In terms of steering the country onto the right track, I think Jim's last sentence is an important one. It's clear who is responsible for the current state of Iraq. However, they have this habit of behaving like petulant 5 year olds when they realize they've been caught. Scarily, the tactic works much better than it should. Witness how they managed to focus the attention off the President and onto Kerry's flubbed line. It didn't matter whether Kerry was denigrating the troops or not. It only mattered that they could say he was, as loudly and as often as possible.

So, as Jim said, it's important to make the truth known, so that people who might direct the country onto a better path can actually try that. The fact is that despite Bush's happy talk, the situation in Iraq is already not good. It will not be the case that it will get worse merely because the Democrats control the legislature. (Also, let us not forgot who our Commander-in-Chief will still be come January.)

Posted November 15, 2006 9:53 AM by JC

Well, I'm sitting here in the Al Anbar Province (for the last 2+ years) and I can say that it's about as mucked up as it can be. Things get better, then they get horrible. There is no good way out of this, now. If we stay it will be a mess. If we leave it will be a mess, but it will be the Iraqi's mess and they will have the opportunity to fix it their way.

Posted November 15, 2006 10:31 AM by Ruhgozler

This is an excellent summary of the ongoing nightmare. Thanks, JMcD!

Posted November 15, 2006 10:42 AM by BSD

" If we demonstrate to the Sunnis that we are not going to remove Shakir and that we are going to allow him to do business as usual, then theyre going to lose faith in us and faith in the reconciliation process" is undoubtedly true.

But consider the equally true flip side: it's bad enough that a general in the Iraqi Army is being given orders by a US colonel. If the US does decide to remove a legally appointed Iraqi general entirely, then it would be impossible to have a clearer demonstration of the fact that Iraqi sovereignty is a bad joke and that the Iraqi government is just a puppet government run by the foreign occupation.

The two choices are bad in different ways, but both are bad.

Posted November 15, 2006 11:29 AM by Matt Austern

Jim Macdonald: Shorter version: W took the lid of the Iraqi pressure cooker and turned up the heat. He's now blaming everyone else he can for the mess in the kitchen.

(Seeing the expression 'the pooch is already screwed', btw, gave me thoughts of Rick Santorum...)

Iraq is, simply, another version of the former Yugoslavia, with a lot of scores from the last few decades being paid off.

Posted November 15, 2006 11:34 AM by Fragano Ledgister

Ruhgozler #2: Given what fixing it 'their way' is going to amount to, I hope you can duck out of the way quickly.

Posted November 15, 2006 11:35 AM by Fragano Ledgister

Doesn't matter what the truth is - the media will blame the Democrats. It's all about being able to deny the label "liberal media." That and serve their corporate masters.

Posted November 15, 2006 11:38 AM by Larry Brennan

JC at #1: that only happens because your self-censored corporate fascist news-media let them get away with it. You don't fix it, you don't get to complain.

Ruhgozler at #2: In what it was called Yugoslavia, "they" were completely unable to "fix it their way" without resorting to massacres (and they still are, the only thing stopping them from doing it is somebody else choosing for them, like Tito used to). Iraq is now completely balkanized already. Iran-backed majority shiites will start a massive "ethnic cleansing" effort as soon as US troops pull out. I hope the Dems know what they are doing, but the first "plans" circulated are all on the wrong paths: they are trying to persuade european countries to be more involved in Afghanistan, so that american troops can concentrate on Iraq... Wrong, wrong, wrong; the only thing that might ever work is the other way 'round, with US forces being replaced in Iraq by UN (or african -- one can dream!) troops that still have a shred of credibility.

It will take decades to recover from the mess that this useless president-emperor and his cronies (and their enablers in the corporate fascist media) will leave.

Posted November 15, 2006 11:40 AM by Giacomo

Good post, Jim. Let me add, the Baker Commission (or whatever they're calling that group, otherwise known as 41's Boyz) may help, but only insofar as it can neutralize the faux-Spartan ideals of Cheney and the remaining neocons and counter the attitude of Condi, et. al. that Bush is some sort of genius. (They must believe that, otherwise they would run screaming from the room when he talks, like the rest of us.)

As you have said, the options presented to the U.S. administration now are bad, bad, and bad. I hope that the midterm election loss has chastened Bush enough that he will listen to the Boyz and move toward whatever options will save lives and extricate the U.S. from the current debacle.

It may simply be too late to help Iraq.

Posted November 15, 2006 11:59 AM by Lizzy L

The "last helicopter out of the embassy in Saigon" scenario is optimistic.

It was obvious that the war was illegal, immoral, and to be fought under false pretenses as far back as summer 2002, when the White House and Downing Street began spinning on the pretext for hostilities in a manner that would have made Joseph Goebbels blush. (I'm not kidding. Re-reading Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" with an eye for the propaganda campaign against Poland during spring and supper of 1939 makes the parallels utterly, blatantly, clear.)

It was also obvious that the aftermath was going to be a complete clusterfuck when the rift between the Powell State Department and the Ministry of War^W^W^WRumsfeld-controlled DoD resulted in the DoD trashing State's detailed plans for administering Iraq after the invasion.

I don't know what drugs the neocons were taking to come out with that rubbish about being greeted with flowers, but they seem to have actually believed it, which only makes the resulting fiasco pathetic as well as stupid.

Finally, when the military governor sacked the entire Iraqi army ... then it was clearly only a matter of time before it was going to be "occupation: game over, you lose". (Six. Hundred. Thousand. Men with automatic weapons. And no jobs. WTF did they think kicking them out of their barracks and mess tents was going to achieve? The mind, she boggles.)

But this latest idiocy ...

"12-18 months" indeed.

In 12-18 months the remaining allied forces in Iraq will have their work cut out to evacuate all their personnel, abandoning their bases in place, and fighting their way out to the border with Kurdistan or Kuwait. If they manage to organize the evacuation for autumn/winter/spring (avoiding the 50-degree death march of summer) and if they can protect their ammunition and fuel dumps along the route, they might survive. If not, it's going to look more like the First Afghan War than Vietnam.

You can't evacuate armoured vehicles by air. Without control of a wide perimeter around the air bases -- tens of miles in all directions -- the evacuation aircraft will be vulnerable to MANPADs (and RPG-30s, which the insurgents have figured out how to use against helicopters). Likely as not, some of those bases are going to be evacuated by road. Which means traversing hundreds of miles of hostile countryside, insurgents with IEDs every inch of the way, and open season on American soldiers -- they won't be coming back, so what's the downside on a little revenge whoop-ass?

If they run out of ammunition or fuel before they make it to the border, they'll be in really deep shit. Because by the time it gets to that point, nobody (except possibly the government of Iran) will be real interested in taking Americans prisoner ...

Posted November 15, 2006 12:06 PM by Charlie Stross

PS: "You can't evacuate armoured vehicles by air." And, I should have added, you can't abandon them or they'll be used against you. Apparently M1A2s are real hard to disable. And letting them fall into insurgent hands before the evacuation is complete? [Mastercard slogan goes here.]

Posted November 15, 2006 12:10 PM by Charlie Stross

They screwed the pooch soon after the invasion. They jumped the shark with "Mission Accomplished."

Now they're screwing the shark.

Posted November 15, 2006 12:11 PM by Kip W

Re #4:

If Riverbend's blog is in any way representative, Iraqis are convinced that the government is US puppets anyways. And as long as the US is occupying, the "government" governs only with the consent of the US - so they are puppets, either way.

