An orderly exit from Iraq depends on the development of a viable Iraqi security force, but the Iraqis aren't even close. The Bush administration doesn't take the problem seriously—and it never hasby James Fallows
| Long, long, pessimistic piece in The Atlantic. If Mr. Fallows is right, America is hopelessly screwed and it's all Bush's fault, of course. |
| 0820 CST update: link fixed. Sorry. |
| Followup on comments: to be clear, I don't endorse anything Mr. Fallows says, and I'm well aware of his employment history. The Atlantic is a decent magazine, so when they allow someone like this to put up a big piece, it deserves attention. What Mr. Fallows misses is a simple concept: success breeds success. He misses this because he was associated with Carter, I think. But as the Iraqi army and police start to have success (and they are already), it becomes easier for them to be successful in the future. Morale is better. Training becomes more focused. They learn from their mistakes. And very importantly, the bad guys have less to work with beause your successes tend to put them out of business (see Steve Den Beste's take on a similar situation, the intifada in Frankistan). So the Iraqi army and police have a long-term trend line that is upward. Likewise, the political situation has a long-term trend line that is hopeful. They've managed to settle their political differences enough to get a constitution (imperfect but impressive) and are going to have a permanent government by January. That's huge. The terrs know this which is why they're going to go all out to try and stop the elections. The wheels can come off the political end easily, of course, but so far it's encouraging -- the Sunnis are getting a clue, the Shi'a are mostly behaving, and the Kurds understand that they can't go it alone. What we have to do is get past the short term, and the sniping that's out there in Washington that's being done for political purposes. GWB seems to be the kind who will hold fast, but the rest of his party, I don't know. |