Iraq Exit Strategies
Remarks by ADA Vice President James K. Galbraith, to the Security Policy Working Group Forum on Iraq. February 22, 2005
Some excerpts:
"'You can't win and you can't break even; you can't get out of the game. You shouldn't stay but--you ain't leaving, for your luck might change again...'
This is an old story. It has to do with the enthusiasm many feel at first for military solutions to international problems, and with the way wars have of getting out of hand, of inventing new justifications for themselves as they go along, of continuing far longer and of costing far more than anyone thought they would. The story also has to do with the way wars sometimes end, when the side with less will to sacrifice finally quits. That was us in Vietnam. It may be us in Iraq. But not for a long time.
I opposed the Iraqi war, even though, given my brother Peter's direct knowledge of the crimes against the Kurds, I could have no illusions about Saddam Hussein. But I took what I thought should be an economist's view, and asked, what could we gain, and what would it cost?
On November 15, 2002, I responded to a request from an old friend, former Senator Gary Hart, for a memorandum on current issues. I chose to weigh in on Iraq:
It is important to approach this issue practically - which is to say, from an economic standpoint. One way is to point out that while the impending war on Iraq may prove to be fairly easy..., the post-war occupation is certainly going to be ugly. Iraq is a huge country. The oil fields, the cities and the ports will need to be protected. The protectors will need to be protected. Saddam has 150,000 secret police who will not physically disappear. There is a large Shi'a population with whom our relations could deteriorate quickly if their leaders don't like our rule.. Worst of all there is Al Qaeda. They are not in Iraq right now, but they will be. And they will find plenty of fresh targets in occupied Iraq. Algeria comes to mind; does anyone remember?...
...
Once we have invaded, getting out again is not going to be easy. On the contrary, it will be very easy for Al Qaeda and others to guarantee just enough turmoil to ensure that it is never quite safe to leave. The choice will therefore become one of staying and bleeding, or of accepting an ignominious retreat - think the Israelis from South Lebanon but on a much larger scale. People need to understand is that a decision to invade Iraq is, in effect, a decision to establish what will be, for practical purposes, a permanent zone of occupation there."
He finishes with this:
"As for a time-table for withdrawing from Iraq--yes, by all means let's also discuss that tactical option. Let's not rule it out. It might be the right move. And there are not that many good moves on the chessboard, just now."
For the full remarks click HERE
Galbraith is also the chair of Economists for Peace and Security, and holds the Lloyd M. Bentsen, Jr., Chair in Government/Business Relations at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin.
Some excerpts:
"'You can't win and you can't break even; you can't get out of the game. You shouldn't stay but--you ain't leaving, for your luck might change again...'
This is an old story. It has to do with the enthusiasm many feel at first for military solutions to international problems, and with the way wars have of getting out of hand, of inventing new justifications for themselves as they go along, of continuing far longer and of costing far more than anyone thought they would. The story also has to do with the way wars sometimes end, when the side with less will to sacrifice finally quits. That was us in Vietnam. It may be us in Iraq. But not for a long time.
I opposed the Iraqi war, even though, given my brother Peter's direct knowledge of the crimes against the Kurds, I could have no illusions about Saddam Hussein. But I took what I thought should be an economist's view, and asked, what could we gain, and what would it cost?
On November 15, 2002, I responded to a request from an old friend, former Senator Gary Hart, for a memorandum on current issues. I chose to weigh in on Iraq:
It is important to approach this issue practically - which is to say, from an economic standpoint. One way is to point out that while the impending war on Iraq may prove to be fairly easy..., the post-war occupation is certainly going to be ugly. Iraq is a huge country. The oil fields, the cities and the ports will need to be protected. The protectors will need to be protected. Saddam has 150,000 secret police who will not physically disappear. There is a large Shi'a population with whom our relations could deteriorate quickly if their leaders don't like our rule.. Worst of all there is Al Qaeda. They are not in Iraq right now, but they will be. And they will find plenty of fresh targets in occupied Iraq. Algeria comes to mind; does anyone remember?...
...
Once we have invaded, getting out again is not going to be easy. On the contrary, it will be very easy for Al Qaeda and others to guarantee just enough turmoil to ensure that it is never quite safe to leave. The choice will therefore become one of staying and bleeding, or of accepting an ignominious retreat - think the Israelis from South Lebanon but on a much larger scale. People need to understand is that a decision to invade Iraq is, in effect, a decision to establish what will be, for practical purposes, a permanent zone of occupation there."
He finishes with this:
"As for a time-table for withdrawing from Iraq--yes, by all means let's also discuss that tactical option. Let's not rule it out. It might be the right move. And there are not that many good moves on the chessboard, just now."
For the full remarks click HERE
Galbraith is also the chair of Economists for Peace and Security, and holds the Lloyd M. Bentsen, Jr., Chair in Government/Business Relations at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin.
1 Comments:
The issue of rational policy options for the U.S. in Iraq is a tough one. Withdrawal, however, is not a good choice. At this point we really do have to look at the causes of the invasion and the regime change operation itself as sunk costs that should not be under consideration.
This is hard for us good liberals to do, because the circumstances of the invasion were so objectionable. Still, the reality to which the U.S. has to respond does follow the logic of the much cliched "you break it, you buy it" line. In addition, a benefit of focusing on how we proceed w/Iraq, rather than focusing on why the invasion was so terrible in so many ways, moves liberals in the direction of positive policy prescriptions. And across a wide range of topics this is the direction we must move toward, rather than settling for criticizing Bush's policies.
Getting back to the original idea behind this post, rather than withdrawal liberals should advocate for the U.S. to multilateralize the Iraqi post-conflict reconstruc operation. Multilateral reconstruc exercises in difficult places, ranging from Bosnia to Afghanistan (yes, in many ways the Afgh post-confl operation has been a success), have been successful. Involve the UN, bring in the Euros, engage the Arab League, etc. These are obviously not concrete policy proposals, but a general direction that Democrats can take when commenting on Iraq.
Post a Comment
<< E-Liberal Home