When the Americans leave the Iraqis will continue to putter along like they're doing now. The insurgency sets off bombs, kills police in Mosul, runs around in the outbacks of Diyala. The Sons of Iraq wait around for jobs and checks that won't come in, and Baghdad politics will be gridlocked as ever. With the Americans there this is happening, when they leave it will continue. It's sad but Iraq is a broken country.

What also hasn't been lost on the good Colonel, is an incident happening (i.e. Beirut, Lebanon 1983) that could very well cause long term ramifications, possibly accompaning our early rapid departure, signalling we were driven-out.

Incidentally, I wonder how Col. Reese's memo ended-up in these two reporter's hands - possibly wrapped around a bundle of cigars - now where did that happen before? : - )

In addition, it's also interesting that Col Reese has been so candid in his assessment. It might be further interesting to know how this matches-up with what State has to say on their side of affairs - if anyone over there could ever be this honestly blunt?

Point taken, Mr. Ricks. We can't reasonably declare victory when there is none, and realistically there never will be one. We WON'T declare defeat. So, let's call it a draw and GO HOME.

It should be noted that nothing in that paper says that things will get worse, or that there will be an increase in violence or a return to the insurgency, or the sectarian war will restart once we leave. He said that most of the violence is political to make points and score against rivals, that the insurgency is dead, and that all that's left is Al Qaeda blowing things up every now and then. In fact, he said much of the violence aimed at the U.S. is to make political points or to get us out, so when we leave there actually might be less violence than there is now.

As I said before, Iraq is at the dysfunctional state where it can continue on with nothing getting worse, and nothing really getting better into the foreseeable future.

Just fyi, the NY Times on-line people asked me for comment, so I gave them something similar to here. The link is:

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/out-of-iraq-by-next-year/

Time to go. A member of congress once called the space shuttle the best way of burning up billions in taxpayers dollars for nothing...until Iraq. Hopefully the space shuttle saga will also end.

...nervous systems of the Iraqi society where it could lay dormant when periled and strike like shingles when not..

"The military culture of the Baathist-Soviet model under Saddam Hussein remains entrenched and will not change. The senior leadership of the ISF is incapable of change in the current environment." says the Colonel.

Our generals like the German general staff in 1914 made the strategic errors at opening that made it all a folly for those to follow.

I suspect that the Agreements in 2004 and 2008 will be viewed as the Yalta of the day negotiated by an Administration eager to escape from its self inflicted trap while leaving the Marines and Soldiers to rear guard its backside.

I doubt that Reese is any link of Obama's. For whatever reason, Reese is probably painting the most negative picture of Iraq's capabilities, although I must agree with a number of them. I think the largest problem with his memo is that he doesn't understand Iraq culture, and therefore doesn't understand that some of these conditions result from actions that are socially acceptable in Iraq.

When we leave, there will be no mission accomplished banners, only crossed fingers that the Iraq government will hold up for a reasonable amount of time. A regional war over Iraq is unlikely; we will continue to be the guarantor of Iraq security for some time. Turkey, a member of NATO and EU aspirant, isn't going to seriously rock the boat. As the Shiites are the winners in Iraq, the Irannians, while continue to mettle, aren't going to directly interfere. The Sunnis don't appear able to seriously link the Shiite dominance, so at the moment, they are unlikely to be a major threat. The Kurds and Kirkuk are going to continue to be a festering problem. The Shiite government, which is materializing in Iraq, will not be any model of Western democracy, but it will be Iraqi. In that, there is hope that the Shiite Arabs of Iraq will eventually tire of Persian meddling and put an end to it, as the Vietnamese did with Chinese when we finally left them to there own devise. Its time we did the same in Iraq.

