I guess for me the question is -- is there any conceivable point at which our pulling out doesn't result in civil war?

If so, are we doing things that are getting us closer to that point? If not, it doesn't really matter if we pull out tomorrow, a month from tomorrow, or a year from tomorrow -- we're just postponing the inevitable tragedy.

If there's a plausible story to be told how staying for X months longer leads to an Iraq where a genocidal civil war is unlikely, then sure, let's talk about staying. But I haven't heard that story. And if Iraqis are scared about the Iraqi police --the police force that we've spent years building up -- being an engine of genocide when we leave, I'm not sure if our staying doesn't make things worse.

I wish I had answers for these questions, but I'm not sure anybody does...

I just think calling up a 35 year old single mom who hasn't been in the Military for 4 years to serve in Iraq on the Individual Ready Reserve is un-American. I don't care about all the legality of it. That happened recently in my town. If you have to do that then it's time to bring the boots back on American soil or start a draft. I know that the military has a legal right to call up single moms on the IRR but it's completely beneath contempt that they do. Just my 2 Conservative Cents.

I heard the NPR report and it was your usual thoughtful, measured analysis until you got to this point. You said "I thought, my God, Americans want to see genocide in Iraq." A comment by one, two or a few people here or there hardly qualify as "Americans" support for genocide. If you go back and listen to the NPR piece, I think you'll be surprised at how out of character this comment was.

Regarding genocide, I doubt few people would want to see it or be indifferent to it. Whether troop withdrawal or troop levels should be contingent upon it, however, depends on many other factors like how many, for how long, status of Iraqi government, Iranian conduct and too many other factors to list.

I will note, also, that given US responsibility for the state of the county due to our invasion and occupation, it would be difficult to either withdraw/drawdown in the face of genocide. As a practical matter, not going to happen.

That doesn't mean that it has to be decided or that the Obama administration has to take a position on it or have a policy now. It's one of too many possible contingencies and will end up being a highly contextualized decision.

But, hold back on the broad, incendiary comments about American indifference about possible future genocide in Iraq

I just loved those 31 Republican Congressmen trying to pass a resolution yesterday claiming "victory" in Iraq.

This must "logically" follow upon the earlier attempts to suggest that the surge "succeeded" - if you believe this sort of thing you watch Fox news exclusively.

The final Republican insult to the dignity of the US public will be to suggest that Democrats, and particularly Obama, are responsible for the disaster that awaits in Iraq if we leave - or to the US budget if we stay.

I'd prefer to see a reprise of that "Mission Accomplished" photo-op juxtaposed with those Cambodia-style skulls.

So it seems we will get to "thank" the Republicans both for an endless "Groundhog Day" tour in Iraq and insufficient levels of stimulus spending in the jaws of a depression (sorry, had to get one more jab in there).

RE: stimulus insufficiency & irresponsible Republicans...

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/04/global-recession-insolvent-opinions-columnists-roubini-economy_print.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f24fc392-082a-11de-8a33-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/return-of-depression-economics/#comments

Seriously, Mr. Ricks, what is the actual probability of "genocide" in Iraq? Iraq may see various kinds of civil strife and conflict in a post-American environment. But genocide? Before we start making policy based dread and nightmares and worst-case scenarios, we deserve a cool-headed assessment of how likely it is that these nightmares will come to pass.

Acts of genocide have been committed over the past 3 years in Iraq, and I for one am happy that widespread sectarian violence seems to be finally quieting down. But to stake the probability of a return to mutual sectarian "genocide" on the presence or absence of American troops is a fallacy.

The prevalence of sectarian violence depends not on the veneer of security lent by American forces, but on equitable political reconciliation. Without significant political reforms, designed to downplay sectarian identity rather than enshrine it, there will be no progress toward a sustainable Iraq, US soldiers or not.

1) I don't think Americans "want" to see a genocide in Iraq, and I doubt more than a very small minority would even claim to be indifferent to it. They are, however, frustrated, confused, and sick of the whole thing, especially those who originally supported the war on the grounds of WMD and al Qaeda connections, and who believed it would be short and easy. I'll play amateur psychoanalyst for a minute and say that a lot of the expressed indifference to the Iraqi's fate is a function of these people's attempts to disassociate themselves from their former selves. Or something like that.

2) For those who actually are indifferent, or who would be saddened but resign themselves to an Iraq in chaos, I think there's a sense that the statute of limitations has run out on the pottery-barn rule. [Hey, not a bad turn of phrase, huh? You better not steal it, Ricks! ;-) ] As it were. Just as wars "become" the wars of the presidents who didn't start them after they decide to escalate, or after they persist beyond the people's repudiation of the war, I think there's a sense (rightly or wrongly) that this became the Iraqis' war at some point, and that the US can't hold itself responsible for their future indefinitely.

