Weighing the Escalation and the Escape

Unsurprisingly, there has been much talk recently about how to improve the situation in Iraq. This has been an issue since 2004, when John Kerry vaguely supported an increase in troop numbers and George Bush mumbled sweet nothings about staying the course. To tell the truth, despite the prominence of Iraq in the 2004 Presidential election, neither candidate made any real effort to define their position on Iraq. Today, things are different. Politicians are dividing into two camps about Iraq, and the people are following suit. We have two choices, the escalation and the escape.

The Republicans have become associated with the escalation and the Democrats with the escape, though in reality it is only some Republican politicians who support the escalation. (Arizona Sen. John McCain most vocally supports it, followed by the President, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman and most Senate Republicans.) The escalation, interestingly, was a part of John Kerry's plan for Iraq in 2004, though now he opposes the escalation. I would be hesitant to call Kerry a flipflopper for this, however: the situation in Iraq has changed drastically sicne 2004, and it is the position of many Democrats that the escalation might have succeeded in 2003 or 2004, but that we have allowed violence to become too rife in Iraq for it to succeed today.

Democrats have claimed wide bipartisan opposition to the escalation, and, while I would not call the Democrats plus a half-dozen Republican Senators "widely bipartisan", they are certainly in the majority in both the Senate and among the people. The Democrats have also coalesced around their alternative plan, the escape; even Democrats who once supported the Iraq War such as Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton have changed their tunes. Some have disputed whether Cantwell and Clinton have politics in mind or have in fact changed their opinions. I must remind the public that 70% of you supported the Iraq War at its outset, and 70% of you oppose it now, so Senators really, truly changing their minds should not be viewed as politicking.

The escalation relies on the assumption that a few more troops (and not many; the escalation is unlikely to even have a visible impact to the Iraqis unless all of the new troops are stationed in one place) will be able to quell most of the violence in Iraq. The idea seems faintly ludicrous to me: an increase of 20,000 soldiers will not suddenly make the various sectarians who have embedded themselves in Iraq more hesitant. While the President talks of securing Baghdad (and maybe if all 20,000 went to Baghdad they could secure it as long as they were there), the rest of Iraq would only continue to spiral into chaos, a spiral that would engulf Baghdad as well as soon as the entire army leaves. The only way the escalation can permanently reduce violence even in baghdad itself is if it becomes a permanent military stakeout. I, for one, do not want the American military stationed in Iraq indefinitely, draining our resources and our manpower as well as our ability to respond to real threats. Perhaps others think differently.

The escape relies on the assumption that the United States can somehow accelerate the process of strengthening the Iraqi government. This, too, sounds farcical. We have had approaching on four years to establish a strong Iraqi government and have not managed to do so, and the changes in policy advocated by escapists are so minor as to be unlikely to cause any change whatsoever, let alone the radical shift needed for the Iraqi government to be able to stand on its own. However, the strengthening of the Iraqi government is not the crux of the escapist argument. The escapists merely add the strengthening of the Iraqi government as an addendum to various timetables of withdrawal, ranging from "almost immediately" to "over a period of two years".

That is an interesting facet of the escapist argument: we need not actually strengthen the Iraqi government before we can leave. An Iraq in chaos is not, perhaps, the great legacy the American people would like to leave, but, as they say, you reap what you sow, and the US has done little but sow discord in the Middle East for decades. An Iraq in chaos will collapse into three separate nations, they argue who oppose the escapists. (I fail to see the problem; three stable nations are better than one unstable one.) Iran will gain influence (too late for stopping that one). Frankly, the United States is better off withdrawing and letting Iraq collapse, then dealing with what arises from the ashes of Iraq separately. Those who fearmonger about the power of Iran are delusional: Iran is no threat to American security, or to American sovereignty, and a strengthening Shi'ite power will encourage other, Sunni Middle Eastern nations to rally against Iran. I feel pity for the people of Iraq, but at this point there is nothing we can do.

Am I heartless? Perhaps. I endorse the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and laugh at those who say that throwing soldiers at a problem will fix it.