Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader has been giving some thought to the Smallholder's post concerning the
recent Bob Novak column in which Novak says that a withdrawl of US troops next year is immenent. The good Minister of Agriculture asks a series of lettered questions. They were:
I would like the Maximum Leader and Foreign Minister to weigh in on this topic. IF Bob Novak is not Marion Barry's new crack-smokin' bud, and IF Bush plans to pull us out post November, is this a) immoral, b) impeachable, c) does it consitute a betrayal of the armed forces, and d) how pissed would you be?
Here are your Maximum Leader's thoughts on these questions.
First off, letter "b" is the easiest of these to answer. By no commonly accepted definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, nor by any definition that your Maximum Leader could imagine putting forth; does the withdrawl of US forces from Iraq constitute an impeachable offence.
Skippy suggested this course in his post, referenced by the Smallholder. Impeachment on the grounds that President Bush would have failed to uphold his oath of office and would have abandoned Iraq to a murderous outcome - which could constitute a war crime. Well, Skippy is a generally astute observer of American politics. But this analysis is over the top and unimaginable. (Perhaps it makes sense in Canada?) A perfectly reasonable argument can be made that American interests "have changed" and that troops in Iraq are no long in the national interest. Thus having them remain would be a violation of his oath. Additionally, in order to levy a charge of war crimes, you have to have had war crimes committed. While your Maximum Leader hasn't checked in a the Hauge recently, failure to stop a murderous civil war (when you have no troops on the ground) hasn't yet been declared a war crime. The various interpretations and possible spins of why we left Iraq, coupled with Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress, makes the whole issue moot. Impeachment for leaving Iraq just isn't a vaugely plausible outcome of the Novak senario.
And to add on one more clarification (in case the Smallholder thinks your Maximum Leader isn't fully answering the question) should Bush be impeached for leaving Iraq in 2005, assuming the situation doesn't substantially change for the better? No.
Now, moving along to a) and c), which are closely linked. Your Maximum Leader feels that if, in fact, the Administration has determined that come hell or high water US troops will leave Iraq in 2005, and is only delaying withdrawl for the purposes of securing Bush's re-election; it would be an immoral act of betrayal of the trust of the American people and our valiant soliders.
That said, this is a pretty hard policy to prove. There are lots of "ifs" in there...
If the decision has already been made.
If the motivation behind the decision was the election. If, if, if.
And finally, would your Maximum Leader be pissed if Bush just up and withdrew our troops after the Iraqi elections (or some other arbitrary date) next year? (Assuming that the situation doesn't dramatically improve.) Yes, he would. (But do these hypotheticals all add up to support for Kerry? No.)
Now, having answered the Minister of Agriculture's questions... Allow your Maximum Leader further discourse on this topic.
Your Maximum Leader certainly hopes that various folks at different levels of the Administration are reviewing all sorts of policy choices concerning Iraq. He hopes that these range from saying "To hell with Iraq, let's nuke the whole bloody place." to "We need to think about a 40-50 year occupation force, with all the acutrements of nation-building."
One of the possible options needs to be, in fact must be, "Let's cut our losses and get the hell out of Dodge."
So, why Bob Novak? Why does this come out? Your Maximum Leader remembers during the Reagan and Bush 41 years learning of the concept of the "trial balloon." That is to say that some Administration member, who should be able to speak authoritatively on a subject, meets with a reporter or other person who can circulate an idea publically; and says "the Administration is planning to do 'X.'" The Administration source neglects to mention that plan "X" is only the 24th in a list of many possible plans. Or says that while there are many other plans, but we like "X" right now to the exclusion of others.
The purpose of the conversation is to have plan "X" circulated publically and for the Administration to listen for the reaction. They can then gauge what might happen if they do in fact go with plan "X."
Your Maximum Leader is confident that the Novak column was a trial balloon, directed at conservative supporters of the President, to illicit the response given by Skippy; and prompt the pointed questions of the Smallholder. (In the Reagan years, your Maximum Leader seems to remember that Jack Anderson was the trial balloon commentator of choice. It must be Novak now.) Probably, Karl Rove was trying to figure out what the full political fall-out of a 2005 withdrawl would be (assuming the situation in Iraq doesn't improve). Anyone who thinks that in the world we live in decisions aren't contemplated from the standpoint of political fallout is deluding themselves.
Of course, what if the situation does change in Iraq in 2005? Prime Minister Allawi
is hopeful. (Or he is Bush's
willing dupe? Or are those people claiming that Allawi is a dupe really just
disrepectful defeatists?) Suppose that elections in Iraq cause a new government to be formed that has broad support and is able to make quick improvements in the security situation? Would your Maximum Leader be upset if US troops withdrew under those conditions? Nope. That would be just fine in fact.
Does your Maximum Leader anticipate that Iraq will magically become a better place - with an improved security situation - after the elections? No, he does not. The more he thinks about it, the more he thinks that the Sunni Muslims need to prepare themselves for a real nasty smackdown. The Shia will likely dominate the new government, and they will likely show their ire towards decades of Sunni oppression in rather harsh terms. This may be moderated somewhat by the presence of US troops, but your Maximum Leader doubts it. US troops have already (more or less) given up on the real hotbeds of Sunni terror. Your Maximum Leader figures that some quickly deputized Shia militias will move into places like Fallujah and "clean house."
