lulldapull

Iraq: The Logic of Disengagement
Edward N. Luttwak
From Foreign Affairs, January/February 2005


Summary: The best strategy for the United States now in Iraq is disengagement. In a reversal of the usual sequence, the U.S. hand will be strengthened by withdrawal, and Washington might actually be able to lay the groundwork for a reasonably stable Iraq. Why? Because geography ensures that all other parties are far more exposed to the dangers of an anarchical Iraq than is the United States itself.

Edward N. Luttwak is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.


WITHDRAW NOW

Given all that has happened in Iraq to date, the best strategy for the United States is disengagement. This would call for the careful planning and scheduling of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from much of the country--while making due provisions for sharp punitive strikes against any attempt to harass the withdrawing forces. But it would primarily require an intense diplomatic effort, to prepare and conduct parallel negotiations with several parties inside Iraq and out. All have much to lose or gain depending on exactly how the U.S. withdrawal is carried out, and this would give Washington a great deal of leverage that could be used to advance U.S. interests.

The United States cannot threaten to unleash anarchy in Iraq in order to obtain concessions from others, nor can it make transparently conflicting promises about the country's future to different parties. But once it has declared its firm commitment to withdraw--or perhaps, given the widespread conviction that the United States entered Iraq to exploit its resources, once visible physical preparations for an evacuation have begun--the calculus of other parties will change. In a reversal of the usual sequence, the U.S. hand will be strengthened by withdrawal, and Washington may well be able to lay the groundwork for a reasonably stable Iraq. Nevertheless, if key Iraqi factions or Iraq's neighbors are too shortsighted or blinded by resentment to cooperate in their own best interests, the withdrawal should still proceed, with the United States making such favorable or unfavorable arrangements for each party as will most enhance the future credibility of U.S. diplomacy.

The United States has now abridged its vastly ambitious project of creating a veritable Iraqi democracy to pursue the much more realistic aim of conducting some sort of general election. In the meantime, however, it has persisted in futile combat against factions that should be confronting one another instead. A strategy of disengagement would require bold, risk-taking statecraft of a high order, and much diplomatic competence in its execution. But it would be soundly based on the most fundamental of realities: geography that alone ensures all other parties are far more exposed to the dangers of an anarchical Iraq than is the United States itself.

SPAIN, NAPLES, AND IRAQ

If Iraq could indeed be transformed into a successful democracy by a more prolonged occupation, as Germany and Japan were after 1945, then of course any disengagement would be a great mistake. In both of those countries, however, by the time U.S. occupation forces arrived the local populations were already thoroughly disenthralled from violent ideologies, and so they eagerly collaborated with their occupiers to construct democratic institutions. Unfortunately, because of the hostile sentiments of the Iraqi population, the relevant precedents for Iraq are far different.

The very word "guerrilla" acquired its present meaning from the ferocious insurgency of the illiterate Spanish poor against their would-be liberators under the leadership of their traditional oppressors. On July 6, 1808, King Joseph of Spain presented a draft constitution that for the first time in Spain's history offered ...

Leader

From the Center for Strategic and Internation Studies:

http://www.csis.org/features/iraq_st...ningforces.pdf

__________________

Ray

The article is rather heavy on its hypothesis that whatever the author claims on behalf of the US, will be acceptable to the other side. E.g. ‘But once it has declared its firm commitment to withdraw--or perhaps, given the widespread conviction that the United States entered Iraq to exploit its resources, once visible physical preparations for an evacuation have begun--the calculus of other parties will change’.

This is wishful thinking. Given the ground realties seen so far, the Islamists will go whole hog to humiliate the US by stepping up their bombings and creating mayhem. This will, in addition, shake the credibility of the Iraqi Govt (in case the elections are held), which as it is, cannot be a truly representative govt since the Sunni areas will hardly vote because of the fear caused by the current mayhem in the Sunni Triangle.

Hypothetically, disengagement is an answer. Prima facie, it is an escapist theory.

It will of course ensure that the US is not bled any more in finances and human lives.

However, it is fraught with dangers and embarrassment.

1. Disengagement would appear to the world that the US lost out to the Islamists and that it is only a face-saving ‘retreat’ like Vietnam. It will become an excellent whipping boy for countries not known to be US fans. Vietnam, Somalia and now Iraq! I am afraid, this would be too much of a humiliation and totally not acceptable to the US prestige.

2. Kerry supporters would say, “I told you so”. This would be a huge catastrophe in the local political scene, which the Republicans will not accept and they run the govt.

3. Iraq, under the present situation, cannot have a truly representative govt, because the Sunnis are too scared to vote owing to the actions by the Zarqawi lot in the Sunni Triangle. If the US leaves, there will be anarchy.

4. The Iraqi govt, under pressure, would try to appease the non US countries, and so contracts would go elsewhere and not to the US. Therefore, the US would have wasted its time capturing Iraq from Saddam.

5. The whole rationale of the war would blow up in the face of the US unless it did bring ‘Freedom and Democracy’ since the other issues have been not refutably proved.

Therefore, with all due regards to the opinion of the author, I think that the author is talking through his hat.

lulldapull

Just got done watching allthose political commentaries on NBC Meet the pressand now the talk is openly of Brent Scowcrofts initial assessment of civil war becoming a reality!

the problem is two fold Ray! If we continue the present course, we are fukked! if we withdraw and get the hell out of there....whatever face saving deal or retreat its the wise decision. You don't hear ppl now say ( unless they are totally jahil) that "we could have stayed in vietnam and made it work"!

Lets move on, and learn from our mistakes. And for us Americans we ought to keep these jahil christian fundo right wing armageddonist/ apocalyptic thugs under check, and prevent these types of unilateral type dictatorial interventions. Shame on all of us Americans for not throwing out this twink for a president last year!!

Ray they are openly talking about reinstating a draft on a limited basis,(down South) to conscript our "less fortunate" types!

This is an outrage!

Julie

LOL....they are sending over the "rednecks.".....that's us VVV ! Ready?

smilingassassin

Talk about it don't make it a reality.....

How many times can a guy be told to stop the profanity, before he listens? Changing the spelling to avoid the word cencur is a blatant violation of this simple request.

Sure lets leave the Iraqis to rot under these terrorist thugs right? Your such a humanitarian Lull..

Left wing nut jobs like you obviously haven't learned any lessons....

The problem is, this is a vast majority of Americans, if they even remotely disagree with you they are lumped into this group.

Our guy won, yours lost, go to your room to cry.

Again talk dosn't make it fact, its nothing more than left wing propganda, that you've bought hook line and sinker. Don't expect the rest of us to be morons.

lulldapull

Awe.......

l'l kiddo got upshet??? too much of areality check??? ...yeah??



bwaaaaahaaaaaaaahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Smillin buddy, I'll keep getting you and your associated fundo types over here, until our jahil president declares defeat officially.

you better pucker up boy, cuz I'd bust out laughing in your face every god-damn day!

Bluesman

Like he's dead, guys. Remember? He died late last year...

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

smilingassassin

As usual no responce other than banter and taunting, whats the matter can't prove your sky is falling rehtoric?

As for your hero Kerry, he's pushing for buddy buddy relations with North Korea! Of course that didn't make much headlines....no screaming from the socialist left wing nut jobs.