Best Case Scenarios Failed; Time to Trot Out the Worst-Case Scenarios

One of the most drearily fascinating things about this country's Bush-dictated six-year obsession with Iraq (as if it were the only country in the Mid-East, or the world, that mattered, as if Pakistan wasn't the "safe harbor" we were trying to prevent from occurring a thousand miles west) is the early addiction to best-case scenarios. Thomas Ricks' book Fiasco highlights, like a funereal leitmotif, the proclivity of decision-makers at all levels of the administration to buy the assumptions of Plan A, and therefore to reject even the need for Plans B, C, or D. The public was treated to years of best-case scenarios -- grateful Iraqis strewing occupying Americans with flowers, oil revenues paying for the reconstruction, a cakewalk -- all of which were followed by something far less rosy.

Now the time comes for staving off calls for ending this nightmare, and the same people have flipped their polarizing lenses, spewing an unending series of worst-case scenarios, pushing dire predictions of humanitarian and geopolitical catastrophe if the US withdraws its troops.

My question: if such folks (who include John McCain) were so wrong with their best-case scenarios, why should we accord any credibility to their worst-case ones?

Comments

[qdog112]

Harry has it right as usual. To me it's about the draining of our treasure. There are a lot of corporations depending on this fiasco lasting longer. There's a money grab frenzy going on fueled by greed. Those who have made money want more and the newcomers want some of the action. Many of these swine already have the money spent for years to come. They have speculated using money not yet realized. Of course the goals keep changing and scenarios are always extreme. They have a vested interest in prolonging this war until they make as much as they can from this cash cow. It's going be harder than just pulling out troops. Leadership and we the people have to tell the military industrial complex NO! That will prove more difficult than pulling out troops

[desmirl]

A hundred years from now, people will look back on this and say, "Holy smoke, we're STILL in Iraq."

[luziannagirl]

Good point, Harry.

Seems like the key in deposing the Republicans is in persistently AND effectively pointing out the stark divergence between R- rhetoric and R- behavior, between R-plans and R-results, and in convincing R-voters to act on it.

[doctorj2u]

I am a Republican New Orleans native that has been deaing with the national Republican bloggers since Katrina, They refuse to see the truth even when confronted with eye witnesses. I find it infuriating and somehow sad. They live in a world where if you dissent from the party line, even if it is the cold hard truth, you are just an enemy debating a political point and you must be attacked. They refuse to see the Emperor has no clothes. There is something very Nazi like in there refusal of the facts. I fear for the future of this country. Partisanshp has trumped reason.

[davefoc]

I enjoyed reading the thoughts of a fellow Republican who has about the same view of this as I do. There just seems to be no level of corruption or incompetence that some life long Republicans can't ignore as long as its committed by Republicans.

How much worse a president could Bush have been before his approval rating would drop to below 25%? What do that 25% of the country need before they realize that Bush presidency has failed in almost every measurable way?

[SoulDrift]

Sad, though not surprising. Just another reason I won't--unless things change drastically--be voting Republican, as long as I don't have "cold, dead hands"!

[iratior]

The most notable thing about the Iraq war now is how utterly NEEDLESS most of the violence is. Although the government of Iraq had become a Shi'ite-dominated police state, in which Sunni Muslims were treated as second-class citizens at best and as targets for ethnic cleansing or police death squad murder otherwise, one had to admit -- grudgingly -- that fewer people seemed to be dying from the violence. But then, Nouri al-Maliki -- in an obvious bid to become at once more of a dictator of Iraq, and yet also more of a puppet of Bush -- launched his attempt to crush the Mahdi army and Moqtada al-Sadr. This is an attempt that really, really deserves to fail. It is totally inconsistent with the professed purpose of the troop surge, which was to give Iraqis more time to achieve political reconciliations. Or perhaps it shows that the professed purpose of the troop surge was a lie to begin with; it was not made to give the Iraqis more time for political reconciliation, but to give Bush more time to attempt a CONQUEST of Iraq.

[mgsorens]

It is absolutely necessary that all governments have a monopoly on the use of force. What that means is there cannot be any private armies that are not ultimately loyal to the government.

In Iraq there can be no militias with heavy weapons such as tanks, armored personell carriers, rocket propelled grenades, IEDs and such. The coalition and the Iraqi government have always insisted that that will ultimately be the situation in Iraq. That is the plan. That has always been the plan. There is never going to be another plan.

So, either the militias will submit to the government or there will be more violence.

[23000Days]

There's one word missing in most of these posts: OIL...

[RumiSouth]

Ah, yes, the state-centric western view of the world. Never mind that we're not talking about a "state" in any but the most formal sense of the word. Iraq is a tribal society at its core. To insist that some Hobbesian system be forced into place is like hammering that square-peg into the round-hole. One might as well try installing Vista on a PC built for Windows 95... Good luck with that project.

