Andrew Olmsted dot com: Losing Our Focus

« School in the Summertime | Main | Science Meets the Blogosphere »

November 29, 2006

Losing Our Focus

The evidence we're getting ready to leave Iraq compounds daily, as the Post today highlights a key indicator of government failure: the blame game. As the violence continues to escalate and the odds of failure go up, what are our elected officials doing? Why, they're trying to blame the Iraqis for the failure of the U.S. to establish a stable state in Iraq.

Is there some blame to be laid at the feet of the Iraqis for the evident failure of democracy in Iraq? Short answer yes with an if, long answer no with a but. No democracy can work if the citizens don't accept the results of lawful elections, and that is certainly the case in Iraq as various militia groups act to push their own sect's agenda in conflict with other sects and the Iraqi government. So in that respect, it is Iraq's fault that Iraq isn't stable. But Iraq is in that condition right now because of actions we took as a nation, establishing conditions where Iraq's various sects have a legitimate need to protect themselves because the government is, thus far, incapable of so doing. (It should be noted that many of the actions they're taking are, in fact, making the situation worse, but the fact remains we're the ones responsible for creating the situation where they feel they need to do something.) Would Iraq be in better shape today if more Iraqis were willing to work together and trust one another? Absolutely. The world would also be better off if Osama bin Laden decided that instead of killing westerners, he'd rather give the world a Coke and teach everyone to sing, but I'm not going to hold my breath for either of those. To borrow from Donald Rumsfeld, you invade the nation that exists, not the nation as you would like it to exist, and Iraq was and remains a low-trust culture. As such, there were good reasons to doubt that we could establish representative government there successfully with a well-run invasion and occupation plan. Given the disastrous way we executed the mission, we gave Iraq almost no hope of becoming what we would like.

Naturally, it's nice to be able to pin the blame on the Iraqis, because then Republicans and Democrats can step away from blaming each other and can focus their efforts on working together to extricate the U.S. from Iraq. After all, if it's not our fault, who can blame us for leaving?

Except that pat answer fails on two counts: it ignores the fact that Iraq is how it is today because of our actions, and it abdicates our responsibility to do something about it. It may be that the best solution left to us is to leave Iraq to its own devices. But if we do so, it should be because we've acknowledged our failure there and with the full knowledge that we're leaving people behind to die. Fleeing Iraq while claiming that it's not our fault is not an acceptable end to this war.

Posted at November 29, 2006 11:07 AM

Andrew Olmsted

Advertisers

Cat Medicine
Refrigerator Repair Parts
Best Price Cars
Account Money Market
Detailing Supplies

Comment policy

I apologize for only allowing authenticated commenters, but comment spam overwhelms the site if I don't use those measures to prevent it. I reserve the right to delete any comment, although generally comments will only be deleted due to use of profanity or personal attacks on people. I have no objection to vigorous argument, but when name-calling begins, I'm putting a stop to it. In the immortal words of Eugene Levy, "People, people, let's stop this before somebody says something untrue!" If you want to call people names, I recommend you get your own blog.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://andrewolmsted.com/mt/pings.cgi/1574

Comments

It's instructive who is blaming Iraqis -- its the war supporters. This is really about avoiding accountability for such a bad idea and such bad implementation. And although this crowd likes to talk about how they did not anticipate how bad Bush would mess things up (therefore the war allegedly was still a good idea), they failed to make that observation when it mattered -- back in 2003 or 2004 when there might have been some chance that criticism might have caused a change in course that could have improved the situation.

And it was pretty obvious then that things were going badly awry.

Plus the current mess was predictable given the wrong decisions being made in 2003 and 2004. US policy gave the Iraqis the functional equivalent of the Articles of Confederation instead of the Constitution. And US policy: 1) failed to provide for adequate security from US forces; 2) destroyed all existing Iraqi security forces; and 3) allowed militias to function as they helped fill the security vacuum. We guaranteed a functional deadlock in the government with power ultimately flowing from armed militias.

Add to that the dismal reconstruction effort.

What is amazing is to compare the post WWII occupation experience with Iraq. In that era, a driving concern was the perception that the errors of the post WWI occupation had simply led to the second world war. Also, as the cold war started up, there was an urgent concern to rehab occupied countries to serve as allies in that conflict. But the effort was so much more serious and thought out than the fiasco in Iraq. It is as if no one really cared to even try to get it right.

It is important to stress what went wrong and who got it wrong so that whatever allowed such wrong-headed thinking to prevail back in 2003 is eliminated. After all, the same crowd would have us repeat those mistakes with Iran or Syria.

Posted by: dmbeaster at November 29, 2006 02:52 PM

Do you really think Bush is going to oversee any significant draw downs in troop levels over the next two years?

I personally doubt it, and there is not much the Dem Congress can do other than complain loudly -- they are never going to use the funding weapon to try to force a change in policy. This is going to become a burning political issue that shapes the 2008 elections. And since Bush is not in that game, he will do whatever he wants.

My own prediction for the next year in Iraq is the Sunnis essentially out of the government and the Shia ruling by militia power. Will there even be another meaningful election? How could there be in this violent environment? If a Shia strong man does arise, he will have credibility only be distancing himself from the US -- he cannot be our partner. Look at the political trouble Maliki makes for himself simply by meeting with Bush.

The Sunni areas will be chaos. The ethnic cleansing will accelerate elsewhere. The Kurds will remain quiet bystanders so long as they do not make moves on Kirkuk.

I don't see other countries getting significantly involved so long as we maintain a large troop presence in Iraq.

I don't see the Baker group making much change in the situation. Bush already seems busy manuevering to undercut whatever they recommend to the extent it contradicts what he wants to do.

And that is to stay there and utter platitudes about what is going on. Republicans are in a difficult position as they must make a basic decision to either defend the policy or attack their own president. It's not unlike the run-up to 1968.

Posted by: dmbeaster at November 29, 2006 03:07 PM