Iraq Remains an Unbalanced Policy Equation

One can claim that any faltering policy area, whether it be education, health care, or energy, can be fixed through expending unlimited resources, maintaining vigilant patience and demanding an open-ended time table. This might be an acceptable portion of any policy, but it is just that: merely a portion of the whole. Yet in regards to Iraq, this is the sole predicate to the rationale behind maintaining a presence there. This is why, in the abstract, the typical Bush administration and John McCain argument that we need more time and patience and resources (both human and monetary) in Iraq rings hollow. (Yes I know war is itself unique from any other policy area. Yet, it's still instructive to examine the Iraq war from this perspective because it provides another context from which to examine why our Iraq policy has largely been a failure.)

Looking at any issue through this prism of "more time plus more resources will equal the reversal of a perilous problem" is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. At least with most domestic issues, there is a specific blueprint on how an issue can be fixed--regardless of whether or not the policy fix will actually work. Failing education system? Provide school choice, increase accountability and money for schools. Widespread lack of health care? Establish private sector mandates, expand government programs. Foreign energy dependence and global warming? Invest more in renewable, clean sources of energy, implement higher efficiency standards. Time, patience and resources are all components of these, but components, not the policy itself. With Iraq, we just hear half this equation from the military and political leadership. We need more time for political reconciliation; we need more resources to create breathing room to ensure reconciliation occurs; we can't have any timetables because this would send the wrong signal. That is where the policy arguments end, though, sans true specificity and without finite policy objectives.

With nearly all areas of policy, we also know or hope for a specific result. Health care: more people insured, a reduction in costs. Education: better schools, smarter kids. Energy: decreased reliance on foreign oil, cleaner environment. You don't just throw money and time at these issues, but you also allocate an exact way to spend the money and resources, and delineate a specific timetable (or at least a desired timetable) for when one should expect positive results. In terms of Iraq, the Administration and others have laid out several desired objectives. The problem is that the various goals have shifted, become amorphous, and quantifiably unattainable over time while the policy itself has remained stagnant: more patience, more resources, and no firm, anticipated timetable for when the results will be attained.

Here's a test: name one other policy area besides Iraq that solely uses endless time, endless patience and endless resources as an acceptable rubric for successfully implementing policy. You can't since none exist. This, more than anything else, might help explain why our presence in Iraq continues to be a bottomless, misappropriated, and misguided mess.

Comments

[deminmo]

Remember, Bush intends to protect our assets in Iraq,
and that primarily has to do with oil drilling contracts. Since
Desert Storm, it's always been about the oil.

[THINKB4USPEAK]

Unending war for a limited resorce is just one of the Orwellian concepts which have become our new reality.

[Garvagh]

No doubt, control of promising potential new oilfields is a large part of the Bush administration's equation. However, we should all bear in mind that the US was the country buying the greatest share of Iraqi crude, under the UN sanctions imposed after the Gulf War.

The neocon fastasy about erecting a wonderful democracy in Iraq was largely a ploy to conceal the real agenda of control of oilfieds and airbases.

[ImLeft]

who uses the oil?

[ImLeft]

and who makes the largest oil profit?

[Micky]

More Time, More Resources, More Patience:

Sounds like our never-ending War on Drugs.

How long has that gone on?
How much has that cost us?
Who even knows how well we're doing?
Who even believes there are fewer drugs available now?

[Garvagh]

Part of the "logic" of the "war" on drugs was to provide a mission for the US military, in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The public need to be convinced that their safety is at risk, so the squandering of hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars on unneeded weapons systems etc. goes forward unimpeded.

[rhx056]

One policy area that I think fits here is the drive toward globalization, which also morphs according to convenience in any given discussion. Of course, the real underlying premise is corporatism, and enriching the corporate entities that drive that policy of globalization. There is no other real underlying final goal to which this policy aspires.

