The US and Iraq have apparently agreed to a deal to withdraw combat troops by 2011. This is good news for us; let's hope it's also good news for Iraq.
The election being nigh, of course, thoughts immediately turn to who this is good for in the presidential election. Kevin Drum is very sure that the answer is Obama. My first instinct was the opposite. McCain gets to claim that the Surge worked, the war issue is off the table, and McCain gets the credit for steely resolve without people fearing their sons will end up in Iraq. I'm puzzled by war opponents who think that voters will suddenly love Obama for having been "right all along". Assuming arguendo that this is true, the psychological logic is off. Most Americans supported the war. Do you become more endeared of your spouse when it turns out that you really should have taken that left fork thirty miles ago? Most people prefer folie à deux.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
"Most people prefer folie à deux."
Do you have a vegetarian recipe for that?
The US and Iraq have apparently agreed to a deal to withdraw combat troops by 2011. This is good news for us; let's hope it's also good news for Iraq.
The question isn't whether this is good for Iraqis, the question is whether the Iraqis want it or not. They should be a sovereign people, they can't be with a foreign army occupying their country, and if we actually respect their democracy-- as opposed to giving lip service to it to justify aggression and occupation-- then what we think of the wisdom of their choice is utterly immaterial. What is important is the choice. Only the Iraqi people have the moral authority to determine the wisdom of their decisions.
Most Americans supported the war.
That's an off-putting way of saying it. At the beginning of the war, yes, public sentiment was majority supportive-- but the absolute height of public approval for this war was in the 65%-70% range, incredibly low by historical standards. And, of course, public opinion precipitously declined and has stayed low ever since. I think there has been far too much goal-post moving and failures of perspective among both the pro-war set and the contrarian, any-meme-that-bashes-liberals set. By historical standards this has been on balance a wildly unpopular war, and it remains unpopular. Despite all of the rhetoric about the success of the surge, the amount of people favoring withdraw has never significantly reduced, despite the constant attempts of pundits to assert that it has.
As usual, Drum is wrong. A solid agreement to withdraw by 2011 is confirmation that the surge worked, and McCain will benefit by being the one political figure most associated with the surge other than Bush himself.
I, for one, did not think the surge would have any benefit, and am happy to have been proven wrong.
McCain has benefitted all along from the surge's success, and I simply don't see how an actual withdrawl agreement can change that. What would hurt McCain would be a big upswing in violence this fall, before the election. This can still happen.
And we all know what a mess pulling out can create.
My first reaction was relief, there will be an end. The lid off the boiling pot.
As for Obama vs McCain the question has changed from the past tense to the future tense. Which candidate can we trust to uphold the agreement?
You have 4 aces. Opponent is betting full house and bullying your fellow players. You think might be bluffing. Obama's answer is fold. F'ing brilliant.
Despite all of the rhetoric about the success of the surge, the amount of people favoring withdraw has never significantly reduced, despite the constant attempts of pundits to assert that it has.
Freddie, that may be accurate per se, but it's not complete. I don't think there's any question that most people want to withdraw -- eventually. But when the question is asked whether people favor an immediate, unconditional withdrawal without regard to consequences, the numbers change dramatically.
Wow John. I'm shocked that inserting the clause 'without regard to consequence' changes the answer of those asked about their feelings on withdraw from Iraq.
I, for one, did not think the surge would have any benefit, and am happy to have been proven wrong.
When countries have been successfully ethnically cleansed, as Iraq has been, there are always reductions in violence. The assumption that correlation proves causation has driven the pro-surge rhetoric from day one. The question is whether or not having a country which is almost completely internally divided along sectarian and religious lines is a sound situation for prosperity and stability going forward. I'm sure that it's not, and I think the events of the last two years have dramatically increased the possibility of civil war and the country eventually dividing. Luckily, like most of the commenters here and Megan herself, I am not an Iraqi so my considerations of Iraq's present and future are ultimately academic. Iraqis will decide whether the country will partition, or descend again into violence, or hang together and become the Arabian Emerald City we were promised, or simply become yet another quasi-religious, effectively-authoritarian Middle Eastern regime.
The idea that the reduction in violence proves the wisdom of John McCain's foreign policy is bizarre. It only makes sense if you're completely caught in the partisan vision of public life, where the only thing that matters is whether you can brand yourself as right and your opponent as wrong. What does the surge say about the best way to proceed forward in our foreign policy? Let's be clear: John McCain advocates the most aggressive, expansionistic foreign policy that we've ever seen coming from a presidential candidate in modern history. The subtle slide from asserting the success of the surge to the success of the Iraqi project writ large is not sound; whatever the success of the surge, it doesn't mean that we should engage in similar "democracy building" invasions and unilateral aggression. That is precisely what John McCain advocates, explicitly in the case of Iran and implicitly in the case of Russia, Syria and any other evildoers.
In the larger sense, I'm more than happy for conservatives to declare victory-- which, by the way, is what this has always really been about-- if it means that we are ready to allow Iraq to have an actual democracy, instead of creating our own little Vichy France. It's time to get out. 2011 is far too long but it's better than American imperium from here to eternity.