[Stevealmi]

I find it strange that after all this time there are people that reflect on the right or wrong decisions of invading Iraq as if there was a noble cause and oops we missed. This situation is all about 300 million dollars of tax money being doled out to friends of the Bush family every day, period. If we were to take the tactic that this was an opportunity to bring democracy to an oil rich country ( this would be a first as the rest of the oil rich countries have dictators or benevolent dictators) then we would intiate the draft and send 100,000 more troops over and settle the conflict. This plan to invade was concocted by a group of folks who demonstated they did not have enough patriotism to serve their country but will wave a flag and accuse you of being a traitor if you do not wear a pin in your lapel. Far be it for a Texas frat boy to serve his country just because he cannot keep up a 3.0 average so this conflict will never be "won". We will pull a "vietnam" and just pull out when the war boys have made enough money and the public has finally tired of the carnage.

[certainot]

it's because they operate in a certainty-uncertainty paradigm/dynamic where they have to maintain their certitude at all costs. if they venture into the realm of uncertainty they may never be invited back into the chambers of royal certitude.

[WesSmith]

Harry, whom I admire as an artist, is a lousy historian.

Pakistan has been an ally for several decades. Pakistan does not invade its neighbors and has no interest in the creation of a pan-Arab state. Saddam Hussein invaded Israel, Iran and Kuwait, and was attempting to establish a pan-Arab state with himself at the helm. There was no one in the Middle East with more motive to want to attack the United States than Saddam after the Gulf War. That is why he tried to assassinate GHW Bush in Kuwait in 1993.

You need to read more, Harry.
HARRY RESPONDS: I certainly do, if only to find out when Saddam attacked Israel. Pakistan, FYI, attacked its neighbor India several times in the course of the Kashmir conflict, it acquired WMD and then proliferated the means and the materials to Libya, North Korea and Iran, and its ISI intel agency has long supported the very people Pakistan is supposed to be our ally in fighting. Read up yourself, my friend.

[Durango]

Pakistan, and in particular it's intelligence service the ISI, has played the United States like the proverbial fiddle.

The ISI, along with the Saudis supported, if they didn't outright create, the fundamentalist Muslim movement by supporting the most radical of Afghani Mujahadin forces during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

They made the fight against the Soviets a religious struggle by funneling CIA money to the fundamentalists and destroying any liberal or secular opposition. They also encouraged and helped finance the most radical of the Arab fighters. The ones who eventually became Al Qaida.

When their proxy Herkmetyar failed to take Kbul at the fall of Najibullah the ISI financed the bloody Civil War. When Herkmetuar failed as a Pakistani surrogate they created the Taliban as their new puppets to control Afghanistan.

Not to mention the fact that Al Qaida has remained at large in Pakistani territory all these years since 9/11.

They have served their own interests at the cost of American interests. And financed with American taxpayers dollars.

P.S. Pakistan not interested in creating a "Pan Arab state" because IT IS NOT AN ARAB COUNTRY! See, not all Muslims are Arabs.

Like Harry suggests. You need much, much more studying of the Middle East and it's people.

[LizM]

I can't believe Harry doesn't remember when Iraqi scud missiles hit Israel way back when during the Gulf war in 1991...I could be wrong, but I think that might qualify as an attack by Saddam on Israel...maybe not...I mean, it couldn't be described as all out war, but it was an attack, nevertheless, no?

Should we supply some links, do you think?

[jimdog1954]

Yes, but Liz, WesSmith said "invaded". Sorry... never happened.

[Stevelagain]

I don't see much to disagree with here. Harry did not take a position, he merely pointed out some irony.

Both Hillary and Obama have signaled they don't want to create a worse mess than they inherit, meaning they may be in longer than the "progressive" left wants them to.

Where does that leave us? Well, we don't really know because we don't know what the situation will be, what they will hear, what they will decide when the time comes for a decision.

Being against the war from the start doesn't tell us what Obama will do once Iraq becomes his to deal with. Most likely he would brag up how many troops he's pulling out while keeping most of them in.

[LizM]

HuffPost's Pick

I think you read the situation very well. And, your comment suggests that you would probably agree that issue #1 is Iraq and how it is resolved will impact on all of the other issues, foreign and domestic.

I would just lament the fact that neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama...nor the presumptive Republican nominee...have demonstrated that they understand the first thing about what will be required to end the civil war in Iraq and, on that basis alone, SHOULD all be disqualified from assuming the office of the POTUS.

But, the people, in all of their infinite wisdom, have spoken...and they have made it clear that Iraq is not the number one issue for them...not even close, in fact. Where does that leave us, I wonder.

[LizM]

I think what we need to be focused on here is not only which-case scenario is more based in reality, but also on whether or not there is any hope that a political solution can be implemented in conjunction with the inevitable withdrawal. Because you don't have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out that if US forces withdraw without there being at least a start down the path toward a political accommodation between the warring Iraqi factions, then they will be leaving behind a vicious civil war that won't spontaneously resolve itself and the US will be dealing with those serious and negative consequences for a very, very long time to come.