[BeyondPopper]

The general approach of the Republicans to all economic issues follows the same formula:

More tax cuts for the wealthy.
More cuts in services for the needy.
More cuts in regulatory limits on corporate greed.

Over and over.

Will eventually

After the depressions that inevitably happen every time they do the above.

Result in prosperity for all!!!!!

The fact that this has been tried over and over, and never worked, makes no, because these people are impervious to empirical evidence.

Reality is so much messier than their warm and fuzzy ideologies. Especially when they are pretected from the consequences of their policies by their wealthy corporate sponsors.

[kavan]

It remains an unbalanced policy question because the fascists...oops, I mean neocons...who started it and perpetuate it are unbalanced people.

[BuckarooBanzai]

In 1968 I could name a policy like that. It was called Viet Nam

[whatsmyname]

Yes, Buckaroo etc., and let's NOT FORGET "The Drug War " complete with our very own Russian named Czar. Wow OOMG and Hot Damn, all in one, huh? And, who was the last (high profile) person to ever mention stopping the violence and ending the drug/gang action and killings in our streets -in every city in America? Thank Buck........

[OneTop]

This may seem like nitpicking, however, my sense is that Mr. Blickstein 's analysis would be much more relevant, more powerful and better served if it was not within the context of the term "War"
If he and others in the Media would describe the U.S. presence in Iraq as
a Military Occupation [which it is]...... Public perception would surely be different and perhaps that would be the springboard of change.

/"Here's a test: name one other policy area besides Iraq that solely uses endless time, endless patience and endless resources as an acceptable rubric for successfully implementing policy. You can't since none exist"/

The War on Drugs springs to mind ...... ?

[rhx056]

OneTop,

Good point. Anything that is called a "war on [insert desired concept here]" is likely to be an endless quagmire. Most religious wars fit this category as well.

[Flynnstone73]

I wish more and more people would realize that the war was over years ago, in fact Mission Accomplished was the end of the war. It is now as it was then and it is now an occupation. In fact it was an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation. I have noticed that a lot of public officials have been getting bounced or are being asked to leave office because they are screwing someone other then their wife. How about a guy who has screwed an entire country when to we get to drag him into court and see him pay for his crimes. I'm guessing never.

[Donald Wolberg]

There is a fuzziness and lack of edges to Mr. Blickstein's analysis that speaks more for a lack of historic sense and superficiality. Historically great powers have made great commitments of time and place as long as there have been great nations. Leaving the archaeology of history aside, Mr. Blickstein forgets out decades involved in the shambles that was Yugoslavia (initiated by Mr. Clinton with a promise that "the boys would be home by Christmas. Of course, we have been in Korea since 1950--58 years, first at the behest of Mr. Truman. What is the prpose of that 58 year stay? We have been in Japan and Germany since 1945, a 63 year stay. Mr. Blickstein would not find a reason or end game for any of these "occupational partnerships," because there are none other than it is in the interest of the Unites States as a world power to do so. One might suggest that Mr. Blickstein believes the Japanese or Germans or Bosnians are more important than the Iraqis, or there is less national interest in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East than there is in Germany or Japan. The fact is that we are there. I would suggest that the stubles and bumbles of Mr. Bush, lessened by the amazing capability of our military, is less significant than the fact of national interest. If Mr. Blickstein was less political and more historical, he might come to the same conclusions.

[ornovscot]

Save for securing natural resources in particular countries, in part, as a counterbalance to China and as a source of profit for corporate interests and because a number of lobbying groups desired the invasion of Iraq, I cannot imagine other reasons for the use of force in the latter country, which has experienced the displacement of approximately 4 million people, the death of at least a few hundred thousand persons, the disruption of infrastructure and vital services and, of course, the death of over 4,000 of our forces.

I wonder if pursuing national interest is defined as alienating a large portion of the world. I wonder if pursuing national interest is defined as creating many soldiers who will live with crippling and expensive disabilities for the rest of their lives.

