Realists on Iraq

Yes, this is the WSJ, but I find this intriguing and would like to hear specific comments on the article, not simply trashing the messenger.. qe

======

The Wall Street Journal

Realists on Iraq
By DAN SENOR
June 5, 2007; Page A23

(snip)

Indeed, it has often been said that the president got into Iraq because he disregarded advice from the true regional experts: foreign-policy "realists" who put together the Gulf War I coalition and counseled President George H.W. Bush against regime change; "moderate" Sunni Arab Governments; and the U.S. intelligence community. But what if today these groups were actually advising against an American withdrawal? Consider Brent Scowcroft, dean of the Realist School, who openly opposed the war from the outset and was a lead skeptic of the president's democracy-building agenda. In a recent Financial Times interview, he succinctly summed up the implication of withdrawal: "The costs of staying are visible; the costs of getting out are almost never discussed. If we get out before Iraq is stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble Iraq today. Getting out is not a solution."

And here is retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Centcom Commander and a vociferous critic of what he sees as the administration's naïve and one-sided policy in Iraq and the broader Middle East: "When we are in Iraq we are in many ways containing the violence. If we back off we give it more room to breathe, and it may metastasize in some way and become a regional problem. We don't have to be there at the same force level, but it is a five- to seven-year process to get any reasonable stability in Iraq."

A number of Iraq's Sunni Arab neighbors also opposed the war as well as the U.S. push for liberalizing the region's authoritarian governments. Yet they now backchannel the same two priorities to Washington: Do not let Iran acquire nukes, and do not withdraw from Iraq. A senior Gulf Cooperation Council official told me that "If America leaves Iraq, America will have to return. Soon. It will not be a clean break. It will not be a permanent goodbye. And by the time America returns, we will have all been drawn in. America will have to stabilize more than just Iraq. The warfare will have spread to other countries, governments will be overthrown. America's military is barely holding on in Iraq today. How will it stabilize 'Iraq Plus'?" (Iraq Plus is the term that some leaders in Arab capitals use to describe the region following a U.S. withdrawal.) I heard similar warnings made repeatedly on a recent trip to almost every capital in the Persian Gulf -- to some of America's closest allies and hosts of our military.

Likewise, withdrawal proponents cite career U.S. intelligence professionals as war skeptics, and not without basis. Yet here is what the U.S. intelligence community predicted in its National Intelligence Estimate early this year: "Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq. . . .

"If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the Iraqi Security Forces would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution: neighboring countries -- invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally -- might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable; Al Qaeda in Iraq would attempt to use parts of the country -- particularly al-Anbar province -- to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq; and spiraling violence and disarray in Iraq, along with Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy, could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion."

(snip)


Mr. Senor, a former foreign policy advisor to the Bush administration, was based in Baghdad from April 2003 through June 2004. He is a founding partner of Rosemont Capital.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118101405403924760.html (subscription)

What you have posted was all said BEFORE the war started, and has come to pass. Assuming that Mr Senor argues for the prolongation of US military involvement, I would respond that the question is not whether things will be bad if we leave, the question is whether there is any reason to think things will be better if we stay, and the answer is still "no".

No one wants to see Iraq turn into a safe haven for terrorists or the center of a regional crisis in the middle east, but how long are we going to have to stick around before they can last on their own. I remember in 2003 that this was supposed to be a bang-bang operation that everyone would be home in a few months. If voters knew then what they know now I guarantee that there would have been no public support for this wacky idea that I was opposed to then. I don't want to get into thinking about the past, but I do want to know where we go from here. Doing what we're doing now militarily for the next five years seems untenable and I don't see a lot of progress on the political front.

I have always thought that a UN force composed mainly of troops from Arab neighbors should have been replaced our troops. That is, if toppling the Hussein regime was the goal (yeah, right). And I think it is not too late.

At least the peace keeping forces will be soldiers who speak the same language, share beliefs and behavior.

I really hope that you're right and that would work, but I'm not sure that they would share the same beliefs. If there's anything that I've learned from this whole debacle is the difference between the different sects of Islam (Sunnis and Shiites). These guys make any strife between the Catholics and Protestants look like kids stuff. Again, I hope that you're right.

the oil sharing agreement into effect. But now it looks like the Iraqis are going to stuff that into the round file. So now the money elite is backing and filling and trying to come up with some way to recoup what they've spent by staying and hoping.

The danger of course is that as long as we have American soldiers in Iraq they are in danger, not just from insurgents but also being caught between the Saudi supporting the Sunis and the Iranians supporting the Shia. Both are supplying weapons to their surrogates and the Saudis have already said they will join the Sunis against the Shia. That bodes ill for our countrymen and women. But of course the wealthy elite corporate leaders care nothing about our countrymen and women. They are multinational and owe us no allegiance.