You, On Iraq

In that new NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll, a bare majority, 52%, want troops withdrawn by 2009. But you are not certain whether Hillary Clinton or John McCain, and, to a lesser extent, Barack Obama, is most capable of achieving that end. 43% of Americans say they want the troops to stay until the situation is stable.

Unfortunately, most Americans probably want both, not being entirely aware that option (a) would in the intermediate produce chaos that might lead to option (b); and the only way for a solution that accomplishes withdrawal without bloodshed would be extremely expensive and extremely time-consuming. None of the presidential candidates are there yet.

So when John McCain says that most Americans want "victory" and not "defeat" in Iraq, he ought to be challenged a bit. But when Democrats say that Americans want the troops out now, they ought to be challenged a bit too.

People a heckuva a lot smarter than I are coming to believe that the fall elections will turn on who Americans trust to withdraw from Iraq responsibly... on the theory that John McCain and the Democratic nominee will essentially hold the same position... and will be arguing over tactics and the message sent by those tactics.

Comments

What the f*ck is wrong with you, Marc Ambinder? Is this a foreign policy blog? Are you a foreign policy expert? Do we come here to listen to your unevidenced, unsourced, minimally-logiced royal pronouncements of baloney on this issue?

Unfortunately, most Americans probably want both

Says who? Would you stop pulling this stuff out of your behind!! That's *not* what the poll says!!

not being entirely aware that option (a) would in the intermediate produce chaos that might lead to option (b);

I'm sorry. Was I in the bathroom when Jesus came down from the sky and handed you a stone tablet proving this to be true? Or are you - hmmm - inventing it?

Do you want to be the next Joe Klein, Marc Ambinder? If not, I suggest you stop slipping this hogwash into your reality-based programming. It's opinion presented as fact, and it's shallow.

Posted by glasnost | March 13, 2008 12:50 PM

Thanks for noting the "victory-defeat" language issue. I'm all for getting out of there carefully. But I don't see what there is for the United States of America to "win" in Iraq. I really hope the security, political stability, rule of law, civil liberties, and standard of living in Iraq icnrease. But when these things occur, it is a victory for the Iraqis, not us.

Posted by Beth | March 13, 2008 1:22 PM

Well, I think the problem with this poll is that it is entirely based on a massively flawed false choice:

A) Leave
B) Stay and make things stable

I don't think we have any reason to believe that stability will be an end result of continued US troop presence in Iraq, nor should we assume that "chaos" would break out if we left.

The first part of that falacy ignores the fact that instability was largely brought on by our entrance to Iraq (you could argue, of course, that chaos is much better than tyranny, but it doesn't change this fact).

It also ignores the fact that foreign terrorists contribute to instability in Iraq now, but are largely able to operate there only because they present themselves as defenders against the Americans. If we left, they might find their local support drying up.

The second falacy (more commonly heard) that assumes that a US departure in 2009 or 2010 would lead to "chaos", with Shia and Sunni at each other's throats, ignores the fact that this sectarian chaos was unleashed at least as far back as 2004, and has already begun to dissipate.

Simply put, the Iraqi Civil War is in the process of burning itself out, with mixed-ethnicity neighborhoods disappearing, and the secure intra-Iraqi borders slowly appearing. This will likely continue to happen, with or without US troops (in fact, the seeming success of the "surge" strategy is largely misleading, since it hasn't been the additional troops in Baghdad but rather the acceptance of local Sunni control over the Sunni triangle which has reduced violence).

The situation in Iraq is best understood as a variant of the one in Yugoslavia in the 90s, and not postwar Germany or even Vietnam. In the end, nobody was going to come out of this mess with "victory" or "defeat", but rather, Iraq would change from a unified (by tyranny) state into a collection of independant or semi-independant self-governing states. For reasons I'll never understand, the Bush Administration tried to stand in the way of this obvious outcome for 4 years, before finally waking up to the "Sunni Awakening" and allowing the inevitable to come to pass.

Sorry for the long post, but I think it's important to clear this nonsense up.

Posted by Jesse | March 13, 2008 1:29 PM

I was thinking the same thing, Glasnost. This blog felt like: "according to this poll 52% of Americans think blah, blah, blah, but little do they know...."