The question is, whether they see the US as controlling its puppets in a way that is benevolent to the Iraqis, or if they see the US as letting the puppets cause what havoc they want as long as they don't interfere with the US agenda to badly. As it is, we've replaced one set of thugs with another.

Posted November 15, 2006 12:21 PM by Ursula L

...it's going to look more like the First Afghan War than Vietnam.

Or, in a grotesque 'best case', the Retreat from Chosin, only with much better close-air support.

Posted November 15, 2006 12:24 PM by protected static

It's time to go the UN, hat in hand, prepared to spend money and lives, and beg. I think that's the only chance now. I find it hard to imagine the current administration doing this, but they are facing defeat so, with strong congressional encouragement, they just might.

Posted November 15, 2006 12:35 PM by Randolph Fritz

Spend lives? Whose lives? The UN can't fix this, and the idea that an occupation can solve this problem is the same delusion that got us there to begin with. Occupying armies have stuck around far too long in order to help the occupied for centuries. What was done is tragic, but to think we can fix this debacle is adding more folly onto the pile.

Posted November 15, 2006 12:44 PM by Sean Bosker

My personal estimation is that W has concluded that toughing things out until his successor was in the White House isn't going to keep him from being the US president who lost a third to a half of the US field army, so he has to do something else.

I'm not sure if he's capable of getting his head around the fact that his choices are being the loser or being the guy who lost the army, and that it's better to be the loser; from his public language about conflict, I'd strongly suspect he's not able to distinguish those choices. (I'd also strongly suspect that early summer of 2007 is about as long as he's got before he has lost the army.)

Which will leave his successor with a hell of a pickle; not only will there be a need to re-assemble the Army as a useful fighting force after it knows it got, no shit, defeated, and to do this from the traumatized and over-used veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, in the absence of the principled senior leadership Donald Rumsfeld forced to resign, and while being completely unable to contemplate anything resembling a victorious war or a political recovery from the disaster, but there will be the immense and unspeakable domestic mess as the general populace gets the choice between acknowledging defeat and weakness or disdaining reality entirely and utterly.

It's a very intersting problem whoever you elect in 2008 is going to have.

(Oh, and protected static -- not a problem close air support is able to solve. Retreating roadmarch over ~500 km distances without secure routes and without secure supply points to fall back is just about impossible for reasons having nothing to do with your ability to maintain control of a perimeter or cohesive front, which is what the close air helps with.)

Posted November 15, 2006 12:45 PM by Graydon

Randolph Fritz, #15: Oh, yeah. Best of luck with that one. "Sure, we'd love to stick our dicks into that meatgrinder you built. But we have to, um, wash our hair. Yeah, 'wash our hair', that's the ticket."

Posted November 15, 2006 12:48 PM by cd

"The good Lord has assured me I will make it through this fight. He says you're f%^ked."

Posted November 15, 2006 12:50 PM by Steve Buchheit

Fragano Ledgister said (#5):
Iraq is, simply, another version of the former Yugoslavia, with a lot of scores from the last few decades being paid off.

I'm extremely leery of this analogy, but there are some (some, mind you) similarities to Yugoslavia in the mid-1940s, with resistance groups often more interested in fighting each other than the occupiers.

(Note that I'm only interested in the "resistance groups fighting each other bitterly" part of the analogy, and if there's a better example that doesn't reference Germany, I'd be happy to use it instead.)

But, yes, the analogy to 1980s/1990s Yugoslavia is pretty apt.

Posted November 15, 2006 12:58 PM by Peter Erwin

Just for the heck of it, let me suggest an alternate scenario to Charlie's "First Afghan War Redux":

If it's clear that the US is really pulling out, most of the "insurgents" might decide to leave them alone and let them go, on the grounds that:
a) They get to declare victory anyway, because they forced the Americans to leave;
b) There's no sense wasting their people and resources on the fleeing Americans when they're going to need them for the real battle, against the other Iraqi factions.

Posted November 15, 2006 1:07 PM by Peter Erwin

#17-- The UN still has credibility--and people who speak Arabic--, and there's an awful lot of Iraqis who don't want a civil war. They might be able to broker a deal, which could be enforced by a peacekeeping mission. If the USA was willing to do what was necessary to support that mission, I think it would change some minds, worldwide. It's difficult to imagine, I admit. But the alternatives seem to me all worse. Over half a million Iraqis are dead already; the number could rise to millions before the civil war ends, and that end probably including a greatly empowered radical Islam--the harder the war, the harder the peace.

And never forget that we are partners with the Iraqi--with every nation--in the protection of the planetary climate and ecosystem. That alone ought to be reason to do everything possible to make the best peace we can.

Posted November 15, 2006 1:13 PM by Randolph Fritz

Peter Erwin, #21: I'd like to agree with you, but gambling on the benevolence and goodwill of one's enemies does not strike me as a sensible move.

Posted November 15, 2006 1:33 PM by Charlie Stross

Sean at #16: the minute Iraq remains without foreign occupation is the minute that Iran and Iraq start talking about unification. No, that's not true, they are talking about it already.

60 years of successful "divide et impera" policies have been ruined with one single strike, we better come out with alternative scenarios. The only one I see as viable is a semi-permanent unofficial UN rule over Iraq, excluding Kurdistan. The other one is a very long shot: a Persian state (Iran + Iraq) with democratic institutions. But Iran will be ruled by nationalistic fools for a few years, thanks to "us" scaring them to vote that way...

Posted November 15, 2006 1:36 PM by Giacomo

Just a thought for those people who keep thinking that the Kurds wouldn't be a problem in this, who gets to keep Kirkuk? Big oil revenue at stake, both the Sunni's and the Kurds claim the city, and the Sunni's aren't going to abandon their claim just because we ask, and the Kurds won't give it up without a fight.

Posted November 15, 2006 1:45 PM by Steve Buchheit

[Ross Perot voice]
When you get caught screwing the pooch, don't go blaming the dog or thems that caught you.
[/Ross Perot voice]

Yeah, I can just picture devoted Outer Party members in MiniTrue writing the talking points for the blameshift.

They're probably looking for someone to write "Who Lost Iraq?" right now.

Posted November 15, 2006 1:46 PM by Stefan Jones

They're probably looking for someone to write "Who Lost Iraq?" right now.

Their first choice for Who Lost Iraq will be Bill Clinton, if they can only figure out how to sell it...

Posted November 15, 2006 2:00 PM by Lizzy L

And the timetable is for 12-18 months before we leave. What did the generals tell Bush? I’d just be guessing, but my guess is that they told him “We can hold what we have for 12-18 months. After that we can shoot our way out.” So watch for helicopters on the Embassy roof in Baghdad no later than April, ’08.
It’s been clear for a while that the only available course is to Declare a Victory and Leave. That’s what I’ve been expecting from the Baker Commission.
We have Yet Another New Low when villains of one of the the last major misadventure s (Iran-Contra) are pulling our chestnuts out of the latest fire.

Giacomo at #8: that only happens because your self-censored corporate fascist news-media let them get away with it. You don't fix it, you don't get to complain.
How? Put up or shut up. Exactly what should we be doing to fix the “self-censored corporate fascist news-media”? Neither I nor just about anyone here is "let[ting] them get away with it".

Randolph Fritz at #15: It's time to go the UN, hat in hand, prepared to spend money and lives, and beg. I think that's the only chance now.
Being right isn't going to do you or any of us a bit of good, I'm afraid.

