Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

hiredgun · 04-08-2008, 08:41 AM

Although the political rhetoric, even on the Republican side, wants to paint this war as a short-term commitment (remember how the surge was sold? tactical shift + troop increase = security -> political reconciliation -> draw-down of troops), it has been clear for a long time that inertia is on the side of a long military presence. See, for example, the fortress-like super-embassy that is being built in Baghdad. That is not a reasonable investment unless we are digging in for the long haul.

What bothers me more than the mere fact that we will stay for a long time is that this fact does not appear to be coherently connected to some larger strategy. We are [I think rightly] pinging the Iranians for more talks in a fairly public way right now, a fact the Iranians are happy to flaunt as a sign of US desperation. That Mahdi's recent offer to disband his army could happen without Iranian blessing is fairly inconceivable. Whatever their public stance of we-never-make-mistakes and we-don't-bargain-with-thugs, I think the administration has understood for some time the inescapable fact that we must involve Iran in any settlement of Iraq. But if that is the case, then why are we planning for this large and interminable troop presence? Is it a bargaining chip to show our seriousness, to be negotiated down with the Iranians? Is it a contingency plan?

The _feeling_ I get from the scant evidence is that this presence is going to continue either way, that the plans for a long-term presence have now picked up their own momentum. Perhaps this is part of a considered strategy to demonstrate our resolve - after all, diplomacy and strength go hand in hand. But on the other hand, it is also possible that different pieces of a stubborn bureaucracy are moving in different directions with no central leadership and coordination, and no definition, internal or external, of just what it is we are trying to accomplish here.

I think it is impossible for us to really know from where we stand, but the track record of the administration is not favorable in this regard.

04-08-2008, 08:41 AM	#3 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	Although the political rhetoric, even on the Republican side, wants to paint this war as a short-term commitment (remember how the surge was sold? tactical shift + troop increase = security -> political reconciliation -> draw-down of troops), it has been clear for a long time that inertia is on the side of a long military presence. See, for example, the fortress-like super-embassy that is being built in Baghdad. That is not a reasonable investment unless we are digging in for the long haul. What bothers me more than the mere fact that we will stay for a long time is that this fact does not appear to be coherently connected to some larger strategy. We are [I think rightly] pinging the Iranians for more talks in a fairly public way right now, a fact the Iranians are happy to flaunt as a sign of US desperation. That Mahdi's recent offer to disband his army could happen without Iranian blessing is fairly inconceivable. Whatever their public stance of we-never-make-mistakes and we-don't-bargain-with-thugs, I think the administration has understood for some time the inescapable fact that we must involve Iran in any settlement of Iraq. But if that is the case, then why are we planning for this large and interminable troop presence? Is it a bargaining chip to show our seriousness, to be negotiated down with the Iranians? Is it a contingency plan? The _feeling_ I get from the scant evidence is that this presence is going to continue either way, that the plans for a long-term presence have now picked up their own momentum. Perhaps this is part of a considered strategy to demonstrate our resolve - after all, diplomacy and strength go hand in hand. But on the other hand, it is also possible that different pieces of a stubborn bureaucracy are moving in different directions with no central leadership and coordination, and no definition, internal or external, of just what it is we are trying to accomplish here. I think it is impossible for us to really know from where we stand, but the track record of the administration is not favorable in this regard. Last edited by hiredgun; 04-08-2008 at 01:54 PM..