Today's WaPo features an op-ed by Stuart Gottlieb, identified as a former Democratic foreign policy adviser and current Yale professor, entitled "Will Iraq Be the Next Rwanda?" Gottlieb's piece addresses the topic of what he views as potential danger to our party's long-term interests in our pursuit of a quick, unconditional withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Iraq quagmire. Just guessing here, I imagine that Gottlieb's article will infuriate a few Kossacks as one more example of "concern trolling" in the Democratic establishment.
As an ordinary American citizen trying to make sense of the daily flood of news from Iraq and elsewhere on the globe, I claim no expertise whatsoever on this subject. My closest personal connection with the conflict would be that my cousin's son served in the Mosul area a while back, doing medical work, I believe. For what it's worth, I feel that Gottlieb's piece, though critical of current Democratic pro-withdrawal sentiment, deals in a fairly straightforward fashion with an argument against immediate withdrawal that probably resonates fairly deeply with the American public -- the "finger in the dike" analogy.
As one trained in analytical work -- formerly a systems analyst, now a lawyer -- in examining any problem, I favor the approach of giving full recognition to the potential benefits and risks of any course of action. I'd love to be able to rely with 100% confidence on the argument that "we're only aggravating the conflict, so pulling U.S. forces out will only improve things." Unfortunately, much like Gottlieb, in the reams of commentary concerning this debacle I haven't encountered anything that firmly convinces me that the suffering of Iraq's ordinary citizens won't increase yet further when our troops leave. Some reports seem to indicate that large numbers of Iraqis resent our presence and want us out yesterday, while other reports indicate that other large numbers are in no hurry to confront the unknown that lies on the other side of U.S. withdrawal. I suspect that, on a micro level, there are some situations there in which our troops' presence foments violence, while in other situations our forces do help control the chaos. Where the balance lies, I don't claim to know. I'm sure that General Petraeus is working his butt off to keep the lid on the boiling cauldron as best he can -- but he may have been given an impossible task.
So, yes, I share Gottlieb's concern, and if that in itself makes me a Bush dupe in some minds, so be it. I am less persuaded, however, by this argument:
That there is a growing consensus in both parties that the war was a mistake does not free the United States from its responsibility for creating the power vacuum in Iraq. Withdrawal in the face of a nearly certain humanitarian catastrophe would leave a black mark on America's reputation and diminish its role in the world for generations.
I find this line of argument, while alarming, to be less than compelling: first, it is unclear what will happen when our forces leave; second, I don't get the impression that people around the world are screaming for us to stay in Iraq -- it seems the opposite view is more prevalent (would foreign folks really respect us more for staying this course while it works against our own interests?); third, as far as I'm concerned, no one has the right to demand that the honorable men and women who comprise our military forces bear an indefinite burden of putting their lives on the line in order to, as some call it, "babysit a civil war." In fact, in just this one aspect of this sorry mess I actually share a bit of agreement with the generally reprehensible Charles Krauthammer, a man whose writing surely helped to lead our country down this abysmal path (in most respects, Charlie's piece is really an argument about why he shouldn't be blamed for the sickening nightmare he helped bring about). At least one Kossack posed an interesting question some time ago -- that is, if some Iraqi had assassinated Saddam and the country had fallen into civil war without help from us, would we have been morally obliged to jump in and attempt to restore order? I don't think so; thus, I refuse to endorse the contention that, because Bush, Cheney, et al., made some horribly awful decisions, GI Joe and GI Jane and their families are responsible for paying for those mistakes with their own blood and suffering into the indefinite future. The notion that the actions and obligations of nations can be analogized to those of individuals is a widely-accepted technique employed in every day language, but it can only be taken so far.
Finally, what concerns me even more than Gottlieb's humanitarian catastrophe is that our Dear Leader has condemned our country into an earthly purgatory -- a situation that is not-so-slowly eating away our military strength and diminishing our international stature while, at the same time, offering no real prospect for any solution to Iraq's violent political stalemate given the resources we have available and our inherent limitations as strangers to Iraqi and Muslim culture. Under Bush's policies, this quagmire will likely last a long, long, time. That little Dutch boy didn't stand there holding back the sea with his finger in the dike for ten years -- he would have found it impossible. Even if the dike analogy is apt, we are similarly unable to withstand the indefinite commitment that apparently would be required. It is a painful, but inescapable, part of life to acknowledge one's limitations -- you can't always win the big game, score the big contract, get the girl (or guy), or be the perfect spouse, lover, or parent. Even assuming our forces are doing more good than harm in Iraq, admitting that we can't do indefinitely what we've done for the past four years, despite what Michelle Malkin's gonna tell you, is not unpatriotic and is no disgrace -- it's called confronting reality. Some weeks ago Ivan Eland, writing in the Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel, offered an interesting answer to the "finger in the dike" meme. Like Gottlieb, he feels the catastrophe will happen; he just argues that it will happen whether we stay or not, so why put our forces in the middle of it?
So, yes, Gottlieb's concern is mine, also. Presumably within the next two years, either the public and Congress will have forced Bush to change course (still unlikely), Bush and Cheney will have been impeached (also still unlikely), or a Democratic president will have begun the process of withdrawal (likely). If the situation then gets really ugly, as Gottlieb predicts, then some well-meaning Iraqis may complain that we abandoned them, and the 2010 elections may become difficult. All the same, even with such risks in mind, at the end of the day we must admit (as Reagan effectively did in Lebanon) that even superpowers have their limitations and, like it or not, we just are not in position to dictate what happens in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East.
Update: I note that Gottlieb's op-ed isn't garnering too much praise in the WaPo comments section.