Posted November 15, 2006 2:09 PM by Neil in Chicago

Graydon:
(Oh, and protected static -- not a problem close air support is able to solve. Retreating roadmarch over ~500 km distances without secure routes and without secure supply points to fall back is just about impossible for reasons having nothing to do with your ability to maintain control of a perimeter or cohesive front, which is what the close air helps with.)

I wasn't thinking 'solve' so much as thinking 'larger heaps of corpses'.

Posted November 15, 2006 2:25 PM by protected static

Tuesday's London Times had a sensible, clear op-ed: Damned if you leave, damned if you don't.
"The horrific, insoluble problem that Iraq has become was entirely predictable: don't let them tell you otherwise."
It was predictable, and was predicted by many people, but that doesn't get us out of it. In fact, nothing gets us out of it except "cut and run". Iran and Syria might be able to help, but why should they help a regime that's been slanging them and imposing sanctions (to little effect, by the way) for years?

Posted November 15, 2006 2:32 PM by John Stanning

Giacomo #24 : I don't see the Iran + Iraq scenario. Iraqis are Arabs, Iranians are Persian and speak Farsi. Aren't they racially and culturally too far apart? Besides, as Steve Buchheit says, there are the Kurds to add to the mix.

Posted November 15, 2006 2:40 PM by John Stanning

1991, 1999, 2003, the military planners looked at invading Iraq. All said even under best circumstances, with ~400k troops, and no abu graibs to get the people mad at you, there was still a good chance the country would fracture into civil war.

We are now seeing those plans play out.

The only blame to be laid here is at the Bush administration's feet for ignoring all the military planning which predicted exactly what we are seeing today.

Posted November 15, 2006 2:43 PM by Greg London

How many Caliphate points does bin Laden get if Iraq and Iran decide they don't need that pesky border?

Disabling M1A1 tanks is not so difficult--undo the drain plug on the lubrication system and fire up the turbine. The armor plate keeps exploding shrapnel *in* as well as out. Smashing a few choice electronics boxes is recommended as well. These are definitely repairable (though we control many of the spares) but they will make sure that nobody uses your heavy armor against you for at least several days/weeks, which is all that is required for an evacuation.

The four big bases the US has are probably defensible, with enough laagered fuel and munitions to cover a retreat. Lots of smaller bases don't, and those troops will have to be airlifted out (most likely by helicopter, not the safest form of transport) to the big bases.

The scary one is the Green Zone: there will only be screaming masses of civilians at the gates until the first 2,000lb truck bomb shows up. And once militias control the streets, everyone with a mortar will be lobbing shells in--nobody in there except Americans and collaborators. At least in Saigon they could use helicopters--Bagdad may well have too many MANPADs and heavy sniper rifles, which will leave several thousand people at the mercy of....well, never mind that. It's too depressing.

Posted November 15, 2006 2:45 PM by BigHank53

Besides, as Steve Buchheit says, there are the Kurds to add to the mix.

Bad! Bad! Bad!

Posted November 15, 2006 3:13 PM by Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little

I think in the event of a desperate pullout, it's pretty obvious how the problem of attackers mixed with civilians in close-in urban areas will be addressed.

I also expect that withdrawing US forces won't be a target of any major militias or organized forces, because *they have a civil war to fight when we leave*! You can spend your strength killing Americans who are leaving, but they shoot back, and if pressed, they won't be shy about unleashing a lot of firepower in your general direction. You'll be needing all those men and equipment when the Sunni warlord comes over the hill in a few days.

If civil war and partition are in the cards, we could make it a hell of a lot less bloody by relocating people into defensible enclaves now, buying people out at some kind of haflway reasonable price, etc. That is, we do (or support) the ethnic cleansing, but do it in a way that doesn't involve murder or rape, just forcibly buying peoples' houses and moving them to someplace else. I'm not sure if this is workable, but it sure looks more likely to save lives and suffering than a straight pullout. Preside over an orderly and humane partition. But that would require acknowledging reality, which isn't this government's strong suit.

Posted November 15, 2006 3:19 PM by albatross

From what little I understand of the situation, the only significant thing I can see our government doing to, at the very least, prevent a complete disaster is to open up diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria. Saudi Arabia needs to be included in these talks as well. Iraq does not exist in a vacuum. All of these countries (including Turkey and others as well) have a stake in the future of Iraq, and we need these countries to be at least talking about Iraq with each other.

Posted November 15, 2006 3:19 PM by Joe J

What I would really like to see is someone with a firm grip on (a) Middle Eastern history and (b) reality write up a scenario of what would have happened if we had not invaded.

I don't dispute, by the way, that invading has become a clusterfuck of epic proportions, but I remember back when the decision was still being debated over (in the public and media if not in George's brain), some very smart and non-tinfoil-hat-wearing people whose opinions I respect were in favor of taking Saddam down. Of course, I happened to be naive enough to believe that there really were WMD there at the time.

But still. I guess I'm just curious to know, insofar as it's possible to speculate on Might-Have-Beens, what would have happened if we had done nothing.

Posted November 15, 2006 3:36 PM by Leigh Butler

Gen. John Abizaid appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee today.

Top general says Iraq status quo needs to change

In spite of admitting that things need to change, his attitude seems to be that everything is better than it was in August, and everyone over there wants success.

Choice quote from the general, "I remain optimistic that we can stabilize Iraq."

I suppose that means we need to get rid of him as well.

Posted November 15, 2006 3:37 PM by Joe J

When Dennis Kucinich was calling for a six-week withdrawal in his campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination last election, an in-law of mine who's an AF reserve payload specialist pointed out that it would be difficult to get the troops and their packs out in that time, and that it would take two weeks, at least, just to get the payload specialists over there to pack the other stuff for shipment. And that one of the problems all along has been with the suits' inability to understand that military logistics isn't, really, just like Fed-Ex.

Posted November 15, 2006 3:45 PM by JESR

Leigh:
But still. I guess I'm just curious to know, insofar as it's possible to speculate on Might-Have-Beens, what would have happened if we had done nothing.

First, we would have elected Gore President. Oh, wait... Never mind.

Seriously? I think that as soon as W took office, the invasion of Iraq was more-or-less a foregone conclusion.

Posted November 15, 2006 3:51 PM by protected static

Have might-have-beens and/or time-travel stories started showing in SF magazines yet? Let's NOT bring up Dan Simmons's piece of junk up again though, if you don't mind. Once was enough.

Posted November 15, 2006 3:54 PM by Serge

Jim McDonald: "It used to be that timetables would only encourage the terrorists. Now, surprise! here?s a timetable. And the timetable is for 12-18 months before we leave. What did the generals tell Bush? I?d just be guessing, but my guess is that they told him ?We can hold what we have for 12-18 months. After that we can shoot our way out.? So watch for helicopters on the Embassy roof in Baghdad no later than April, ?08. "

I expect what happened first is that the Wise Old Men of the GOP looked at the polls. The war is now a net negative for the GOP, with a reasonably steady long-term downward trend since (guessing) Fall '03. Projecting that ahead to Fall '08 would indicate a presidential election where the GOP is the ones who brought on an honest-to-God, undeniable quagmire. This is known as the 'Dems win it all' scenario.

Therefore, the first priority of anybody wanting a career as a GOP politician/courtier is to make sure that the war is over by spring/summer '08, for American domestic political purposes.