The unintended concequence of our Iraq invasion is that Iraq is now a primary front in the war on terror. Everyone agrees that terrorist, potential terrorists, and sort-of-potential terrorists are a) in Iraq or b) on their way to Iraq. This got your Maximum Leader to thinking that (Heresy!) this situation might not be all that bad (from the point of view of everyone in the world that isn't an Iraqi) - if played correctly. (Big if.)
Allow your Maximum Leader to wildly speculate some...
The first benefit to the US of Iraq being the primary front in the war on terror is that terrorists in Iraq, attacking US soliders in Iraq, are not attacking US civilians in the US. The drawback to this is that in the areas where US troops are not trying to keep the peace, terrorists are likely planning ways of killing Americans in America. While the knowledge that our troops are targets at every moment is not pleasant; your Maximum Leader can take some comfort that our brave soliders are trained to protect themselves and aren't going to just sit around and get killed.
The concentration of terrorists, or the terror movement in general, in Iraq gives the US the opportunity to deliver a devastating blow to the widespread support of terrorist and terror networks throughout the Muslim world.
If the terrorists are doing there best to drive the US out of Iraq. And if the terrorists are doing their best to prevent any sort of secular, tolerant, democratic goverment from taking root in Iraq. What is a possible outcome of the terrorists failing to accomplish both goals?
One possible outcome is that lots and lots of terrorists are hunted down and killed in Iraq. Leaving many fewer terrorists.
Certainly another possible outcome is disillusionment with terror as a viable means to a desired end. Will this mean an end to terror and terrorists? No. Nothing will ever cause terrorist methods from ceasing to be used. But perhaps widespread public support for terrorist (enjoyed widely throughout the Muslim world) will begin to dissipate.
As so many commentators have pointed out, the only (plausible) way to break the hold of the terrorist mentality in the Muslim world is to create an environment where terror doesn't naturally flourish. It means improving the political situation. It means improving education. It means improving the standard of living of common people. It means moderating Islam.
None of these things are easily done. None of them are done quickly. But they can be done. The first step down this path in Iraq was removing Saddam Hussein. The next step is free elections and the beginnings of self-government. The step after that is the reestablishment of an Iraqi civil society in a secure environment. That step will have to be a joint Iraqi and US effort, at least in the early stages.
Of course, what sort of civil society will Iraq have? While your Maximum Leader hopes that the three major factions in Iraq will be able to come to terms with each other and live together - he is beginning to doubt it. Your Maximum Leader is becoming more convinced that two states will emerge from what we now know as Iraq. There will be a Kurdish dominated one in the north; and a Shia dominated one in the south. They will likely emerge after the elections. The Shia are the largest of the three groups, and will likely be able to form a government and an army that will be able to take control of a significant portion of the country. The Kurds have been semi-autonomous already, and are not likely to want to stay involved with a government that would require them to give up some (or all) of that autonomy.
Probably, the newly established democratic government of Iraq will want to institute some broad "federal/national" powers. The Shia majority will tell the Kurds to comply or else. The Kurds will suggest just leaving Iraq. And your Maximum Leader thinks that the Shia might just let them go.
It is something of a cost benefit analysis rationality here. The Shia dominated government could expend all of its resources trying to bring the Kurds to bear. Or they could agree to let the Kurds go, and just kill some Sunnis. After all, the Kurds suffered under the Sunni rule. Why not just let them go? If the Shia are thinking logically about it, they might just let the Kurds go.
Provided that both sides can come to terms on how to deal with the oil reserves in the Kurdish north. That oil either flows south to the Persian Gulf, or it flows some other way. Turkey is not a likely partner. Neither is Syria, nor Iran. But if the Kurds could get a passage to Saudi Arabia or to Jordan... It just might work. Assuming that the Kurds and the Shia couldn't come to terms on existing pipeline use...
Yes... About the only thing holding Iraq together is oil.
Your Maximum Leader hasn't been very kind in his predictions to the Sunni population of Iraq.
Well, the Sunnis are the big loosers here. Both the Shia and the Kurds have axes they are grinding now with the eager anticipation of planting them into a Sunni's back very soon. Your Maximum Leader feels he should be more upset than he is about this possible outcome. In some way he feels it is karma. The Sunnis have had it coming. If you don't think that your crimes will be revisited upon you, think again.
Some commentators have speculated that Iraq could break into three nations. Kurdish, Shia, and Sunni. Your Maximum Leader just doesn't think that the Kurds and the Shia will let the Sunni get away so easily. There will be some serious ethnic bloodshed. It is only a matter of when.
So, back to how Iraq as a primary battlefield in the war on terror is (possibly) good for the US...
The US must remain dedicated to firmly supporting a new Iraq. (Or possibly two new Iraqs.) We must continue to press for democracy. We must continue to press for property and legal rights. We must continue to press for toleration. If these ideas can begin to take hold and stability ensues, despite the worst efforts of terrorists, it will give the Muslim world something to hope for other than another infidel beheading to watch on Al Jazeera.
Carry on.
