion what was begun all those years ago.

Yes, you may have opposed the war at the start, and yes, you were right to do so; but countries make mistakes, and when they do they can't just throw it all up in the air and wash their hands of it, because whatever sort of psychological closure you thought that gave you will swiftly seem like a Pyrrhic victory when the consequences come back to get you later. It's an instinct of the old American isolationism to think that just because two great oceans separate you from the events we're discussing, you can dip in and out of them like you do a pool. This idea was discredited - if you'll permit me to employ a cliche, because sometimes they're true - on 9/11, and it's going to be discredited again soon enough.

If I believed that the U.S. was going to abandon Iraq before making a serious, decade-long effort to make things right, then I would advocate withdrawal right now; because there's no point just keeping token forces here and snatching token months there, just like my country is doing in the south now. If this turns out to be what happens, then I will view the American political system with a deep disappointment, a disappointment that has been welling in me for some time now but I keep suppressing with hopes for a better future. The measure of a truly great country is that it sets right what it starts wrongly, and America now stands on the brink of either the highest glory or one of the deepest disgraces. If we predict the future by the usual method of simply extending current trends into the future, things don't look good; and yet world-history is only really made when the unexpected occurs. We stand on the brink of a future which in only a few short years is going to radically redefine a lot of what we think we know about American power, the Middle East, and American politics. I sincerely hope there are some pleasant surprises.

The Iraq situation is as complex as the wreckage after a car-bomb, but this does not mean that the issues need to be obfuscated.

The moral imperative of "you broke it, you fix it" can be answered with more clichés, to wit: "if you are in a hole, stop digging", and "Don't throw good money after bad", or from Dr. Einstein "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." So when the invaders rolled in, Iraq was cracked open, and sending more of them in will fix it?

Who gained from the Iraq war? The neoconservative school of thought in the U.S.A. hoped to, but their ideology, as much as they had one beyond greed and short-sighted and narrow self-interest, is fast being discredited and fading. Private security firms such as Blackwater have been given lots of money (over $800 million to Blackwater 3), defence contractors are profiting immensely 5. And George W. Bush is enjoying his full eight years in office as President.

Worst-case scenarios have appeared that were not even thinkable a few years ago – a broader middle-eastern war stretching from Iraq to Afghanistan, even spilling into Israel and Pakistan, seems possible now.

"There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible," the official said. "Meanwhile, the politicians are saying: 'You can't do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we're only one fact away from going over the cliff in Iraq'." 1

The US has no clear goals, no achievable victory conditions, no objection to leaving except that doing so would force them to admit that they can gain nothing there that bears any relation to the original stated goals. All the "surge" can gain is a few more months of political life, and a patriotic cheer for "bringing the boys back home" when the troop levels subside back to previous levels.

Iraq would be bloody if the Americans pull out? Iraq is bloody now. Make a new democratic state? That would be nice, but is it getting any closer?

US costs are running at a reported half a million dollars every minute 2, and they get nothing from the money except ongoing dead soldiers, and corrosive moral hazards. See Abu Ghraib, Blackwater shootings3, Missing billions in cash4, etc.5

This is the "minute to midnight" that we face: That the west's moral compass, already swinging wildly, will be irreparably damaged by the confluence of greed and violence, fear and power. That the west's citizen's already distrustful and apathetic of government, will give up on the self-serving two-party oligarchies altogether, as elections become nothing more than a naked change of kleptocrats. That the press, already sacrificing freedom for security, will further abdicate into government mouthpieces. That the Wars on abstract Nouns and resource-rich Third World Countries, the surveillance and crackdowns will become a permanent fixture "for our security". That torture, arbitrary detention, presumption of guilt and extraordinary rendition will become permanent features of our state apparatus. That the next president of the USA will "double Guantanamo".6

That so many opportunities to make the world better will be passed up because this staggeringly expensive venture, which benefits at best a hidden few, needs to be propped up. That it will become a war for what's left of the oil. We're nearly there.