Posted by Bjorn | March 13, 2008 1:44 PM

I hate to disagree with the earlier poster but the notion that chaos was caused by the invasion SUPPORTS the notion that chaos will resume when we leave. It is not the appearance of US troops that created havoc it was the removal of a state run apparatus that had a monopoly on physical force (ie. the disbanded army and police). If the US removes what has now become that apparatus that replaced Saddam's old one without having a new Iraq-run security system in place then chaos will definetly resume until said Iraqi system takes hold.

Secondly, this notion that the sunnia-shia fight has exhausted itself is just silly. Baghdad is a huge, multi-ethnic, multi-religious city and would easily go up into flames if hostilities broke out. Simply put, there will be blood.

Posted by Jesse (Another) | March 13, 2008 1:51 PM

I think what each candidate is offering Ambers is the following:

Obama = full retreat in 18 months. In reality pushback from the generals and establishment will probably morph this into Hilary's position of going a bit slower with more planning up front.

McCain = the Petraeus counter-insurgency model of focusing on training up Iraqi units, hosting joint combat missions with them, and then deploying them alone. More units trained means less burden on US troops. US troop deaths go down, rotations return from 15 months to 12, and troops start coming home. The downside is that this will probably take five years to complete.

In terms of rhetoric Obama will say he opposes Iraq, it was a mistake blah blah, take care of the troops and leave.

McCain will counter that he should stop talking about the past and deal with the reality today, that Obama's plan is surrender and retreat, and that he wants to bring the troops home as much as anybody but with victory.

Posted by Jesse (Another) | March 13, 2008 1:56 PM

In addition, a lot may happend this year, in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, which may shift attitudes about the candidates.

If the Clintons had any class they would be positioning themselves between Obama and McCain as having a moderate position, rather than all these sleazy tactics to win the nomination.

Sorry for the wishful thinking.

Posted by Kim | March 13, 2008 1:59 PM

The nugget here is that Obama's approach to Iraq comes in last behind Clinton's and McCain's approaches ... in both "Right Approach" and "Wrong Approach" rankings!

Another small victory for post-polarized politics.

Posted by RonK, Seattle | March 13, 2008 3:03 PM

McCain put his Presidential Candidacy on the line to support the General. KUDOS to McCain for being a true and courageous leader.

Posted by Mary Anderson | March 13, 2008 3:15 PM

I think what each candidate is offering Ambers is the following:

Obama = Withdraw all combat bridges within 16 months, maintain residual force to combat imminent terroist threats, refocus efforts to target Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

McCain = Stay in Iraq for as long as it takes for it to become a secure, stable democracy, even if it means another 100 years, 100,000 casualties, and 100 trillion dollars.

My sound bites are better than yours.

Posted by Tractarian | March 13, 2008 3:28 PM

Two can play that game tractarian.

Obama = leave Iraq but maybe re-invade if genocide breaks out or if Al Quaeda sets up a base.

McCain = the war is ending soon, its winding down. There insurgency will continue but the Iraqi army will take care of it with our help.

Posted by Jesse | March 13, 2008 3:49 PM

Are you not paying attention to what John McCain says? He wants more years of war. Ten years, or a hundred years. He even said a million years at one point.

So please stop the pretense that it's just a matter of deciding which candidate has a marginally better plan to get us out of this ungodly mess. John McCain has made it quite plain that he doesn't want to get out at all. Get real! If John McCain is elected, thousands more Americans will die. Tens of thousands more Iraqis will die. Hundreds of billions more dollars will go up in smoke.

Like I said, wake up and GET REAL!

Posted by Tom in California | March 13, 2008 5:46 PM

GET REAL! Yourself Tom in California. Obama is taking you guys for a ride when he says McCain wants 100 more years of war in Iraq.

He was being asked a question about having US troops in the country like the bases we have around the world. He said he was fine with that. As far as I can tell Obama is only planning to leave residual non-combat troops in Iraq as well - for how long he hasn't told us. 100 years maybe?

Posted by Jesse | March 13, 2008 5:59 PM