On Hubris and Iraq

So I just finished this interview of Ray McGovern, former CIA intelligence agent of more than 20 years, and I'm amazed (not really though) just how absolutely hubristic the current administration is. It is a very illuminating interview. Recalling his organization, Veteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity, sent a memorandum to the president before the Iraq invasion in 2003 stating clearly that such an act would ensure "overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists for the indefinite future, far from eliminating the threat, it would enhance it exponentially."

This however, is not news to those inside the intelligence community. Retired chief of the bin Laden unit at the CIA Michael Scheuer asserts that the invasion of Iraq "broke the back of our counterterrorism efforts" and validated everything bin Laden professed to his followers.

Moreover, fellow CIA analyst Bruce Riedel writes in Foreign Affairs that Al Qaeda is welcomed and celebrated the opportunity to kill Americans and pursue its 'bleed-to-bankruptcy' strategy, a strategy that has been openly professed by Al Qaeda.

NBC reporter Richard Engel spoke recently from Lebanon where he met with Al Qaeda members inspired. You can watch the interview here. What was their main motivating factor for trying to attack the West? "IT'S ALL ABOUT IRAQ" in Engel's own words.

Even as early as 2006, we learned, the director of the CIA briefed the president that the instability in Iraq seems "irreversible."

Again, these are Realpolitik arguments with only the United States' national interests in mind.

What about the fact that we as the aggressor nation have no right imposing our will on our victim? Oh yeah, we are the US of A and when we do it it's for democracy and liberty.

Nevertheless, the Iraqis want us out, in fact al Maliki essentially told us that we can leave at anytime. TPM notes,

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave "any time they want," though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told reporters earlier this week that a U.S. withdrawal would make Iraq's chaos worse, but Maliki dismissed his concerns, saying, "We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want." In other words, "We can take it from here."

Kevin Drum noted the other day, "Both the American public and the Iraqi public want us to leave Iraq. However, both the American government and the Iraqi government want us to stay. So we're staying. This is called 'democracy promotion.'"

Hmmmmm.

As Reidel writes,

But it is time to recognize that engagement there is more of a trap than an opportunity for the United States. Al Qaeda and Iran both want Washington to remain bogged down in the quagmire. Al Qaeda has openly welcomed the chance to fight the United States in Iraq. U.S. diplomacy has certainly been clumsy and counterproductive, but there is little point in reviewing the litany of U.S. mistakes that led to this disaster. The objective now should be to let Iraqis settle their conflicts themselves. Rather than reinforce its failures, the United States should disengage from the civil war in Iraq, with a complete, orderly, and phased troop withdrawal that allows the Iraqi government to take the credit for the pullout and so enhance its legitimacy.

No doubt al Qaeda will claim a victory when the United States leaves Iraq. (It already does so at the sheer mention of withdrawal.) But it is unlikely that the Islamic State of Iraq will fare well after the occupation ends. Anbar and adjacent Sunni provinces have little water, few other natural resources, and no access to the outside world except through hostile territory. The Shiites and the Kurdish militias will have no compunction about attacking the Islamic State of Iraq. (Al Qaeda's own propaganda indicates that it fears the Shiites' wrath after the United States' departure more than it fears what would happen if the Americans stayed.)