1) "a former intelligence official " quoted in http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,22510540-401,00.html?from=public_rss

2) Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102074_pf.html

3) Private Security Puts Diplomats, Military at Odds: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092502675_pf.html
The dark truth about Blackwater: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/02/blackwater/

4) Naomi Klein asks Alan Greenspan about those missing billions in Iraq: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/25/democracy-now-naomi-klein-asks-alan-greenspan-about-those-missing-billions-in-iraq/

5) The People vs. the Profiteers: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/halliburton200711?currentPage=1

6) Mit Romney, Republican Party presidential candidate, during a televised debate between Republican candidates in May 2007, said "Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is we ought to double Guantanamo.". The suggestion was received to loud applause.

Thanks to BlackPawn, Gorgonzola, Kizor for proofreading.

First it was the threat of weapons of mass destruction, but the current raison de guerre is that we deposed Saddam Hussein to bring democracy to Iraq. Which succeeded — or, at least, a vote was held and people voted and got a purple thumb and then everyone went back to having a big ol' civil war. Let's hold another vote. I propose that this ballot will have a single question on it: Should the foreign troops leave within 1 year? 1 year is a nice round number, and it allows for an orderly goodbye. If they say yes, then we train people if they want the training, accept refugees if they want to come and be US citizens, and we leave in a year. We can even split hairs on whether it should be a year of the Islamic calendar or a year on the Gregorian calendar, but that ends up being a pretty small difference. That's democracy: people vote for something, and then the government does that thing (modulo various checks and balances).

By all accounts and all polls, this ballot measure would end up with more than 70% of the Iraqi population voting us out of their country.1 Why are we staying in a country that does not want us inside of it? We ``brought democracy'', and if they aren't free to vote us away on their own terms, it starts being colonialism and empire-building. (Sidenote: If we do stay, what is the end condition? Will we stay in Iraq until ``terror'' surrenders and we finally win the war?)

We may have broken it, but we do not own it. Iraqis own it. It is, after all, their country that we broke. Let's find out what they want us to do and then do that.

  1. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg1
I feel as though the air in Iraq sizzles with electricity. There's something about peering down the narrow, dirty streets.

The people huddle around the streets. They turn their heads and look at me and I see dark, empty, soulless eyes. Everything thing it seems that they partake in as a people is hell bent on self destruction.

I wonder how much blood the sand has swallowed into the cold ground.

And then every once in a while you meet them. The human beings. It helps to reaffirm my faith. It gives me hope in humanity. At least, here, in the middle east. Then I think about it... Well no, but perhaps in Iraq. It's the people with life in their eyes. The hunters, not the hunted. It's survival of the fittest, and the fittest are tough sons of bitches.

That is, until the other hunters catch their scent. Then they are prey. Ripe for slaughter. Torture. Execution. They kidnap them, and hold them for ransom. When the debt is paid they let them go.. But wire their vehicles with explosives and remote detonate them in crowds or checkpoints. They kidnap them and bound them before slaugthering them in creative ways. Like little blocks of explosives in their shirt pockets. Or maybe a stabbing in the stomach.. Or simply lining them up and shooting them. But if they have time, if they are not in a hurry, then they'll whip up a dish of Mohammed's favorite.

Beheadings. Perhaps with a long bowie knife. But if the blade isn't sharp enough then the man is stuck sawing at his victim's head. And that just isn't good television. Especially when you are filming it. But if shock value is what you're after, then there is plenty of gargling and gasping from the exposed throat.

Then they bury their bodies outside of mosques because they know we don't like to go there, tends to stir up a ruckus, something about them being "holy" sites.

As a person capable of empathy, there's no fucking way I'd ever say we ought to leave this up to them. They can't take care of themselves. They take no accountability, they use no rhyme or reason. Maybe I'm not being fair though, I mean there's plenty of other state-sponsored fighters from other countries in the region here stirring up trouble. There's no way they can fix themselves. Holy shit.

Sometimes I'm prone to speaking out of sheer emotion, as I'm sure people can attest. But, my original thoughts on this matter are still the same. The Iraqis are not a united mass of people with a common goal. Every official is on the take, either on a militia payroll or a commander of their forces, or at best, an enabler. Everyone hedges their bets so that when the Amerikees leave they will be able to leverage things in their favor. To leave this level of responsibility in their eager, grasping fingers is a terrible idea. And with recent events showing the intent of other countries in the region I find it impossible to cope with the idea of "immediate redeployment".

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.