Dick Lugar’s inconvenient truth
A Washington gaffe is accidentally telling the truth, as the old joke has it. By that standard, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee committed one yesterday when he announced that the "idea, somehow, that civil war means that we leave is a non-starter." Dick Lugar was, of course, talking about Iraq. Let's imagine ...
A Washington gaffe is accidentally telling the truth, as the old joke has it. By that standard, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee committed one yesterday when he announced that the "idea, somehow, that civil war means that we leave is a non-starter." Dick Lugar was, of course, talking about Iraq.
A Washington gaffe is accidentally telling the truth, as the old joke has it. By that standard, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee committed one yesterday when he announced that the "idea, somehow, that civil war means that we leave is a non-starter." Dick Lugar was, of course, talking about Iraq.
Let's imagine that the current sectarian strife descends into outright civil war. Such a conflict would, as Dan Byman and Ken Pollack pointed out last weekend, pull all of Iraq's neighbors in. Could the United States really sit back while this took place? Forgetting morality, the United States has a clear strategic interest in preventing Iran from annexing huge chunks of Iraq, or the Sunni areas turning into the new Afghanistan located right in the heart of the oil-producing Middle East. Also, if the United States left, the Turks would likely be in Kurdistan before you could say Kurdish autonomous region. Turkish intervention would destroy one of the few concrete achievements of more than fifteen years of U.S. involvement in Iraq.
It is far too glib to say that America can, and should, simply walk out of Iraq once a civil war starts. American involvement might actually become far more necessary in those circumstances. One of the things that should worry us most about the demagoguery of deadlines, embraced by many who should know better, is that pulling out coalition forces within a year would only mean that within a decade we either will—or worse, should—be back in Iraq. Once more, the Vietnam experience is misleading us. Yes, the United States left Vietnam without doing any critical or long term damage to its national security. But it is hard to imagine how the same could be done in Iraq.
To end on a slightly brighter note, David Ignatius argued in the Washington Post on Sunday that "the sense of panic in the Washington debate just doesn't match the situation here." Everyone needs to remember that fear-mongering to whip up support for withdrawal, is just as irresponsible as fear-mongering to whip up support for war.
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