After that, the generals told Bush (and the Wise Old Men) that the Quagmire '08 scenario was the better-case scenario; the most likely was "What happens when the US Army collapses in enemy terrain? - Watch 'Survivor - Iraq' and Find out!" scenario. That put Bush's self-interest much more in line with the interests of many in the GOP.

Posted November 15, 2006 3:57 PM by Barry

Leigh :I don't dispute, by the way, that invading has become a clusterfuck of epic proportions, but I remember back when the decision was still being debated over (in the public and media if not in George's brain), some very smart and non-tinfoil-hat-wearing people whose opinions I respect were in favor of taking Saddam down. Of course, I happened to be naive enough to believe that there really were WMD there at the time.

Clearly, those people were so badly wrong that they may well have been tinfoil hat types. Still, I'm intersted in who they were, because my estimation before the invasion was that is was (a) a really bad idea due to sectarian conflicts, (b) likley to detract from any meaningful cleanup of Afghanistan. and (c) no, there were *not* WMDs there. Bush's pushing through the UN and US backed inspectors analysis of the Iraqs WMD capacity was transparent. I knew that they were just using it as a front, as did most of the anti-war crowd.

Turns out I was 100% right.

Posted November 15, 2006 3:58 PM by Josh Jasper

"I am innocent of this man's blood; it is in your hands now".

Matthew 27:24

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mathew%2027;&version=64;

Pontius Pilate on crucifying Jesus.

Posted November 15, 2006 3:59 PM by Greg London

In Salon.com's War Room today..

'...Gen. John Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that the United States needs to maintain -- or possibly increase -- current troop levels in Iraq because it has only "four to six months" left to stop sectarian violence from spiraling completely out of control. (...) Stop us if you've heard this one before. (...) As somebody said the other day, the "next six months" are always critical in Iraq. Tony Blair told reporters back in January 2004 that Iraq was about to enter "a very critical six months." Chuck Hagel said "the next six months will be very critical" in August 2005, and Joseph Biden said "the next six months are going to tell the story" in December 2005. U.S. ambassador Zalmany Khalilzad said in July that "the next six months will be critical in terms of reining in the danger of civil war." Gen. George Casey said in early October that "the next six months will determine the future of Iraq." And a certain New York Times columnist has declared the importance of the "next six months" so many times that 180 days is now known in some circles as "a Friedman."...'

Posted November 15, 2006 4:02 PM by Serge

Charles, as has been pointed out above, disabling any vehicle is pretty easy, if done from the inside. The big trick is that the Army's supply lines run through Shiite territory, and the Shiite militias, police and government are generally the same thing. This means that they have had two years to prep for an uprising, with the 'guerrillas' being also the guys in uniform doing the patrolling, and the guys working for the government doing interesting things like 'mainintaing' the roads. With luxury upgrades like built-in IED's, I'm sure.

In a lot of cases, the answer would be to pull out over open ground, using the Air Force to cluster bomb/napalm the route in front, and to do this *before* the last supplies run out. Which could be forced by circumstances, therefore, and not according to a pre-set timetable.

This, in effect would mean that a number of Army units would have to 'assault south', perhaps on little notice, or be well and truly stuck. That 'assault south' would presumably lead, very quickly, to all-out war with the Shiites, causing problems to those units which hadn't yet pulled away from inhabited areas.

Posted November 15, 2006 4:05 PM by Barry

what would have happened if we had done nothing.

I don't think "done nothing" is in any way the realistic alternative. "Nothing" would require the rollback of postwar sanctions and inspections, not to mention the support of the Kurds over the interwar period and the lack of support for the postwar Shiite uprising. Oh, and the first Gulf War itself.

If you really want to get to the "done nothing" state, that requires rolling back not only US support of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war but CIA support of the Ba'ath party during its rise to power. Some serious alternate history stuff.

If, however, your alternative is "What would have happened if the US had supported sanctions and inspections", we have already seen several years of the answer during the interwar years.

Posted November 15, 2006 4:24 PM by FungiFromYuggoth

Graydon #17: "My personal estimation is that W has concluded that toughing things out until his successor was in the White House isn't going to keep him from being the US president who lost a third to a half of the US field army, so he has to do something else."

As someone said in a language I can't claim to speak:
Quintilius Varus legiones redde.

Posted November 15, 2006 4:26 PM by Fragano Ledgister

Peter Erwin #20: I don't have a better analogy from recent times, alas. It looks to me like the same sort of conflict, with the same kind of score settling (with the scores being settled being a bit more recent than World War II). Only with the cause not being the incapacity of the leadership to hold a cobbled-together structure together, but the intervention of a giant with big feet (or ears) and no sense of what he was doing.

Posted November 15, 2006 4:29 PM by Fragano Ledgister

Steve Bucheit #25: The proclamation of an independent Kurdish republic in Kirkuk will be followed by the arrival of the Turkish army. The sudden incorporation of the Turcomans into Turkey may or may not follow, but the Kurds will be pierced by rotary fasteners.

Posted November 15, 2006 4:32 PM by Fragano Ledgister

How many Caliphate points does bin Laden get if Iraq and Iran decide they don't need that pesky border?

About as many as Holy Roman Empire points Charles V got when King James I and VI was crowned at Westminster.

Posted November 15, 2006 4:34 PM by Keir

Greg London: The only blame to be laid here is at the Bush administration's feet for ignoring all the military planning which predicted exactly what we are seeing today.

So, you think we can get the general US population to understand this is a pattern with this administration? The predictions about what would happen to NOLA if a hurricane hit and the levees broke were horribly accurate; so were the predictions about this damned war. Showing that this is a pattern, and not a case of good intentions gone bad or of faulty information on which to base decisions, seems key in bringing about real change in critical areas.

Posted November 15, 2006 4:58 PM by Aconite

I love this line from the Times editorial: Either way, rich or poor were forked; as is our coalition in Iraq.

Re the Bechtel pull-out...did you notice, in the flurry before the election, that funding for the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction was pulled in a military spending bill? I smell a cover-up.

Posted November 15, 2006 5:23 PM by abi

#33 BigHank53 - when the militias rule the streets - they already do, some of them wearing police uniforms (and seeing as the uniforms are 'unfakeable' the wearers are probably police)

As for the militias not killing Americans (and Brits) as they skedaddle - wishful thinking. Killing Americans is fun. Killing Americans is nation building. Killing Americans is holy. These people want their country back and they won't stop firing until their borders are clear. Don't fool yourselves that they won't kill every single American they can on the very simple basis that they are Americans and they invaded their country.

You'd do the same thing, and these people are just as devoted to their land as you are, and have been for several milennia.

Then they'll get back to killing each other. Normal service will be resumed, but what they won't need to do is worry about weapons, because you've been selling them at knock down prices for decades (as have the rest of the 'civilised' world - when they haven't been giving them away)

What do the new government of Iraq have in common with Mr Bush? They're rich people born of rich people and they intend to stay rich by getting American troops killed. There's a symmetry there. A very ugly symmetry.

Posted November 15, 2006 5:36 PM by Martyn Taylor

But still. I guess I'm just curious to know, insofar as it's possible to speculate on Might-Have-Beens, what would have happened if we had done nothing.

Saddam was an old man by Iraqi standards, and his grown sons were ambitious.

When Uday and Qusay fought for control, perhaps the UN could have helped stabilize the region and usher in democracy. Or perhaps another strongman would have arisen to keep the status quo.

