The year was 1965

From today's NY Times:

Johnson’s advisers put it to him straight: Saigon was going to lose, Hanoi was going to win, and there wasn’t much time to waste. The choice was clear: lose the war or expand the war, find a formula of words to mask failure or send more troops and increase the bet on the table. Johnson chose to expand the war.

Today the choice facing Washington is not quite as stark as the one that confronted Lyndon Johnson in 1965, but it is close. Mr. Gates has spent the last nine months working as a member of the Iraq Study Group, whose much awaited recommendations will be revealed next Wednesday. Getting out is the simplest remedy, but no one wants to shoulder the blame for what follows. Staying the course has already been rejected by the president. That leaves only some kind of altered or renewed effort to postpone the day of reckoning.

It is clearly an understatement to say that the situation in Iraq seems to have spiraled out of control.  Depending on what analysts you listen to, there are no less than four conflicts going on simultaneously: (1) The insurgency focused on toppling the current holographic government and pushing the United States out (2) The civil "sectarian" violence between the Shia and Sunnis militias(3) The supposed Al Queda inspired terrorists targeting the Shia and defending the Sunnis (4) A general lawlessness that cultural fascist Tom Friedman has called a "Hobbesian Jungle."

Whatever the specifics, the truth is that the United States toppled an authoritarian, but somewhat functional government and, in a little over three years, created the conditions for civil chaos.  Until recently, I have been of the opinion that if the United States pulled out things would slowly improve.  But I am not an expert in military matters, nor in nation building or economic development.  And I am not cyncial enough (yet) to believe that the administration wanted this outcome. 

So, at this very moment, assuming the best of intentions, does the United States have an obligation to try to create enough stability so that Iraqis can attempt to rebuild their country?  Or disband it peacefully, if that is what they prefer?  It seems to me, since the United States created the conditions for the current situation, it has a duty to do whatever it can to rectify it.  Perhaps I am naive to think there is anything at this point anyone can do.  But as I was listening to the pundits last night, the alternatives being discussed are all reducible to slogans: "Go Big, Go Long, or Go Home."  Which brings us back to the alternatives that were faced in Vietnam:  either leave as quickly as possible or kill as many Iraqis as possible, in order to "save them from themselves."  These options - if you can call them options - do not really provide for the possibility of meeting the obligation. But perhaps abandonment is all that is left?

Comments

[jcd]

But perhaps abandonment is all that is left?

You know, maybe if the US completely vacated Iraq, stopped providing aid to this or that tyrant hopeful, etc., abandonment would work, the crisis would neutralize itself, and some sort of stasis would set in. But I think it is naive to think that the US (by "the US," I mean, elite interests which have made a killing off of this war) will actually abandon Iraq. Even if the troops were pulled out, funding and arms would still go to sectors whom the US believe will suit their interests. This is the way the game is played.

Anyway, obligation is a nice idea. But considering the history of US foreign excursions -- including the history of this one -- I'd say the only imaginable obligation of the US, and here, I mean the conscientious citizens who are concerned about the actions of their Betters, is work to get itself out of Iraq and stop engaging in policies that engender structural violence (eg, supporting the Saudis, don't move against Iran, etc). Not that that can or will happen.

[daniel]

"It seems to me, since the United States created the conditions for the current situation, it has a duty to do whatever it can to rectify it."

It seems to me that there is absolutely nothing that the United States can now do to rectify the situation in Iraq, short, perhaps, of bringing back Saddam.

[Alain]

JCD and Daniel - thank you for your comments. I generally agree with your sentiments. I am really making a moral argument that probably has no bearing on reality. And the irony of the idea of "bringing back Saddam" is that the US is hoping that Malaki, or someone else, emerges as a strong man who is ruthless enough to "do what it takes" to crush the militias. The absurdity of this is beyond comment.

[JCD]

And the irony of the idea of "bringing back Saddam" is that the US is hoping that Malaki, or someone else, emerges as a strong man who is ruthless enough to "do what it takes" to crush the militias. The absurdity of this is beyond comment.

Well, one could comment on the racist undertones that seem to fly with it.

Do you read Stan Goff, Alain? He has a post up vaguely related to this, regarding the idea of "winning" in Iraq.

[Alain]

JCD, thank you for the link. I agree with him completely. Clearly the administrations motives for the invasion were both imperialistic and naive. My question about obligation was meant more as a general query on responsibility: Whether the United States military stays or leaves, the situation is an American creation. The fact that events have taken a life of their own, and that the entire region may get swept up in the conflict, just adds to US responsibility for an awful situation. I am just not sure that an immediate and complete withdrawal is best for the people of Iraq. But it might be - I am just not certain from all the conflicting information that comes through the media.

[jcd]

Oh, no, I agree with you. Ideally the US would set up a transparently administered fund for the reconstruction of Iraqi civil society, the allocation of which would be determined by some form of direct democracy in Iraq itself. The US quite literally demolished Iraq and caused the deaths of a good many people there (the Lancet study says 600,000 people (have) died as a result of the invasion); it ought to fix the damage and be held responsible. Ought in the moral sense. But I think that continued US presense there is causing far more harm than good, and that any efforts at "reconstruction," without effective, transparent, oversight will just further the carnage.

At this point, what to do? I dunno. Indict the bastards? That is as much a pipe-dream as hoping for a transparently administered reconstruction fund and an immediate cease fire, I suppose.

yea lBJ was pretty unscrupulous, maybe, on the scruples-o-meter. So were the yankee generals. Where do Mao and his red army generals rate

[Nate]

Alain,
I hope I'm not being rude by being off topic this way, but I don't know where else to put this comment. The photo at the top just now is really lovely. They're pretty consistently great, so kudos to whoever makes/finds them.
take it easy,
Nate

[Charles]

Cheers, Nate.

Suggestions always welcome.

[Yusef]

I'm afraid that the US will attempt to fulfill its "obligations" and rectify the quagmire by expanding the war to include Iran.

I'm not convinced there would be enough political pressure mustered in the US or internationally to stop this, if the administration wanted it, and there are very strong indications the administration is considering this action.

Iraq will become almost irrelevant, in the way Afganistan became almost irrelevant, if the US attacks Iran.

Think about it.