3) There's also a sense among many folk who read about these things, that the kind of civil war-like violence threatening Iraq is incapable of being massaged away by third parties. That there's a kind of inevitability to it: it only takes a very small proportion of the population to throw a society over the cliff, and that Iraq seems to be in that category, where certain figures will unleash the dogs of war in the hopes of consolidating their power, and that these dogs will fight until they're exhausted, or until the population as a whole becomes sick of it all and asserts themselves to put an end to it.

That's how the American mood strikes me; whether it's right, justified, moral, etc., . . . well, that's above my pay grade (for the moment).

J Thomas: sort of a geo-Freudian slip there with "vietnam," eh? but we know what you mean.

I understand you, JT. And it doesn't help that (both with Vietnam and Iraq) the folks who want to prolong a war for other reasons so often argue (disingenuously) on humanitarian grounds. When I was a kid I got so sick of hearing, "If we pull out of Vietnam now, there'll be a bloodbath!" (I think it was NATIONAL LAMPOON that responded, "So what's it now, a snowstorm?")

I certainly don't put Mr. Ricks in that camp. In fact, I don't know of ANY reporters, and very few military personnel, who have been on the ground in Iraq and who aren't exceedingly apprehensive for the security of the people there, and the extreme dangers they'll be exposed to when we leave.

I respect Mr. Ricks, and others, opinions on this because they've got something I don't: the experience of meeting these people, living with them, looking them in the eye, relying and depending upon them, sometimes for their very lives (as almost any reporter who's been in Iraq will tell you they've done more than once in regard to their drivers or translators).

Some might call it sentimentalism, others simply an awareness of moral obligation, but it's not to be denied a voice--one we should listen carefully to--even if it isn't a substitute for hard policy decisions.

But listen to Dexter Filkins writing about womens' activist Wijdan al-Khuzai, mother of five: "She was one of those people found in dreadful countries the world over, fearless and determined and unwilling, for reasons always unclear, to make the same calculations of personal safety as everyone else." Receiving constant death threats, she persevered, until Christmas eve, 2004, her body was found on the airport road, bound, tortured, shoulder-blades broken, shot five times, once in the face. "Iraq might have been a traumatized country, it might have been broken, it might have been atomized--it might have been a mental hospital. But whenever the prospect of normalcy presented itself, a long line of Iraqis always stood up and reached for it. Thousands of them . . . And they went to the slaughter. Thousands and thousands of them: editors, pamphleteers, judges and police officers, and women like Wijdan al-Khuzai. The insurgents were brilliant at that. They could spot a fine mind or a tender soul wherever it might be, chase it down and kill it dead." THE FOREVER WAR, pp. 80-82

. . . all worthwhile questions, and they worry me very much.

I'm reminded of Clark Clifford, who became LBJ's SecDef after McNamara, in '68. Clifford went to the Pentagon and gathered all the brass, and asked,

Can we win in Vietnam?
Absolutely, they said.
How long will it take?
We can't say.
Can you guarantee we can win in 5 years?
No, can't guarantee that.
10?
No, can't guarantee that either.
But we can win?
Yes, absolutely.
Alright, how many troops will it take? You're asking for another 200,000. Will that be enough?
It may be, but we can't guarantee it won't take more.
How many more?
We can't say.
But we can win?
Oh yes, absolutely.

Perhaps Mr. Ricks has some answers?

U.S. stay or U.S. go?
Smells like a false dichotomy, designed to funnel behavior towards a predetermined course of action, namely: permanent bases in Iraq, not unlike Ramstein, Aviano, Kadena, etc.
The Best Defense against petro-strangulation is a solid US military foothold in the Middle East. Though the current banking crisis might make this point moot, we should recognize the genocides (plural) that would result if reliable access to energy for the entire globe were prevented.

Of the 18 comments prior to this one, I only judge one to care about a mass bloodletting in Iraq if we pulled out too soon; or at least caring enough to let it influence timing of the departure.

So I guess that is an answer to your question in so far as the group likely to comment is concerned.

Ineffably sad, isn't it.

. . . a far from fair take on a conversation that's attempting to grapple responsibly with a situation that most informed observers--including Mr. Ricks--admit is a very difficult one, full of nothing but "lousy options."

AllanGreen's judgment that, "It is incumbent upon us to leave the country when stability can be guaranteed by its central government," sounds nice, until you ask, Will an Iraqi government EVER be in a position to guarantee stability? And when he goes on to say, "If we pull out earlier, and a genocide does take place - it will be our fault," that may be true--I tend to think that, in some degree, it is--but is the consequnce then that we will never be able to leave? Because if you want a guarantee that there WILL BE NO genocide, that's what you're saying.

And yes, you're right on one thing: that's because the world is ineffably sad.