All ideas are bad, so let’s not try

July 17, 2007

As the ongoing debate in the Senate makes clear, there’s no shortage of ideas on how best to proceed in Iraq. The WaPo’s Anne Applebaum argues today the problem in Washington is that all these policy makers have imperfect solutions to an intractable problem.

Out in the world, there are shades of gray. Here inside the Beltway, there are black-and-white solutions. And everybody who is anybody has a plan for Iraq.

Hillary Clinton has a three-point plan; Barack Obama has a “move the soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan” plan. House Democrats have a plan to take most troops out by next March; Senate Democrats have a plan to take them out by April. Some Senate Republicans want the president to shrink the size of the U.S. military in Iraq; other Senate Republicans want to let the surge run its course. Search the Web, listen to the radio and watch the news, and you can hear people arguing that if only we had more troops, fewer troops or no troops at all, everything would be okay again.

What is missing from this conversation is a dose of humility. More to the point, what is missing is the recognition that every single one of these plans contains the seeds of potential disaster, even catastrophe.

This may very well be the most vapid column in a major newspaper this year. For one thing, the senators, on both sides of the aisle, routinely emphasize the fact that there “are no good options left in Iraq.” The point of saying this is to acknowledge that even the best proposals are flawed and carry with them certain risks. Applebaum, in this sense, has the debate backwards — there isn’t a policy maker on the Hill running around saying, “If you do exactly as I propose, everything will be perfect.”

But more importantly, Applebaum’s column is utterly and completely useless. It highlights the various possible approaches, and dismisses literally all of them.

More troops? … More troops means more American casualties, maybe many more casualties. Worse, the very presence of American soldiers creates strife in some parts of Iraq — angering Iraqis, motivating al-Qaeda, sparking violence. Besides, we’ve tried the surge, and the surge hasn’t brought the results we wanted. And, anyway, the surge simply can’t be maintained, let alone expanded: There aren’t that many more troops to send, even if we wanted to send them.

Fewer troops? … It also sounds a touch naive: So, in the midst of a vast civil war, small groups of Americans will withdraw to some neutral outposts and announce that they would no longer like to be shot at, please? Both “guarding the border” and “fighting terrorism” are hard to do effectively without involving ourselves in wider political and ethnic struggles.

There is also trouble with the “train the Iraqis” part of the plan, as Stephen Biddle spelled out in The Post last week, since “training Iraqis” invariably puts us in the middle of military conflict. Besides, fewer Americans could mean more Iraqi violence; more Iraqi violence could mean more American casualties — not to mention more Iraqi casualties — which defeats the purpose of the plan altogether.

No troops? … How many of the people who clamor for intervention in Darfur will also be clamoring to rush back into Iraq when full-scale ethnic cleansing starts taking place? How many will take responsibility for the victims of genocide? I’m not saying there will be such a catastrophe, but there could be: Mass ethnic murders have certainly been carried out in Iraq before. Other possibilities include the creation of an Iranian puppet state or an al-Qaeda outlaw state; or there might merely be a regional war involving, say, Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, just for starters, and maybe Israel and the Gaza Strip as well.

Seriously, what is the point of even writing this column? Which editor looked at this and said, “Hmm, every possible policy solution might fail. How insightful!”?

Yes, ideas for resolving the crisis in Iraq carry risks. We knew that.

Applebaum’s argument, in a nutshell, is this: We can’t do nothing, we can’t do something, and those with ideas are arrogant for even trying.

I’m at a loss as to understand why the Washington Post would publish this.

Update: Ugh. I went in to correct a typo, accidentally hit the wrong button, and deleted the post — and its comments. How very frustrating. Could those folks who already commented on this do so again? Please? Sorry.

What is missing from this conversation is a dose of humility. — Anne Applebaum, WaPo.

However ‘vapid’ the column may be, however ‘utterly and completely useless’, however ‘at a loss [we are] as to understand why the Washington Post would publish this’, reading that one line — What is missing from this conversation is a dose of humility — by an American journalist in an American newspaper is redemptive, because that is exactly what is, and has been missing.

The invasion was presumptuous, unjustified, and illegal. As long as that is lost sight of and not acknowledged prima facie, no ‘solution’ has the minimum, adequate foundation to be meaningful or valid.

So, just that one line — “What is missing from this conversation is a dose of humility.” — excuses, for me, any other rubbish Ms Applebaum may spout.

  • As if Iraq was not already a potential disaster, even [a] catastrophe. Wish I could get paid to come up with bullshit for a living.

  • I’m at a loss as to understand why the Washington Post would publish this.

    CB, Applebaum’s column in just more “neo-con wisdom”—a.k.a. “stay the course” with the commander-in-chief—from Fred Hiatt and friends (those who are sworn to uphold “beltways conventions”).

    These bastards have no remorse about American causalities and the deaths of Iraqi civilians.

    (Saved by the clipboard! — and sloth)

  • Here are my comments again:

    Article writer wrote:

    More to the point, what is missing is the recognition that every single one of these plans contains the seeds of potential disaster, even catastrophe.