Besides, it's not like there isn't already on the table a comprehensive and viable strategy for promoting and facilitating a sustainable political settlement based on federalism and the Iraqi constitution. And, the Biden strategy has the added benefit of having already received the support, official and unofficial, of many of the participants and stakeholders involved in this fiasco - including the US, the permanent members of the UN Security Council, and most of Iraq's sectarian leaders. The only missing ingredient has been strong and competent US leadership on this (#1) issue and, unfortunately, the fly in the ointment here is that this lack of leadership is not likely to change, even after the next POTUS is sworn in.

[23000Days]

Have you noticed that one side of most conflict situations is manned by either the US or the puppet government led by Malaki, or both. Remove the US, that leaves Malaki, remove Malaki and that leaves the shiite majority who will inevitably rule the country anyway, after a bit of bloody sorting things out between the factions. Even if the Kurds and Sunnis united they would be powerless to stop the Shia.

Iran? They are offering assistance to all takers, therefore burning the candle from every end. Iran is Persian, Iraq is Arab, and never will these two occupy the same house.

We are the fly in the ointment, as well as primary cause for much of the sectarian violence. Given all this, how can we assume that Iraq will implode if we leave?

Biden's "divide and conquer" plan would only last as long as we were there to enforce it. Additionally, who the hell are we to dictate that division to the Iraqi people??

Attempting to strong-arm political reconciliation would also require our enduring presence to police it.

Why do we assume that we know all the answers and the rest of the world are bumbling idiots?

[LizM]

Actually, you are mistaken about Senator Biden's plan.

The Biden strategy is most definitely NOT about 'divide and conquer'...in fact, nothing could be further from the truth! This strategy is all about keeping Iraq united, self-governing, and stable. His plan is also NOT about a US imposition or about dictating anything to the Iraqis.

Senator Biden's strategy simply provides a mechanism or process, under the auspices of the UN Security Council, that would bring the warring Iraqi factions together to hammer out a political accommodation that they could all live with. It would involve the major and regional powers in an effort to secure and support whatever power-sharing arrangement the Iraqis were able to achieve.

Most of Iraq's sectarian leaders have supported what Joe Biden has been advocating and many consider him a "friend of Iraq".

"We" shouldn't assume that we know all the answers - I fully agree. But, I can damn sure guarantee you this...a political solution in Iraq will not spontaneously materialize out of thin air as the warring Iraqi factions miraculously come together, in the midst of a civil war, to chart their political future. This will not happen without strong and competent US leadership.

[fogbreath]

my guess is the reason we should believe their worst case scenarios is they would see to it they came true if we tried leaving iraq.
personally i think it ouite possible that this year's "october surprise" will be the bombing of iran followed by the need to suspend the election so "w" stays in power.
of course i'm just paranoid.

[jhamm1]

Or possibly the "october surprise" in question will be used merely as an attempt to drum up last minute support for McCain, thereby asking voters to appeal, not to whom they consider the better candidate, but to the supposed "necessity" of electing a leader who is "willing to see this conflict through to the end".

[ResidentChimp]

You should be concentrateing on the Dems' worst case senario. Getting beat in November because of selfishness. Your trying to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[Corneille]

Why can't trolls spell? Any idea?

[DLSteinhardt]

If we had a Congress that didn't need toilet training, they might have pressed the notion that not planning for other than best-case scenarios equals utter stupidity.

And every time the President tells us what Al-Qaeda will do if we leave Iraq, I'm struck by how much more confidently he expresses leadership to that organization than to the one he falsely swore an oath to, twice.

[LeoMarvin]

Yes, the Administration seduced us into Iraq with a best-case scenario, and they're pitching a worst-case scenario now to scare us into staying. But they didn't lose their credibility by arguing the best case then or the worst case now. They lost it by demagoguing responsible consideration of alternatives. The logical response isn't to dismiss their scenario as implausible. It's to weigh it as one among many possible outcomes.
HARRY SUGGESTS: The logical response, I'd suggest, is to stop viewing Iraq in a vaccum.

[LeoMarvin]

Same logic. Just one branch higher on the decision tree.

[timinhi]

Uh oh, Harry--Isn't writing about Iraq getting a bit "off-message?" Aren't you afraid that your readers might forget about the huge World-conspiracy to drown New Orleans?
HARRY RESPONDS: Cute, but wrong. There's no allegation of any such thing, just three independent forensic engineering studies blaming the Corps of Engineers for disastrously faulty design and construction work. Read em and laugh.

[davidly]

First, one has to accept the reality that those who lie to get us into war might just be lying about why they wanted to in the first place. As long as this situation is argued on the liars' terms, we'll just keep getting fooled again. Come on, Harry, you know why we're there.

The real Plan A is functioning quite well and never needed a backup. Maybe not everyone who supported "the war" is in the know on this, but those who pulled the strings sure did and boy are they reaping the benefits. Furthermore, the ensuing chaos of this "fiasco" has ensured that the worst-case scenario point of view will prevail. Mission Accomplished II

[tmbetterman]

They sure are. When Bush stood under the "Mission Accomplished" banner, his mission was accomplished, we control the oil, that was the mission! All these no-bid companies were just waiting in the wings to come in and rape and pillage the American dollar, to the benefit of Bush, Cheney and friends!