Hagel on withdrawal
Hagel makes an interesting argument that withdrawal from Iraq will not create a terrorist safe haven. The basic idea is that if Iran is the top influencer, they have little to no interest in having an Al Qaeda style Sunni terror group in Iraq.
Two flaws. It assumes that the Shia led government will have the ability to excercise that much control over Anbar, and it assumes that the Saudis and Egyptians won't fund a Sunni resistance, a portion of which would inevitably flow into the hands of al Qaeda in Iraq.
But, still, an interesting argument challenging one of the basic precepts of his president.
Two flaws. It assumes that the Shia led government will have the ability to excercise that much control over Anbar, and it assumes that the Saudis and Egyptians won't fund a Sunni resistance, a portion of which would inevitably flow into the hands of al Qaeda in Iraq.
But, still, an interesting argument challenging one of the basic precepts of his president.
posted by mikevotes at
10:43 AM
7 Comments:
I had not heard that argument before, and it is an interesting one. The regional powers are getting involved now, and if that assumption holds, Senator Hagel may well be correct.
By
Charlie, at 10:56 AM
Yeah, I found it interesting because it challenges the orthodoxy.
Pretty much, we know how Iran will react in the case of a withdrawal, the real question is how the Saudis and Egyptians will behave.
With the monarchic Saudi structure, they have, in the past, funded some pretty evil things "outside the government" through royal family members. How much support do they give the Sunnis, and is that support to mainline groups or radical ones?
That's really the main open question in the face of a US withdrawal.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 11:13 AM
I should probably add the disclaimer that Charlie runs the blogs "students for hagel" and "hagel 2008."
My response still stands, but maybe we should frame his comment from there.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 11:22 AM
Hagel started using this argument a bit in last Sunday's Post opinion piece. The piece itself was a great counter to every bit of Tony Snow/Dick Cheney/Condi Rice/George Bush/David Frum claptrap for why we need to "stay the course" (or whatever the fuck they're calling the policy these days.)
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 11:34 AM
Yeah, I thought that was a pretty big editorial both in the broader play and Hagel's coming '08 bid.
This seemed a particularly pointed attack on the line "we must stay in Iraq because of Al Qaeda."
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 2:17 PM
It is a good point you make here Mike.
It begs the question: what is the most rosy scenario for the long term outlook in Iraq?
That is to say, if everything goes more or less "according to plan" (whatever the plan exactly is nowdays) what should we expect to see in the region in the next, say, five to ten years.
This is the question that no one is asking. The Democrats want to give up and run (understandable at this point) but if they don't get their way, what exactly is the best case scenario out there.
I'm not hearing it from anyone. Not from Pace, not from Bush. Not from anyone.
All you hawks out there, how do you see this playing out through your rose coloured glasses?
That is the question left unanswered.
By
Praguetwin, at 7:49 PM
Well, no one can plausibly project victory and really wants it on their record when the thing blows up, and yet everyone has a self interested reason not to predict defeat, the politicians out of self interest, the military both because they're so invested and it would mean admitting their failure, and nobody in the media wants to put that target on themselves.
So, now we're stuck in this weird place where nobody will even make vague projections. And that's why we're "stay the course."
I think the rose colored scenario now is that we can create a strong enough Iraqi government/military that we can hand the civil war off to them and walk away.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:33 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home