War and Politics

Via Daily Kos, I found this Washington Post story which contained some surprisingly clear signals about what the administration's up to in Iraq:

"'There's no question that many of the big-picture items have been pushed down the list or erased completely,' said a senior U.S. official involved in Iraq's reconstruction, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 'Right now, everyone's attention is focused [on] doing what we need to do to hand over sovereignty by next summer.'

"The new approach, U.S. diplomats said, calls into question the prospects for initiatives touted by conservative strategists to fashion Iraq into a secular, pluralistic, market-driven nation. While the diplomats maintain those goals are still attainable, the senior official said, 'ideology has become subordinate to the schedule.'"

This is the second time in as many days that I've seen U.S. officials declare planned schedules the key factor underlying significant foreign policy decisions. The stated goals of American foreign policy have become subservient to making President Bush look good during an election year. This is not, I think, a healthy thing given the grave threats which continue to exist in the world today, prompting orange alerts during the holiday season and the like. I do not think the U.S. would be wise to try to completely reinvent Iraqi society as the neocons hoped. However, the U.S. has both a moral obligation and a national security imperative to leave a stable Iraq, and it seems the Bush administration is intent on abandoning both.

Let's be clear about what the stakes are here. While I've generally said I don't think Iraq will break up a la Yugoslavia, I do think civil war is a possibility, and that anarchy like Somalia's or a government which doesn't control large areas of the country like Yemen's would be a worse national security threat than Saddam Hussein. There's a fair amount of evidence that al-Qaeda-esque groups are starting to play a role in Iraq. These groups thrive in poor and failed states where they can trade wealth for protection at either the local or national level, setting up shop outside the reach of responsible governments. There's also the danger that an unstable Iraq could draw in outside powers, most notably Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. My regular readers will remember from over the summer how conflict among India, Iran and Pakistan is affecting the rebuilding in Afghanistan, and how Uzbekistan appears to be keeping Dostum around in the north as their proxy much like Iran supports Ismail Khan. This in turn is hindering stabilization in that country keeping the door open for the Taliban resurgence. You could see similar conditions play out in Iraq, only in the heart of the Middle East with oil at stake instead of opium.

I will reserve a special mention for the Saudi danger, which I hope to go into in the near future.

President Bush will not be the first chief executive to make national security subservient to political interests, but it's never good when it happens, as those who remember the Vietnam War can well attest. All we can do right now is argue the case for staying the course and keep our fingers crossed.