It is interesting that you mentioned other nations occupied by the United States. As this country has debt in the many trillions of dollars, as the dollar is declining and as infrastructure and other services are in want of adequate funding, I wonder how much longer the citizens of this country should be expected to tolerate or support the existence of what many reasonable and educated observers consider to be tantamount to maintaining an overstretched and increasingly untenable empire.

[cubalibre]

I think it's incredible that people in this country
think that we alienated the middle east because
we invaded Iraq.Lets not forget 911 the entire
middle east was jumping for joy after that happened
Our own intelligence has just discovered that
Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons capability
and abandoned that only after we invaded Iraq.
Al-Queda is an organization that existed way before
our involvement in Iraq.It is also an organization that
is totally dedicated to our destruction and always
has been,hence 911.It is also supported by all of
the Arab countries and very popular with it's citizens
One of the reasons they hate us is why most of the
world hates us.Americans are so clueless.

[bobwalters]

Speaking of superficiality! The absurd reference to "fact of national interest" is a euphemism for a three-pronged set of interests: 1) steal Iraqi oil; 2) further the rape of the US Treasury and taxpayer for the benefit of the crony corporations (pursuing Milton Friedman's shock doctrine); and 3) advancing the regional interests of Israel to maintain its US-financed military superiority. These are not "national" but are "special" interests, in the worst connotation/denotation of that term.

[klmebane]

the countries you mentioned had governments at war with us. this is not the case in iraq. there is a small portion of people to total population in iraq (or at least were before we wore out our welcome) that are actively engaged in hostilities against us. al qaeda is by no means the government in iraq.

btw, you must have missed the memo........ the U.S. is no longer great. we can't take care of our troops, we can't take care of our citizens, we can't take care of our infrastructure, and we can't keep our economy out of the toilet thanks to tax breaks in wartime.

[ImLeft]

Al Qaeda and nuclear hungry Iran will be the government in Iraq controlling the largest oil supply if Iraq's government and people can't defend and protect themselves.
This is now, you can't change the past.

The US is still great, and does great. We aren't the evil country you all would like to think. We've had a badrun of leadership and the American people ourselves have become so greedy and superfiial we couldn't see what is going on. Our country is still inheart a leader of peace and humanity, we've been shadowed by bad choices of an administration focussedon themselves.

We can do those things you say, we have every opportunity and the power for it. We need to take responsibility for our futures and our childrens, and understand it is not the sole responsibilty of our government to take care of us, and we have also got to take care of our government.

We must quit being superficial and realize what type of leader we need now, when our country needs leadership the most. Who do we know and trust that can accomplish and begin whatwe so desperately need? Who do we know can beat Mccain so we have our say inthe WhiteHouse? Who do we know thats compassionate and strong enough to leadour country to a place of peace and respect? Despite all her faults we all know Hillary will be an outstanding president, she is for us, by us, and we know we can count on her.

[frmrrepub]

While we are at it, has anyone noticed the U.S. army has taken up sides in a civil war. They are fighting on shia al Maliki's side against shia al Sadr. Sadr doesn't want Americans in his country, city, anywhere around him, so that makes him the bad guy. Why? If we were attacked, would we want the attackers in our country, city, anywhere?

I doubt very much that el Sadr is any sort of angel, but do know that el Makiki is ineffective and corrupt. I have heard from Iraqis themselves that el Sadr supplies the only humanitarian effort around while el Maliki's people only do mundane works for their "constituents" with nice, fat bribes.

It is easy to see why el Makili doesn't like el Sadr, but on the other hand, it is easy to see why many people do like him.

Why in the h**l doesn't the U.S. get out of there and let them sort themselves out. Oh, right!!!! How stupid of me. I forgot the oil.

[LizM]

Ah, yes...the conundrum of US Iraq policy...