    This could be a biased pro-president piece, or by the same coin, a shoring-up-support-for-the-Republicans-generally-by-discouraging-dissent piece. That is, when you want people to not go in new directions, you try to make those directions seem unappealing. People do things for reasons, that’s all I’m saying, and this piece look like just what you’d write if you wanted to scare your teenaged daughter from going out with any guys, scare your 9-year-old-kid from taking up skateboarding and other injury-inviting hobbies, etc.- looks like it’s written from the same template.

  • Then what about OIF then? It was pretty stupid when one sat down and thought about it, but Annie Applebaum probably didn’t think about that during the run up to the war.

    So now, the US is in a mess where there are no perfect clean solutions. Well, holy shit, that’s an “awful” shock. Welcome to reality, Dingus Appledumb. All the good options were lost four years ago thanks to the ineptitude of Rummie and the NeoCon wimps choir so the US is only left with shitty solutions and really shitty solutions.

  • Ooh, Republicans, you made me mad enough this morning, that I’m going to be mad at you all day again…

  • Kudos for Anne Applebaum for making observations (that there are no ‘perfect’, or even ‘good’, options in Iraq) that the rest of us have been aware of for literally years .

    Swan wrote: “This could be a biased pro-president piece…”

    I was just thinking to myself what a huge double standard is being set here. I’m not sure what AA’s stand was at the beginning of the war, but most of the media accepted Bush’s mendacious logic and plans without comment or criticism. Now that people want to change course, every plan will be nitpicked and micromanaged – except, apparently, Bush’s own.

  • The take-away — under the circumstances, anyone would have failed, so there’s no special reason to blame Junta Boy and his handlers when everything goes pear-shaped. It’s not a uniquely disastrous Republican nightmare, it’s Just One Of Those Things.

    If you can’t pull “Clinton Did It Too”, you can always try “Clinton Would Have Done It Too, If The Facts Were 180° From What They Actually Are, So It’s Sort Of A Democratic Disaster”.

    Hey, it’s worth a shot.

  • I find it interesting that, after 4 1/2 years of an engagement that has failed in almost every way possible, the attitude now seems to be that if someone can’t come up with the perfect plan, there’s no point in trying anything, and we should just stick with the status quo – however bad that is. I can almost not believe that a “what’s the point?” approach seems to be more appealing than trying something else.

    There also seems to be more than a hint of, “well, there can’t possibly be a perfect plan to get us out of this, because if there were, we would already be implementing it.”

    There are no more troops to put there, not without further depleting our force protection elsewhere, and further compromising the safety of those who have already been there too long. And, if they haven’t yet figured out that more troops has not made for more security, only more casualties, well, I have no confidence that they are capable of fixing this mess.

    The Baltimore Sun had an article on Sunday, that described the logistics and process of withdrawal, and those they spoke to estimated that it would take 20 months to two years to do it, and it would be fraught with danger. What’s worse, there has not been any planning for that withdrawal yet, and the planning alone takes a lot of time. So, setting a date to begin withdrawal has to hinge on them having a plan to begin that withdrawal, so it’s all well and good to say it has to begin within 120 days, but someone needs to make sure there is a plan that will be ready at that time. If there is foot-dragging onthe planning end, there is no way we can start the withdrawal without being subject to calls of unnecessarily placing the troops in more danger.

    We have to face the hard truth that leaving will be as dangerous as staying, so we have to choose between the short-term danger of withdrawal, and the long-term danger of remaining for an indefinite period of time, with no way of knowing what the future holds. I know one thing: once we get them home, they are out of danger, so a careful plan for withdrawal still beats the consequences of continuing to surge, extending tours, deploying more troops, spending $12 billion a month on a failed mission.

    Instead of pooh-poohing and critiquing the plans and ideas of the various candidates, Applebaum and others should be excited and encouraged that others are applying focused, considered and sincere attention at the problem; they are not just bashing the president’s performance, they are preparing to act.

    But, maybe she just didn’t feel like writing about that.

  • Funny how the media didn’t ask this many questions before the war. I guess that plan was perfect enough to not need much examination.

  • With a defense budget in the trillions of dollars, how can it possibly take two years to withdraw? What are they doing with all their cash and resources? Where does the readiness factor evaporate to when it comes to withdrawal? Isn’t withdrawal capability as urgent as invasion capability? They’re fluffing and bluffing, and that’s the truth of it.

  • Goldilocks – here’s the link to the Baltimore Sun piece: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.withdraw15jul15,0,4914397.story?coll=bal-iraq-headlines

    And here’s the first little bit of it:

    When it comes, the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and the dismantling of the vast American presence here promises to be as risky and unpredictable an ordeal as the past four years of war.

    Political and public demand for a quick withdrawal is rising. But nothing about withdrawal will be quick.

    The 20 ground combat brigades deployed here will fill 10,000 flatbed trucks and will take a year to move, logistics experts say. A full withdrawal, shipping home some 200,000 Americans and thousands of tons of equipment, dismantling dozens of American bases and disposing of tons of accumulated toxic waste, will take 20 months or longer, they estimate.