Posted November 15, 2006 5:37 PM by James D. Macdonald

How many Caliphate points does bin Laden get if Iraq and Iran decide they don't need that pesky border?

Keep in mind that, as John Stanning pointed out, the Iraqis and Iranians do not have a lot in common -- except having fought a very bloody war against each other not very long ago.[*] I doubt Iran wants the headache of trying to deal with a large population of Arabs, even the one who aren't Sunni, and they'd probably rather not deal with the Kurds (who are Sunni, and who might inspire Iranian Kurds to be more independent-minded).

A Shi'a-run client state that is friendly/beholden to Iran is probably more what the Iranians want.

(And Iran isn't someplace bin Laden is very fond of; as far as he's concerned, they're a bunch of Shi'a heretics.)

[*] Saddam actually referred to the war as his "Qadasiyyah," a reference to the 7th Century battle in which Arab Muslims broke the power of the Persian Sassanian empire, leaving it open to Arab conquest.

Posted November 15, 2006 5:56 PM by Peter Erwin

Peter@56:

...the Iraqis and Iranians do not have a lot in common -- except having fought a very bloody war against each other not very long ago.

That very much depends on which Iraqis you are looking at. SCIRI, for instance, one of the more powerful parties in the current, U.S.-sponsored and Shiite-dominated "ruling" coalition, actually started as an Iranian-sponsored anti-Baath Iraqi resistance movement, with an Iranian-trained militia (the Badr corps) which is widely reported to have thoroughly infiltrated the new Iraqi Army.

So, while the Iranians certainly aren't friendly with everyone in the borders of the former nation-state of Iraq (certainly not the Sunni arabs that dominated the former Baath regime there), they are hardly without influential allies...

Posted November 15, 2006 6:32 PM by "Charles Dodgson"

peter,

Saddam actually referred to the war as his "Qadasiyyah," a reference to the 7th Century battle in which Arab Muslims broke the power of the Persian Sassanian empire, leaving it open to Arab conquest.

at least he didn't refer to it as his quesadilla!

sorry sorry sorry sorry, that was the first thing that popped into my head.

the second was, as a former jerusalemite, i think i know what the root of that word is.

i'd really like to learn arabic someday, it's cool how close it is to hebrew. except they got the prettier writing.

Posted November 15, 2006 6:40 PM by miriam beetle

#43 Josh: Clearly, those people were so badly wrong that they may well have been tinfoil hat types. Still, I'm intersted in who they were

Well, these were friends of mine, not pundits. But as I recall, most of the ones who were in favor of invasion at the time weren't even concerned, necessarily, with whether there were WMDs in Iraq, nor did they think that there was any connection between Saddam and the 9/11 terrorists; they just considered Saddam a bloodthirsty tyrant whom we should have taken down in the first Gulf War, but were too chickenshit to finish what we started once our allies all pulled out.

Of course, I suppose their (and my) naivete came in on not thinking the Bush administration wouldn't make a total horse's ass out of actually executing the war.

I guess what I'm saying is, everything now points to an imminent Sunni/Shi'ite civil war, but then, when didn't it? There's no question we fucked this war up royally, but I don't concede that our mistakes were the sole cause of how fucked up the region is as a whole. My question is, would civil war have not happened had we not invaded, or was it inevitable?

#55 James: Thanks. I wouldn't take bets on the former over the latter, personally. Which basically keeps the situation exactly as is, barring minor cosmetic differences. Oh well.

Posted November 15, 2006 6:47 PM by Leigh Butler

Peter Erwin #56: The interesting question is does religion (around for 1400 years) trump nation (around for 80-odd years)? Or, put in other words, do Iraqi Shi'ites have much invested in either Iraqi or Arab nationhood? I'm no Esposito or Lewis, but I hae me doots.

Posted November 15, 2006 7:17 PM by Fragano Ledgister

abi @ 53,

The IG for Iraq was restored yesterday on voice vote in the Senate.

Posted November 15, 2006 7:31 PM by Linkmeister

#28--"Being right isn't going to do you or any of us a bit of good, I'm afraid."

And being wrong is going to do better? Seriously--let's shoot for the best way out. A withdrawal under fire is going to be a nightmare.

Posted November 15, 2006 8:01 PM by Randolph Fritz

I hope to Ghod that Charlie Stross is wrong, but I'm afraid he isn't. It is possible for us to get the troops out, but it won't be easy, and a lot of folks are going to get killed/injured in the process.

It's going to be ugly any way you slice it; at some point, when enough folks get killed trying to pull out, the orders are going to change to allow a LOT more discretionary use of force. I'm not saying it is a good thing, but if the object is to get as many of our troops home as possible, then we may have to stomach some mighty ugly ROE to get there.

Posted November 15, 2006 9:29 PM by Scott D-S

W now wants his own study group to review the Baker study group's recommendations. No one knows if he just wants to pee on the Baker recs to mark them as his own, or if he just doesn't wanna do what they're telling him he has to do and wants his own "study" that tells him something he wants to hear.

Either way, it doesn't look like an orderly, timed withdrawal of troops is something W is willing to consider.

Which means our kids won't be getting out until they absolutely *have* to. Which means, under fire, with no secure lines of transport, and ambushes everywhere. The nightmare scenario.

I don't know what can be done about this - unless the military is making its own plans, regardless of what W or even Abizaid say.

Posted November 15, 2006 10:29 PM by CaseyL

If no war, maybe one of Saddam's sons would have succeeded, probably after the other one had met with a lamented fate. I think it more likely there would have been some other monster. I know there's an actual dynasty in Syria, the other Ba'athist state, but Syria isn't riven with anything like the level of ethnic, tribal and religious conflict that Iraq is.

Whoever scrambles to the top in Iraq (if anyone does) will be doing it without anything like a functioning set of consensuses or conventions for a government, as do actually exist in Syria. It follows that he would have to be a successful warlord first, and then a superbly skilled tyrant. ("Skilled" in this case refers to a sheaf of abilities very few of which are virtues and most of which are indicative of extreme sociopathy, all within an exactly-judged pragmatism.) Neither of Saddam's sons showed much talent. They were more in the nature of playboys with sadistic overtones.

A skilled tyrant is really the best outcome possible now, and always was. I actually think it's reasonably acceptable, though I don't imagine that anyone is going to agree with me. So long as the tyrant is pragmatic enough not to go adventuring, there's no actual problem for the west there.

Iraq could simply dissolve into chaos, a round of civil wars fought between private armies, with all sides reserving their energies for slaughtering each other. This is of course deplorable; but it's difficult to know what practical steps might be taken to stop it, and in any case there is no threat to the west in it, as such. The resolution to this process would almost certainly be a skilled tyrant, anyway. The real problem outcomes are two.

One is the emergence of some unified leadership that will sponsor random terrorism in the west, or threaten western clients in the region. There's no denying that Saddam did the latter, and there's no guarantee that a successor regime might not be worse. But at least in such a case the policy options are perfectly clear: put up with it; subvert it; attempt diplomacy; depose it by force of arms, ours or someone else's.

The second case is worse: the successful colonisation (or re-colonisation) of an exhausted and divided Iraq by some regional power, either directly or through the use of puppets. The practical candidates are two: Iran and Turkey, and probably both, their interests being separate. Such a colonisation would be attended with extreme brutality, of course, which is why it might succeed where a western colonisation could not. The problem, of course, is that it would create a new empire in the Middle East. What might come out of that could be a genuine threat to the west.

