Leaving Iraq … honorably?

Posted by Joshua Holland at 8:43 AM on November 27, 2006.

At the end of an otherwise highly cogent op-ed about getting out of Dodge, Senator Chuck Hagel (NE) -- a "moderate" who's been known to brag about his 100% rating from the American Conservative Union -- offers this bit of Nixonian rhetoric:

It is not too late. The United States can still extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton commission gives the president a new opportunity to form a bipartisan consensus to get out of Iraq. If the president fails to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America will pay a high price for this blunder -- one that we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead.

The column's titled, "Leaving Iraq, Honorably," and while Hagel has to embrace that as a possibility for obvious reasons -- political reasons -- the potential for leaving with "honor" (at least within the framework of the kind of analysis favored on cable news stations -- truly honorable results could never have followed a war of choice against a third-rate power) is a fading image in our rearview mirrors. We will leave Iraq when domestic pressure reaches a tipping point -- unlikely with Bush in the White House -- or when the more powerful Shiite factions in Iraq decide they've had enough with the occupation forces keeping them from getting their full-blown civil war on, whichever comes first.

At that time, regardless of the larger context in which we make our departure, the most recognizable faces of the anti-American movements in Iraq -- including the small number of "foreign fighters" who have been drawn to the conflict like flies to a festering carcass -- will declare victory over the American leviathan and our humiliation will be complete. We will, indeed, be seen as a paper tiger; leaving will make us look almost as weak as staying and being unable to control the spiraling violence. This is inevitable; it won't be good for America or Iraq, but to the extent that the lesson sinks in among the political class -- a group that's shown a stubborn inability to learn from disasters like Vietnam -- it may be good for the world in the long run.

As for the Baker Commission -- which looks as though it's leaning towards a strategy of regional engagement -- it's unlikely to have the impact for which many are hoping for two reasons.

The most obvious is that the preznit isn't on board with the whole change of strategy thing:

Mr. Bush spent 90 minutes with commission members in a closed session at the White House two weeks ago "essentially arguing why we should embrace what amounts to a 'stay the course' strategy," said one commission official who was present.

If you watch for it, the other reason the Baker Commission is unlikely to accomplish much will become clear: there will be a lot of discussion about whether we should engage countries like Iran and Syria in an attempt to stabilize Iraq, but none -- or at least very little -- about what we might put on the table as an incentive for them to help out.

The things that might give countries like Iran that incentive -- normalization of diplomatic relations, security guarantees and, most importantly, pressure on Israel to resolve its conflict with the Palestinians equal to that put on the Palestinians to recognize Israel -- are anathema to America's strategic class and won't gain serious consideration. Reciprocity -- the idea of giving something to get something -- may be a central tenet of foreign policy, but it doesn't drive U.S. policy-makers, and that means that all the recent talk about engaging with our "enemies" is effectively doomed before it leaves the starting gate.

Tagged as: iran, iraq, hagel, baker commission

Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.