I would take issue with the statement that the policy has remained stagnant and, instead, suggest that "stagnation" IS the policy...if that makes any sense at all. What I"m trying to say is that it appears that this administration has concluded, a very long time ago, that their desired objectives in Iraq are simply not attainable. And, therefore, they have decided that the best thing to do, during the waning months of their term in office, is to tread water long enough for them to hand off the problem to the next administration.

The problem is that time is of the essence and treading water won"t be an option for the next administration which may very well sink before it learns to swim - UNLESS Senator Biden is given complete charge over the Iraq file and carte blanche to implement his strategy to promote and facilitate a sustainable political settlement in Iraq based on federalism and Iraq"s constitution.

Of course, Iraq may have already run out of time for a political solution. We can only hope that will not have become a certainty by the time the next President takes the oath of office...or the next four years may make the last four look like the proverbial walk in the park!

[Flynnstone73]

What happened and what is happening in Iraq is the policy not because they didn't achieve the desired objectives they indeed achieved the desired objectives. The illusion is that this administration is operating in our best interest in fact Mr. Bush works for the Saudis. If one looks at the outcomes one must conclude that the Saudis highly benefited from this invasion/occupation.

[THINKB4USPEAK]

If the Iraqi people had wished for democracy, they would have moved to the US, Britain, etc., or, more to the point, overthrown Saddam and created their own. But that would require a majority of them wishing to do so, which clearly, they did not and do not. We in the west are so full of ourselves, we think our system is for everyone, which it is not. If one gets outside of their room and ventures into the real, not virtual, world, one will easily learn this. Democracy forced down your throat is just fascism in a democracy t-shirt.

[Donald Wolberg]

MAkes no sense and a bit fuzzy...under the Saddam thugs, per capita income in Iraq was about $25 a month--where and how would anyone go anywhere. With the crazies of the cult of death, lots of folks walked awy but are returning. So, one can suppose they are trying to maintain an identity.

[ornovscot]

I am sorry, but for years the United States supported Mr. Hussein, and, initially, the reasons cited to justify the invasion of Iraq included the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the connection between the overthrown regime and particularly named terrorist groups.

However abusive of human rights the previous regime was, it is clear that chaotic and violent conditions are commonplace.

[klmebane]

also, since saddam had people terrified of being "disappeared" why would anyone conspire against him? he had people killed for conspiring against him (even if those people were doing nothing of the sort) an overthrow requires a larger number of people on the side of the overthrowers than the regime in charge, who were willing to band together and swallow down their fear, to achieve an objective.

[THINKB4USPEAK]

You cling to the "fuzzy" thing a bit much, methinks. $25 a month is futile in USA-think, but if your rent for that month is$5, that changes the equation a bit. 25 cents a gallon for gas might factor in, too. How would anyone go anywhere? They would get up off their dissatisfied ass, and just GO. History is filled with stories of the exodus of oppressed or unhappy people from their homeland. (Think of the United States of America), By thr way, do you posit that the US has no death cults?

[whatsmyname]

Wxcellent points...Salutes to u ThinkB......etc

[RightAway]

"Here's a test: name one other policy area besides Iraq that solely uses endless time, endless patience and endless resources as an acceptable rubric for successfully implementing policy."

How about these:

1. Ending "racism"
2. Promoting "family values"

As with the Iraq War, no one can define what "success" means for these two policy areas, and no one can define a roadmap to get us there. It's a prescription for a permanent commitment to nebulosity and tilting at windmills.

"Affirmative action is a debt that America can NEVER pay off"
-- Patricia Smith, former columnist, Boston Globe

[aspen]

Poor analogy. Thousands of Americans and Iraqis have been killed and brutally injured because of our policy in Iraq. The dollar cost of the war is said to reach trillions, much of it disappearing without accountability or productivity. Our policies to end racism and to promote family values have no comparison in cost.

[bzee]

"Here's a test: name one other policy area besides Iraq that solely uses endless time, endless patience and endless resources as an acceptable rubric for successfully implementing policy."

the war on drugs?

[klmebane]

i believe the author was referring to a policy area that was actually successful.