Posted November 15, 2006 11:05 PM by Dave Luckett

#52 Yeah, that would be nice. But I'm quite happy right now to simply focus on the Iraq quagmire and the Neocon's attemtps to suddenly make it all teh Democrats fault. the "OK, you're in charge now, what's YOUR plan?" crap. The main attitude there seems to be a complete washing of hands of any responsibility for any decisions made that got us into this mess inthe first place. And I think Pontius Pilate washing his hands is the perfect meme to sumarize just how slimy this attitude is.

"I am innocent of this man's blood; it is in your hands now".

Matthew 27:24

keep it handy next time some ahole tries to pull the "What's -your- plan for Iraq?" crap.

Posted November 15, 2006 11:26 PM by Greg London

Charles Stross @ 10: Thanks for your (very) sobering words.

Josh Jasper @ 43: Does Christopher Hitchens count?

Posted November 15, 2006 11:31 PM by Anthony Ha

Personally, I intend to henceforth refer to the whole complex of political and logistical problems attendant upon our getting out of Iraq as the Anabasis. Anybody want to join me?

Joe (38), General Abizaid has the job he has because he says things like that.

Leigh (37), Bush's posse was set on a war with Iraq before he got into office. This is a matter of record. We might still have made a relatively clean job of it if Bush & Co. hadn't based their case on a lie that didn't hold up under inspection, and if the professional military had been allowed to do their jobs. They weren't.

At the insistence of Rumsfeld and other neocons, we went in with far too few troops. We never established control, and huge amounts of Iraq's everyday infrastructure got wrecked by a relatively small number of looters. Ammo dumps were never secured -- way too many of our guys were tied up in the search for those mythical WMDs -- and so huge amounts of explosives vanished into private hands. (It keeps reappearing as improvised explosive devices.) The Iraqi military was made various promises if they'd disband. They disbanded. We broke our promises.

Et cetera and so forth. Shortest version: we never had the resources and the executive-level leadership to get on top of the problem, and the responsibility for that traces straight back to Bush and his cronies.

What would have happened if we hadn't invaded? Not another Kuwait; Saddam Hussein already got his ass handed to him on that score. He wasn't going to try it again. Would Iraq have been a hotbed of terrorism? I don't think so. That wasn't Saddam Hussein's program, and he had very little tolerance for competing power-grabbers.

Iraq was in worse shape than it had been before the Gulf War, but it was a functional, nominally secular country, with roads and schools and a battered but working economy. It had a real SOB as its leader, but even the worst SOBs have to die someday.

And hey, somebody's horse might have learned to sing.

I'll say again what I've said so many times before: if Iraq could magically be returned to its former condition just by having someone get a blow job in the Oval Office, what patriotic American -- hell, what believer in civilization and human progress of any stripe -- could fail to volunteer?

Serge (45), it's always possible that this next six-month period really is critical. Damned shame if it is, of course; by now, no one will believe it.

Fragano (48): Quintili Vare, legiones redde! Is it one of the tests for a true geek that having you quote that tag made the hair on the nape of my neck stand up?

Abi (53), of all the untold stories of the Iraq War, the accounting may be the hairiest.

Any takers for the theory that all sorts of industrial profit centers and long-range fiscal plans were dependent on the Cold War; that the oft-predicted but disgracefully unforeseen collapse of the Soviet Union threw one hell of a spanner into the works; and that many otherwise inexplicable events in the United States subsequent to that event have been the military-industrial complex finding satisfactory substitutes for that hereditary enemy gone AWOL?

Miriam (58), do you want to explain that again in just a little more detail?

Leigh again (59), if every bloodthirsty tyrant who's disapproved of by his neighbors got taken down ...

Dave Luckett (65):

"The second case is worse: the successful colonisation (or re-colonisation) of an exhausted and divided Iraq by some regional power, either directly or through the use of puppets. The practical candidates are two: Iran and Turkey..."

Posted November 16, 2006 12:06 AM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

teresa,

do you want to explain that again in just a little more detail?

the arabic name for jerusalem is al-quds, "the holy [place]." (israel/palestine being what it/they is, it is hotly debated, whether that became the name because it is the third holiest city in islam, or not at all holy in islam but the muslims saw it was holy to the jews.)

the root of quds is q-d-s, almost identical to k-d-sh, the root of the hebrew kadosh, "holy." qaddassiya looks like it has the same root, cause vowels are just for conjugating with. so i figured it means the holy something-or-other. not that this ultimately tells us a lot, the middle east being a holiness-infested kinda place.

Posted November 16, 2006 1:09 AM by miriam beetle

TNH: I suggest the Katabasis. On the grounds that: a) they will be heading in the opposite direction; Xenophon's lads were heading north through the lands of the Karchenoi (or Kurds) to Trebizond and the Black Sea, whereas our lads will be heading south to Basra, Umm Qasr and the Kuwaiti border;

and b) it is derived from "katabatikos", which means "going downhill".

(a katabatic wind is what you get in, say, Antarctica, when a mass of cold air rolls off the high plains downhill).

Posted November 16, 2006 5:13 AM by ajay

Fragano (#60):
Peter Erwin #56: The interesting question is does religion (around for 1400 years) trump nation (around for 80-odd years)? Or, put in other words, do Iraqi Shi'ites have much invested in either Iraqi or Arab nationhood? I'm no Esposito or Lewis, but I hae me doots.

I would certainly have my doubts about the power of Iraqi nationhood as an idea (the Kurds certainly aren't very invested in it). But the Arab-Persian opposition is very real, and is, effectively, older than religion (certainly on the Persian side, where they trace their history and identity back to at least the first Persian Empire, 2500 years ago).

According to the CIA World Factbook page on Iran, 51% of Iran is ethnic Persians (and 58% of the population speaks Persian), 24% are Azeris (as in Azerbaijan, and so related to Turks), and only 3% are Arabs. Even if Iran absorbed only the Shi'a Iraqis, that would still turns Persians into a minority within "Greater Iran."

That's why I can see a breakaway Shi'a Arab state, closely allied with Iran, but a wholesale merger.

Posted November 16, 2006 6:34 AM by Peter Erwin

miriam (#69):

Apparenly Qadassiyah takes its name from a village near where the battle was fought. More than that I don't know (e.g., was the village originally Persian, or did it actually have an Arab name to begin with?).

Posted November 16, 2006 6:40 AM by Peter Erwin

Not to be flip, considering the subject matter, but I notice mention of a Col. Brian D. Jones.
And the vanity/scam article just above refers to 'author consultant' Brien Jones.

I suspect that when I turn the radio on this morning I will hear a song by........

Posted November 16, 2006 8:17 AM by dr. iodine

I think anyone judging whether an Army is planning to do a runner, abandoning equipment, would be interested in where the thermite grenades are.

I don't know if they're part of the standard loadout for every vehicle, or whether they're kept under a little more control, but they're the standard tool for destroying equipment.

If you have a few main armament rounds left, and can pull them out of storage and expose the propellant, you can also get a really good fire in the crew compartment.

These tanks are designed to make it hard for the enemy. If they're being abandoned, destroying them is an inside job. There have been stories about Desert Storm, and the difficulty there was in destroying an M1 that was abandoned then. It sounded as if somebody didn't know what they were doing.

