Zbigniew Brzezinski has an intelligent analysis in today’s Washington Post (requires simple registration) of the options in Iraq that neatly undercuts President Bush’s binary choice of “victory or defeat” and offers a way out of Iraq. It’s more realistic than those who call for pulling all the troops out tomorrow and certainly more realistic than those who seem to suggest that Iraq has to look like Oregon before coalition troops can be withdrawn.
Despite the overall realism of the essay, one remark in the essay was less than candid: “it is likely that both Kuwait and the Kurdish regions of Iraq would be amenable to some residual U.S. military presence as a guarantee against a sudden upheaval.” I’m sure that they would, indeed, be amenable, but why should we be amenable to that? Why shouldn’t they draw instead on their own resources to protect themselves? A “residual U.S. military presence” is merely a euphemism for a trip wire to full scale U.S. military involvement again.
Like you, Dr. Palmer, I was against the war.
But where we were the cause of the lack of security in Iraq, are we not the proper party to foot the bill for re-establishing security?
Like in tort law.
Only massively so.
Let’s posit that that’s the case. Surely, however, the obligation would not last forever. And part of Brzezinski’s point is that they will be more likely to work out a stable equilibrium if they have an incentive to do so. At some point the obligation must cease and, moreover, it may be less of an obligation if the locals are able to provide their own security and have good reason to do so.
I think you misinterpret ZB’s views on Iraq. Here is what he said at a forum in D.C. sponsored by the New America Foundation, which I attended:
“If our presence in Iraq is going to be for a long period, then we need to be change the terms of our presence drastically. And if it’s not going to be changed drastically, then our presence should be terminated.”
He then goes into his “let the Europeans share the responsibility and the decision-making, but “If that doesn’t work, then I would think that sometime in the course of this year, if there is something which vaguely approximates an Iraqi government–in all probability a Shiite theocracy, as a consequence of elections–then I think we should disengage because staying longer will dig us deeper and deeper in the conflict.”
Since the Euros aren’t about to get caught in this briar patch, then it’s fair to say ZB is for “disengagement” — i.e. withdrawal. As is Brent Scowcroft, who spoke in similar fashion at the forum.
I’m not sure as to our moral obligations to maintain security in Iraq.
But it certainly isn’t in the national interest to divert precious military resources to maintaining security without the guarantee that, well, we can maintain security. Coalition forces haven’t had the best record at maintaining order in Iraq. The only stable regions we do see, like Kurdistan, are secured with significant effort by the locals themselves. Moreover, there’s reason to believe that a protracted falling back of US forces would spur greater accountability on the part of Iraqi security. This would be welcome especially now that we here, for the sake of PR, US troops giving undue credit to the hastily trained Iraqis.
And while I’m not sure a residual presence is a precursor to full on occupation again. That said, it’s not necessarily a good thing either. The argument for having US bases dot the Eurasian land mass is shaky at best, not to mention threatening to any state that could interpret that as an overt projection of American power, rather than a hegemonic need to be the global octopus.
Come to think of it, both those things are pretty unsavory…
Brian Radzinsky’s points are, I think, spot on. I do think that it would have been immoral and unwise to make a decision simply to cut and run, which would have almost certainly led to a mass slaughter, but there has to be a very clear understanding on the part of all parties that the U.S. is not obligated indefinitely and does not plan to be there indefinitely. (Rather than setting a date certain, however, I think that it is better to set clear criteria for withdrawal and to follow them.)
Regarding “brahmin””s claim to have a better understanding of Brzezinski (and to have attended his speech — despite using an IP address that is nowhere near D.C and which he has used repeatedly to post defamatory comments about me and others on other websites and public internet sources, as well as — hmmmm….remarkable — updates on Justin Raimondo’s online biography), I was commenting on Brzenski’s most recent treatment in the Washington Post. (By the way, Brzenski’s full remarks, from whicn “brahmin” has extracted the quotes above are available online at http://www.newamerica.net//Download_Docs/pdfs/Doc_File_2135_1.pdf ).