[egal]

Very poor analogy.

Attitudes and beliefs can be shaped by environment--meaning that just presenting racism as a negative and specific social values as a positive has some effect toward the ends, since exposure to an environment encapsulating such ideals affects perception.

Of course, you define the goals incorrectly--when dealing with psychological and social states, one works toward a paradigm shift, not toward a concrete end state. Which is part of the problem in Iraq: we're hoping to reach a specific end state by merely destroying the current environment without creating a new environment conducive to our goals in its place. Equality in treatment, conditions, and perceptions would severely diminish racism, but the biases already in place tamp down the effectiveness of psychological change.

Affirmative Action is a result of racism, not a cure for it but a bridle attempting to prevent people from acting in line with racist beliefs even if they continue to hold them. It's an effort to have a mechanical solution fix a psychological condition's consequences, the biased actions born of entrenched racism, because we can't with certainty mend the way of thinking itself.

[RetMsgt]

"Here's a test: name one other policy area besides Iraq that solely uses endless time, endless patience and endless resources as an acceptable rubric for successfully implementing policy."

Are you kidding me? Name we one government policy that HAS a finite existence. I could start with the so-called "war on poverty". When do we stop throwing money in that pit that has done nothing but enslave generation after generation of urban blacks and rural families. At least the US has stated that as the Iraqis are more and more able to take over their own security, we can cut more and more needed US forces. The same can't be said about poverty, education and just about any other government policy, program or whatever over the last 40+ years. The answer is always throw money at it. And don't hold those that run failed programs responsible for anything.
Want some government money? Just play the victim card. Need some cash for doing nothing? Just enroll in any number of mindless programs that treat you like the idiot you are and don't hold you responsible for anything.
Here's a better test. Try telling everyone what the consequences could be of pulling out of Iraq immediately and what you'll do then.

[laocoon]

Yeah the enslavement of blacks started with the war on poverty. Before that they had the freedom of Jim Crow segregation and before that the freedom of slavery. We should liberate the military complex by cutting off their welfare. Doublespeak much?

[egal]

The problem isn't the war on poverty, but the means and goals of our efforts to fight it.

Just as in Iraq, where we futilely strive to end terrorism by attacking the entire environment in which the terrorists were fomented, in fighting poverty we attempt to throw money into a corrupt and ineffective governing system.

Changing the physical state or actions in which detrimental conditions incubate can only contribute to changing the beliefs and environment conducive to those actions if we take the APPROPRIATE action. We can't "end" terrorism by acting like the terrorists, stop the murder of innocents by killing innocents, prevent war by starting a war, promote stability by destroying the leadership and infrastructure, or model human rights, freedom, and democracy by trampling all three.

Actions taken must further the desired belief set and actions, and create an environment conducive to them, thus inspiring others to adopt that belief set. We cannot "win" in Iraq in part because we can't even define victory; in part because we're taking actions contradictory to our stated intentions, supposed belief system, and necessary intermediate goals; and in part because even infinite time, resources, and patience can't accomplish a task they're not being effectively and responsibly applied toward.

in the same manner, we can't "win" the war on poverty (or any other) without taking the difficult and involved steps of replacing defunct systems with new, effective, involving, and empowering ones.

[Amymarie]

I agree with most of your opinions. Although, I am sensing we are in this war for a far different reason than the government is divulging to the publc.

[Garvagh]

Great piece! No matter how many more hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars are squandered on this adventure, the Shiites will remain in control of the central government and Baghdad - - just as was predicted by Jacques Chirac before the war, who also told Tony Blair that such a government "was not to be confused with a democracy".

[cam]

While I gree with your analysis it does have a flaw: in any conflict between antagonists is is seldom a good idea for either to disclose tactical methods or strategic intent.

That said, I fear our Iraq policy is exactly what you suggest " amorphous, stagnant and unquantifiable.

We're treading water and calling it swimming.