But let things get chaotic, let crews panic, and anything might happen. Night movement, get a track broken by an IED, and some small arms fire, and who'll remember the book solution?

And that'll go for all the other little problems of an evacuation. Especially if the rumours about what happens to anyone left behind are grisly enough. Plus, we'll find out what having women soldiers facing those risks does for clear thinking.

And if things go that wrong, is Basra really going to be a safe haven?

Posted November 16, 2006 9:13 AM by Dave Bell

Dave - no, Basra's not going to be a safe haven, but it's on the way to the only big port in Iraq, and also the only major road to Kuwait...

Posted November 16, 2006 9:33 AM by ajay

#38 Choice quote from the general, "I remain optimistic that we can stabilize Iraq."

It all depends on the meaning of "stable." Once all the Iraqis are dead, there won't be any more fighting...

And from a strictly military, strictly US point of view, once no one is left to shoot at US troops, it's stable.

Posted November 16, 2006 9:49 AM by Ursula L

ajay, I like katabasis.

And chalk up one more strategic failure for Rummy--he didn't plan for a retreat. I don't suppose we could try the bastard for treason? Because he has surely done more harm to the USA than any enemy in the past century.

Posted November 16, 2006 10:19 AM by Randolph Fritz

TNH #68: The answer, I'm afraid, is yes.

I would advise against using the name 'Anabasis'; if W were to get word of this he might either claim to be or inveigh against 'Ex-enophon'.

Posted November 16, 2006 10:34 AM by Fragano Ledgister

There's an excellent article in the NY Times on the political side of Wednesday's Senate Armed Services Committee with General Abizaid:

With Politics as Subtext, Senators Clash on Iraq

For the discription of the hearing in the article, the Senate comes off looking as clique-filled and catty as a highschool cafeteria. In particular, Lieberman looks like he's setting himself up to be a total pest to the Democrats:

Mr. McCain, who would have been the committee chairman had the Republicans maintained control of the Senate, arrived almost an hour late, heralded by the accelerated click of cameras.

As Mr. Nelson questioned General Abizaid, the Arizona senator stood up to confer with Senator Susan M. Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine. At this, Mr. Lieberman got up and walked to the Republican side to join them in a brief, chuckling huddle, then ambled back to his party?s side with a glance at his colleagues as if to say, "You watching?"

Nothing like an arrogant ass with who know he's in a position of power.

Posted November 16, 2006 10:39 AM by Joe J

Peter Irwin #71: I'm always suspicious of multi-hundred or multi-thousand year rivalries. The Sassanid Persians certainly had Arab allies (though, right now, I can't remember whether it was the Ghassanids or the Lakhmids -- I recall that one set was supported by the Byzantines, t'other by the Persians but I'm damned if I can remember which was which).

You may be right that a Shi'ite rump state could emerge out of Iraq, allied with but not incorporated into Iran. I suspect, though that the Shi'ite 'Islam is the answer' lads, might go for a Shi'a caliphate -- perhaps with its capital at Baghdad.

Posted November 16, 2006 10:41 AM by Fragano Ledgister

You shouldn't have said that, Joe J... I'm not sure Susan has recovered quite yet although I haven't heard that she reacts to the word 'Lieberman' the same way Steve Martin reacted to 'cleaning woman' in Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid.

Posted November 16, 2006 10:50 AM by Serge

I'm always suspicious of multi-hundred or multi-thousand year rivalries.

Quite. It leads to saying things like "France and Germany will never cooperate" and "England and Scotland will never unite".

Posted November 16, 2006 11:25 AM by ajay

Me: "Nothing like an arrogant ass with who know he's in a position of power."

I think I need to slow down and proofread a bit more before I post from now on.

Let's try "Nothing like an arrogant ass who knows he's in a position of power."

Posted November 16, 2006 11:40 AM by Joe J

Lieberman's going to be a headache for at least two years. Our majority is so thin that if he bolts, the Republicans get the majority and control of the Senate. Expect him to play that threat for all it's worth...

Posted November 16, 2006 12:05 PM by Ursula L

Does Connecticut have the recall?

Posted November 16, 2006 12:24 PM by Randolph Fritz

I'm pretty sure that state recalls are only for state gov't offices. The rules for choosing Congresspeople are set in the Constitution, and don't include recalls.

Posted November 16, 2006 12:27 PM by Ursula L

I see today on talkingpointsmemo.com that the Bush administration seems to be choosing between 'one last push' and 'unleash the Sunnis'. So much for "the US has to stay in Iraq to prevent ethnic cleasing". In a possible goalpost move, we're hearing more about the possibility of a regional war.

Leigh - I fear your friends are misremembering history. The shi'ites fought for Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. The US stopped where it did because tanks needed refueling (notice that we stopped after 100 hours this time, too, but to recover) and because occupying Baghdad would have been a bad idea (as the secretary of defense pointed out at the time). Now, allowing Saddam to use helicopter gunships on the Shi'ites after calling for them to rise up... that is a different story.

Would there have been a civil war in Iraq without US involvement? Personally, I doubt it because the tanks and helicopters were pretty well centralized on one side. But if the best that can be said of the US intervention is that at least we've made sure that all sides are equally well armed (unlike the doomed Shi'ite uprising after the first Gulf War)...

In somewhat related news, is anyone else bothered that the current conflict in Iraq seems to be somehow nameless? It's not Gulf War 2, that's for sure.

Posted November 16, 2006 2:08 PM by FungiFromYuggoth

Teresa @68

...of all the untold stories of the Iraq War, the accounting may be the hairiest.

Amen. I'm thinking of something recent from the Corpuscle, though: the math eventually adds up. I think the money trail will be the last nail in the coffin of the plutocrats, after the other facts have come out and been spun and respun. Decades from now, though - we have a lot of muck to wade through first.

Any takers for the theory that all sorts of industrial profit centers and long-range fiscal plans were dependent on the Cold War; that the oft-predicted but disgracefully unforeseen collapse of the Soviet Union threw one hell of a spanner into the works; and that many otherwise inexplicable events in the United States subsequent to that event have been the military-industrial complex finding satisfactory substitutes for that hereditary enemy gone AWOL?

I'll buy a few shares on spec, but I'd like to see a plausible list that can be traced back to the same corporations. For instance, Katrina is a definite, but that wasn't planned. But can we fill in a reasonable revenue stream between, say, 1989 and the present?

(But if you're choosing between fleshing that out and the whole "Left Hand of Darkness" as slash thing, go with hot love in the cold Gethen wilderness.)

Posted November 16, 2006 4:48 PM by abi

is anyone else bothered that the current conflict in Iraq seems to be somehow nameless?

George's War?

Posted November 16, 2006 5:23 PM by Greg London

Greg at #89:

(Sarcasm on) Why, I thought everyone knew that it's Operation Iraqi Liberation. (Sarcasm off)

We are most certainly spending blood for oil and indirectly lining all of Bush's buddies' pockets.

I can't wait until someone (read the Inspector General) follows the money...

Posted November 16, 2006 5:35 PM by Lori Coulson

Greg London #89: The War of George's Flight-Suit?

Posted November 16, 2006 5:54 PM by Fragano Ledgister

The War of George's Flight-Suit?

Ooh, ooh, I know! The Codpiece War!

Posted November 16, 2006 6:05 PM by protected static

protected static @92

You shouldn't have said that.