With and without our help, Iraq faced a near-biblical set of circumstances: great wars of the Persian/Arab variety that decimated many areas and set vast minorities populations to flight; successive occupations by foreign powers that just further confused and frustrated any post-war re-stabilization; the political pressures of the "great wealth and power" of oil; and, a hundred-year regional drought cycle that, of itself, has caused Exodus-level agricultural flight as destitute and ill-equipped farmers fled to the cities (planting the seeds to further destabilizing them).

The great empire builders helped to organize the people to manage their watershed for greater productivity, and, through that productivity, moments of shear wisdom and enlightenment occurred, as well as general prosperity and some personal freedoms. The same would probably apply to oil and other key resources now valuable to the
"Land Between Two Rivers." We have done nothing to organize the watersheds or the oil, or to improve general prosperity. Is it surprising that personal and/or societal advancement has not followed?

Against this context, we cannot measure our brief interlude as either a mission accomplished or failed. It was just a fleeting sandstorm in the course of greater events.

Does it surprise anyone that our minimalist and disorganized efforts left little enduring marks?

The "Old" Soviet saw: It is amazing to here US soldiers rattling on about Soviet-style socio-military structures---as if we learned nothing from six years on the ground. Soviet-central planning and control was nothing more than the latest "bumper sticker" heading for the older Ottoman-Style centralized state, where local provinces and districts largely fended for themselves under the all- seeing and all-directing eye (or the blind eye?) of a vaster bureaucracy. The old Ottomans, the later large land owners, and the later military dictators, always worked to keep central control, and routinely co-opted even well-meaning "soviet-inspired" centralized bureaucracies.

The challenge for all post-Ottoman societies is not whether to become western or not, but to find some new and better evolution/revolution that can carry their people and culture forward to some definable and agreed end. Few of them have found that formula, and, not surprisingly, the US military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq have left no enduring marks.

What's new?

Send as many soldiers and diplomats as you like. Absent focused accomplishments in the major areas, they are all just passing through.

Unraveling implies that there was a time when things were "ravelled." When---exactly---was that in the recent history of Iraq?

Steve

The Iraq syllogism is horribly flawed. It's basic terms now are: 'we broke it; we gotta fix it." No logic beyond that - it's nothing more or less than the sunk-cost fallacy played out with American lives and dollars.

I commend Col Reese for arriving at the argument I've been making for several years.

Turn out the lights, the party's over...

Reese stated our presence was an 'irritant'

AN IRRITANT?

The deaths of what must be a million Iraqis, the destruction of most of their cities and historic/archeological sites, the millions more wounded or displaced... No 'irritation' at all until now...

...and we wonder why most of the citizens of the planet are either hating us or disgusted by us.

Just GET OUT!

It's SIMPLE:

Declare intent and a unilateral ceasefire. Open discussions for coordination immediately with major militias who enjoy local popular support. Prepare Kuwait with transient tent city for a BIG influx of troops and vehicles next to the airport.

Throw out the embedded press (they will turn it into a circus of perceived US humiliation).

Orders to leave everything non-essential. Prepare to destroy-in-place lethal armaments that are not carried. Begin pre-positioning convoy support.

Set up tactical air support corridors from base to base leading south, and run serial convoys with massive force (base to base) to Kuwait, reprovisioning at each base from pre-positioned logistical stores.

Vehicles that break down for more than two hours would be destroyed-in-place with thermite (an incendiary that melts the engines).

Airlift the remaining troops from the bases into Kuwait. Airlift all from Kuwait to the US. Establish airlift security at each base with whichever militia enjoys the most local popular support.

Whole process: one month to get into Kuwait, a couple more to complete the redeployment out of Kuwait.

Courtesy of Stan Goff, Feral Scholar, EX-Special Forces

Understand the dynamics are not entirely the same, but our rushed departure from Vietnam should teach us something. Iraq remains an important regional cog in the Middle East, and a relatively stable, somewhat friendly government would contibute to balancing our strategic interests in the region, particulary regarding Iran. We invested great treasure and lives in Vietnam, but did not play out the end game well in our rush to the exits.