I don't see how this can be interpreted as 'Obama was right all along'; a negotiated withdrawal spread out over the next 2.5 years is much, much different than the unilateral retreat under fire.
The ceiling on US troops was always going to be determined by the Iraqi government (unless you truly believe McCain was going to start a war against the Iraqi army we're training & supplying); the question was always the floor. McCain's position was to let the situation on the ground determine the floor, which is pretty much exactly what's happening. This really does look like a vindication of the surge - instead of abandoning Iraq in the middle of a civil war, we ended that war and are withdrawing (relatively) peaceably, leaving the country in the hands of its elected government.
It probably won't be an election issue, but there's also the question of what direction the military goes in from here; the surge wasn't just a boost in combat forces, but a major doctrinal shift. Militaries are, by nature, extremely conservative (in a non-political sense); the 2008 Army is much, much different than the 2003 Army, but there's no guarantee it will remain so. It's not a sexy an issue as Supreme Court nominees, but deciding which generals get promoted is going to have a huge impact on the direction of the military. This is one thing that McCain can accurately say he's been way, way ahead of the curve on.
We are going to pull out on their time schedule and we are going to leave Iraq a lot better than when we found it. That means we won the war. That ought to be really bad news for all of the people who bet on and cheered on and prayed for a US defeat. As time goes on the costs of the war will fade into memory and the benefits will become more apparent. The left never got its "Saigon Moment" the US isn't leaving in disgrace. It is just a bad deal all the way around for them.
My guess is that a signed agreement won't help either candidate very much because the agreement doesn't mean all that much. Withdraw combat troops (not all troops) by 2011? That's still a long way off and much can change by then.
Well then Rick, you must have been equally dismissive of Freddie citing polls saying that everyone wants to withdraw from Iraq. It's like citing a poll saying everyone prefers sunshine and concluding they never want it to rain again.
A Fire Megan website rick? You have a website devoted to just that? You need to get out more.
From the very beginning, people from all sides regarding this issue have been all too eager to make predictions, and extraordinarily, ridiculously, confident in their predictive powers. Why change now?
"No, really, I'll pull out"
I was expecting a story combining teenage angst and humor and got Iraq instead. Careful with the titles.
"I was expecting a story combining teenage angst and humor and got Iraq instead. Careful with the titles."
I'm fairly certain that was intentional.
Nicely done, Megan.
Of course the agreement is good for McCain vote wise. He'll gain the voters that agree with him on domestic issues but were going to vote for Obama anyway just to get out of Iraq, which I presume is larger than the number of voters who agree with Obama on domestic issues but were going to vote for McCain just to stay in Iraq.
It's good for both candidates (and the country) in the sense that no matter who wins the election, withdrawing won't look like defeat.
Although, personally I'm not ready to celebrate yet. A lot can happen in the next 2 to 3 years.
It's good for both candidates (and the country) in the sense that no matter who wins the election, withdrawing won't look like defeat.
Who cares how it looks? When did this country become obsessed with image? The utter dominance of symbolic bullshit in our foreign policy is a genuine danger for our country.
It's good for Obama. Like in 2004, many voters in the middle are thinking about holding their noses and voting for the Republican, because we are in a State of War.
With Iraq settling down, and us now 7 years removed from the WTC attacks, the impetus to vote for McCain will subside amongst independents.
Freddie,
You're correct, it should have been stated as we will withdraw in victory, which is much better for the country than defeat.
I don't know if this helps Obama really, and this result has been obvious since the beginning. Nobody wanted to stay in Iraq too long from day one (which was part of the bad planning in the first place).
By the time we roll into October, this will allow economic issues to dominate the conversation and the guy who sounds most coherent will pull ahead.
There is the small but real (and really crazy) possibility that McCain will come out against the deal.
Three years is a long time, and I don't think this "takes the war off the table" at all. Three more years at $10 billion+ a month?
And what happens when those 2 million displaced Iraqis try to go home? Nothing's over till it's over, and saying "the surge has worked" like a parrot doesn't make it so.
This looks suspiciously like a "timeline" for withdrawal. Bush (and McCain) have both said they are against a "timeline." How could we have agreed to a "timeline?" What the hell are we thinking?
I think this is evidence of Bush and McCain playing politics with war at the expense of national security, and if that fact is considered then the next questions for McCain are:
1) will you really remove US troops just becuase the Iran-allied Maliki govt asked you to remove them, even though you've said US troops might need to be there for 100 years?
2) why didn't you see this coming to begin planning for withdrawal? Obama saw it coming.
3) In Iraq you blustered that US troops could stay 100 years but then suddenly you agree to Maliki's request to remove them. In relation to Georgia, you've blustered about actions against Russia, but you also indicated there would be no US military response. How do you explain these contradictions? What you say seems to be the opposite of the policy you actually take.
question #4
Sen McCain, you said the timing on withdrawal should be made on the basis of recommendations from the US generals on the ground in Iraq. Why are you instead now meeting the demands of PM al Maliki? Is al Maliki now determingin your policy on troop levels?