In centuries to come they'll sit and talk
About the war we started in 03:
"Some country called...what was it then?...Iraq.
They thought they'd go invade and set it free."
"Or was it oil?" "No, that just isn't right.
You cook with oil, silly. Can't be that."
"But maybe they were using oil to fight?
Non-lethal weapons? Bad guys drenched in fat?"
"Now that is just ridiculous. Listen. Hush.
They saw a vision, smoke that filled the sky,
Twin pillars in one day, a burning Bush:
Religious martyrdom...I think that's why."
"The war was a crusade, fighting over God?
You sure? So why's it named The Piece of Cod?"

Are you sorry now?

Posted November 16, 2006 6:28 PM by abi

'The Clown War' ?

Posted November 16, 2006 6:30 PM by Serge

Some good suggestions here (and I've been reminded of the Daily Show's "Mess'o'potamia") but what I meant is that the media/government/populace don't have a Name for it. "The War In Iraq" is probably about as close as we get, but this isn't even our first war there.

(Good point about "Operation Iraqi Liberation", Leigh. I don't think I've heard that or version 1.01 of same in quite some time.)

Posted November 16, 2006 6:41 PM by FungiFromYuggoth

abi @93,

Appended: "Iraq was a suburb of Boston?"

Posted November 16, 2006 6:55 PM by Linkmeister

abi @93 - Not in the slightest... ;-)

Posted November 16, 2006 7:13 PM by protected static

I think it's important to pin the war directly on the @sshole who started it. Or at least his monkey. Therefore, I still say it should somehow name George Bush in some fashion. Because in another year or two, the neocons will try to pin this friggen mess on the democrats. Never mind Georgie is still president. So how about:

The War of Mad King George

That actually has a nice ring to it.

Posted November 16, 2006 7:33 PM by Greg London

We're holding out for Bush's War.

Short, simple, gets the point across. Difficult to argue with.

Posted November 16, 2006 8:11 PM by Margaret Organ-Kean

#99 ::: Margaret Organ-Kean -- "We're holding out for Bush's War.
Short, simple, gets the point across. Difficult to argue with."

I've been thinking of it as "Mr. Bush's War", but now consider that a poor idea. The people who've pushed it, and acceded to it, don't deserve a scapegoat.

Posted November 16, 2006 8:45 PM by Don Fitch

The people who've pushed it, and acceded to it, don't deserve a scapegoat.

Ok, The Neocon War.

Posted November 16, 2006 8:53 PM by Linkmeister

Ok, The Neocon War.

Except I'm afraid we'll have to start numbering them at some point.

Neocon War 1.

The Second Neocon War.

Posted November 16, 2006 9:11 PM by Greg London

Re #100:

I don't think Bush qualifies as a scapegoat. He is the President, he wanted to be the President, and the responsibility for what happens on his watch is his, even if the deeds were his appointees'.

This incidentally, does not mean that the appointees can evade responsibility. There is surely enough to go around.

Posted November 16, 2006 11:27 PM by Margaret Organ-Kean

Re: #103 ::"I don't think Bush qualifies as a scapegoat. He is the President, he wanted to be the President, and the responsibility for what happens on his watch is his, even if the deeds were his appointees'. [...]"

You're certainly right that he's not at all an innocent scapegoat, but my feeling is that if it goes down as "Bush's War", or even "The NeoCons' War", all of the Republicans (& Democrats) who abetted him will just point at him and shrug the whole thing off -- and probably get away with it.

Posted November 17, 2006 1:12 AM by Don Fitch

What we suspect is going to happen is that the US is going to pull out some of the military filling service positions such as base management and replace them with more contractors. They aren't going to pull out the combat troops and they aren't going to give up such strategic bases. We fly more civilian personnel in every day and we are building things up, not taking them down.

Posted November 17, 2006 2:22 AM by Ruhgozler

Vietnam II?
The War of Unintended Consequences?
Halliburton's Windfall?

Posted November 17, 2006 10:21 AM by Kip W

Bush's Folly

Posted November 17, 2006 10:24 AM by Serge

TNH: At the insistence of Rumsfeld and other neocons, we went in with far too few troops. We never established control, and huge amounts of Iraq's everyday infrastructure got wrecked by a relatively small number of looters.

Now some generals (and my husband, who's big into military history) say the only "good" option is to bring in more troops to try and hold things together, and keep them there for a long time. Given the changing political climate in DC, that might not happen, but is it the best-case scenario in a bunch of bad choices?

Posted November 17, 2006 10:49 AM by Faren Miller

Today, CNN:

Top Sunni group to Sunnis: Quit government

Amid the furor over a warrant for an influential Sunni Arab leader, Iraq's government on Friday clarified it had issued an investigation warrant, not an arrest warrant.

The legal action was taken to simply "check security files linked" to Hareth al-Dhari, said an aide to Ali al-Dabbagh, the government spokesman.

Earlier, the Interior Ministry's Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf told CNN an arrest warrant had been issued for al-Dhari, accusing him of violating Iraq's anti-terrorism law by inciting sectarian violence and killings.

Al-Dhari has been a fervent critic of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Shiite-dominated government.

What happens next "depends on the decision of the Iraqi judiciary .... away from any political considerations," the government said.

The influential Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars, a group of top religious leaders for the nation's Sunni minority, denounced the "arrest warrant" for its leader and called on Sunni politicians to quit the government.

"We call on Arab League and its secretary general, Amr Moussa, to condemn this cowardly act because it contradicts all the conferences held by Arab League to achieve national reconciliation," it said.

The association believes the government targets Sunnis and their mosques, and reports of the arrest warrant threatened to further inflame Sunni-Shiite violence.

Spokesman Abdul-Salam al-Kubaisi called the arrest warrant political cover for "the acts of the government's security agencies that kill dozens of Iraqis every day," AP reported.

He said the government "has proven that it is not a national government," according to AP.

Posted November 17, 2006 1:59 PM by James D. Macdonald

But this latest idiocy ...

Charles Stross said

"12-18 months" indeed.

In 12-18 months the remaining allied forces in Iraq will have their work cut out to evacuate all their personnel, abandoning their bases in place, and fighting their way out to the border with Kurdistan or Kuwait. If they manage to organize the evacuation for autumn/winter/spring (avoiding the 50-degree death march of summer) and if they can protect their ammunition and fuel dumps along the route, they might survive. If not, it's going to look more like the First Afghan War than Vietnam.

You can't evacuate armoured vehicles by air. Without control of a wide perimeter around the air bases -- tens of miles in all directions -- the evacuation aircraft will be vulnerable to MANPADs (and RPG-30s, which the insurgents have figured out how to use against helicopters). Likely as not, some of those bases are going to be evacuated by road. Which means traversing hundreds of miles of hostile countryside, insurgents with IEDs every inch of the way, and open season on American soldiers -- they won't be coming back, so what's the downside on a little revenge whoop-ass?

If they run out of ammunition or fuel before they make it to the border, they'll be in really deep shit. Because by the time it gets to that point, nobody (except possibly the government of Iran) will be real interested in taking Americans prisoner ...

Err, no.

If we wind up evacuating the Iraqis will probably leave the Coallition forces alone. Why should they bother. Every round and fighter expended after we decide to leave is a round or fighter not available to help its faction rule Iraq.

Also, on a grimmer note, the rules change. It goes back to high intensity warfare and any Iraqis attempting to interfere will die. Think B-52s employing cluster munitions to kill everything within 5 km or so of the evacuation route or airfields. For a historical model, think Xenophon ra