    Yet the administration, long intent on avoiding what it once called a “cut and run” retreat from Iraq, has done little to lay the groundwork for withdrawal, officials here said.

    “We don’t have the plan in detail yet. We’re seriously engaged in trying to figure this out,” said Marine Brig. Gen. Gray Payne, director of the U.S. Central Command’s logistics operations center.

    Even with the benefit of a detailed plan, Payne said, “this is going to be an enormous challenge.”

    Extricating combat forces during an active war is a tricky military maneuver under the best of circumstances, according to interviews with senior military officers and dozens of tactical and strategic military planners and logistics experts in Iraq and at U.S. military facilities across the region.

    A hastier departure could find military convoys stalled on roads cratered by roadside bombs, interrupted by blown bridges and clogged with fleeing refugees; heavy cargo planes jammed with troops could labor into skies dark with smoke rising from abandoned American bases.

    How the United States manages to disentangle itself from Iraq, whether in a graceful redeployment that strengthens stability or in a more chaotic retreat, will have profound repercussions for American power and prestige in the region, military and civilian strategists said.

    Indeed, even though the word withdrawal has become this summer’s most shopworn term in Washington, few have grasped the staggering difficulty, time and cost of actually carrying it out.

    “It’s going to be mind-boggling – like picking up the city of Los Angeles and putting all the pieces somewhere else,” said an official of the U.S. Army Sustainment Command, which will oversee much of the work

    Kind of puts it all in perspective, and the rest of the article is worth a read..

  • of course if they can’t plan the withdrawal any better than they planned going in or planned the occupying and rebuilding, its all rather moot – it will be a disaster.

  • Thanks, Anne. Military maneuvers are not supposed to be easy or casualty-free, that’s why they cost so much. Glancing through the article you refer me to suggests that the military guys don’t exactly have the stomach for a withdrawal at the moment, hence the grand list of difficulties. Somehow that lack of enthusiasm is not so evident when invasion is on the table. But I’m not an expert so my impressions could be mistaken.

    I realize that the accumulation of hardware over four years cannot just dematerialize in a few months — so, why not just leave it there? I’m sure the Iraqi children would love to play with it. Millions of people travel all round the world every month; 200,000 soldiers should be able to find their way out in a couple of weeks.

    Anyway, if they decide to withdraw, they’ll have the support of 78% of the local population (I’ve seen 82% and 88% in some polls) and, it seems now, the majority of the Iraqi parliament would help them on their way. The UN is on standy-by to assist. And, for what it’s worth, a majority of Americans (53 percent) want troops to remain for no more than a year.

    I don’t see anyone, bar a few neocon wingnuts, who would not give their support to the military organizing a withdrawal right now.

  • What is missing from this conversation is a dose of humility. More to the point, what is missing is the recognition that every single one of these plans contains the seeds of potential disaster, even catastrophe.

    Translation: Goodness gracious me. Those proud old legislators putting forth their silly little ideas that are bound to fail because I said so. How dare they try to alter the unpleasantness that the President humbly lead us into?

    I say again: Is that all you got?

    It seems that since the election the neo-con “debate” has shifted from “Democrats hate America, love Osama (and Nazis), don’t listen to them.” to “Democrats are sooo rude! Don’t listen to them.”

    And I thought we were the weak, effiminate intellectuals who fretted about rules and propriety while the strong, thrusting, no-nonsense ReThugs snarled “Go fuck yourself!” to the adulation of Das Base. How the worm has turned.*

    tAiO

    *No offense to annelids.

  • I went in to correct a typo, accidentally hit the wrong button, and deleted the post
    I’ve just got around to my morning blog read, so I hadn’t posted anything. I would like to suggest that we all start referring to CB as the Rosemary Woods of Left Blogistan.

  • “…accidentally hit the wrong button, and deleted the post — and its comments.”

    And here I thought maybe the NSA didn’t like the thread.

  • CB please contact me and explain why my previous observation about obfuscation was deleted from this thread. I’d like to know what transgression I am guilty of. -Kevo

  • No troops? … How many of the people who clamor for intervention in Darfur will also be clamoring to rush back into Iraq when full-scale ethnic cleansing starts taking place?

    How successful our clamoring for intervention in Darfur has been? Not so much. Even though a full-scale genocide is going on there, while in Iraq it’s a “might happen”. So let’s get out of Iraq now and deal with the possibles later. By that time, we might even have a normal — intead of overstretched — army again.

  • I went in to correct a typo, accidentally hit the wrong button, and deleted the post

    Damn. And I had never written a 23,000 word comment before.

    I think it was all plot to delete kevo’s obfuscation comment.

  • Anne did come accross as particularly stupid this morning.

    Every suggested change is a bad idea…

    … but so it staying with what we are doing Anne!

    And she fails to point out the arrogance of all the neo-cons, Lieberman et al, who say THEY know when to change the policy, but sorry they can’t tell the rest of us cause it would just embolden al-Qaeda.

    Thanks a lot Joe-ron

    • Comments are closed.