You can possibly be this dense! McCain clearly looked at S. Korea and Saudi Arabia as models here, where we have troops on the ground but not in combat. That's what the "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." part of the statement was about.
Maliki also said 'combat' troops - meaning we will leave a presence there.
Please try again.
Is this really the path that anti-war folks want to go down?
The goal all along was to create a sovereign Iraqi government. That government, being sovereign, has the right to tell us to withdraw our troops. Even if the generals disagree.
The stated policy for at least the past 3 years has been "As the Iraqi government stands up, we'll stand down". So after all the endless blather about "occupation" and "puppet government", evidence comes out that confirms that the actions of our government is consistent with the rhetoric and you're going to bitch that it's actually not an occupation?
You're claiming hypocrisy because the US is not acting consistent with the worst motives you have ascribed to them. That's not evidence of hypocrisy, it's evidence that you were wrong.
I swear, it seems that some people just won't be satisfied by anything short of an outright US defeat. Yes, I am absolutely questioning your patriotism.
"war opponents who think that voters will suddenly love Obama for having been "right all along""
Obama was against the surge, and wanted basically a quick surrender - admit defeat, pull out quickly, leave Iraq in pieces. Instead we stayed and began using tactics that McCain had long been advocating, and the change in tactics worked. Now we're able to begin planning a pull-out, because the approach advocated by McCain has been successful.
As SG pointed out, the policy is and has been "As the Iraqi government stands up, we'll stand down". Thanks to the surge, Al Qaeda has suffered a humiliating defeat and Iraqis are uniting. It's not over yet, but things are looking much, much better for the US and for Iraqis, and none of it would have happened if it had been up to Obama.
This is the reason it is so important to claim that Bush lied about the war. That way we are all off the hook. Now he did mislead people, but to the extent that Americans including myself got this wrong we are partly to blame. Still I want a president who will take us in a different direction on foreign policy and Obama will be more likely to do that than McCain. I am willing to swallow my pride.
We are going to pull out on their time schedule and we are going to leave Iraq a lot better than when we found it. That means we won the war.
"A lot better than when we found it" seems an odd case to make. After tens of thousands killed, hundreds of billions spent, America's liberties curtailed. All for a country full of harsh ethnic divisions, wacky religious nuts, and Al Qaida still around.
This counts as a win? Only by cutting our losses, perhaps. I'll take what I can get.
SG writes: "I swear, it seems that some people just won't be satisfied by anything short of an outright US defeat. Yes, I am absolutely questioning your patriotism."
I'm questioning your sanity and your honesty.
If we've won, we can start withdrawing now. Bring 10,000 troops a month home. Why not? After all, we've WON, right?
If we can't do that, this sudden claim of "victory" is as hollow as Dumbya's head or Dickless Cheney's heart.
Shecky,
Can you let me know how my civil liberties effect "hundreds of billions spent, leav[ing] Iraq a lot better than when we found it"?
I guess it's just grab list of accusations and hurl them around, regardless of relevance...
Also, I assume you think we failed WWII... it's still full of ethnic divisions, wacky religious nuts, and Nazi's still around. After all, we killed plenty of civilians, spent tons of money and still had to leave troops stationed in Germany.
ML+J,
So when did we win WWII? I mean it was years of occupation in Berlin, hell the Airlift wasn't until '48.
I assume you mean we are still fighting it, VE day must really piss you off.
Skullberg quotes and replies: " If we've won, we can start withdrawing now. Bring 10,000 troops a month home. Why not? After all, we've WON, right?
So when did we win WWII? I mean it was years of occupation in Berlin, hell the Airlift wasn't until '48."
So you're comparing a peaceful occupation where no one was shooting at our soldiers or blowing them up to what's going on in Iraq? Seriously?
You should go over there next week and have daily picnics on the airport road. Wear your Uncle Sam costume.
Either we've "won" or we haven't. And tell me, chuckles, did we have anywhere near the number of troops in Germany in 1948 that we had in 1945? Of course not.
Because after you've WON you start pulling out. We haven't won jackshit in Iraq.
I'm questioning your sanity and your honesty.
That's fine. I think you're a troll, so we're even.
Most people prefer folie à deux.
This is, of course, horribly cynical, to argue that Americans would rather choose a leader who is no better than them than choose a leader who has proven himself to be of exceptional quality. Because this is so cynical an opinion of the American voter, I suppose it has a good chance being true. BUT, public opinion might change on this. Bush was the "ordinary guy" President. Voters may be tired of this, and decide this time that they DON'T want someone who is as fallible as they are.
Also, McCain's "100 Years" statement could really hurt him here. He looks not *as wrong* as your average American; he looks a lot more wrong. If that perception plays out, I doubt even voters who want a "common guy" in the White House want a guy whose judgement is even worse than their own.
I'd say this comes down, unfortunately, to the spin war. But there's a very real chance this could bury McCain, depending on how it plays out.