Fred, how long after a US withdrawal as outlined by Hillary and Obama do you think it will take for Iran to become the de facto power in Iraq? Do you think it matters?

If we didn't want Iran to become the de facto power in Iraq, we shouldn't have deposed the Sunni dictator who checked their influence for so many decades.

I'm afraid there isn't much we can do about it now. Once events are set in motion, there is always the potential that they'll move beyond control. We should have seen it coming and adapted our strategy to that possibility early enough to make a difference. It was obvious enough.

That logic is ridiculous, thats like saying: "If we didn't want the Soviet Union to become the hegemon in Eastern Europe then we never should have removed Hitler." The Cold War wasn't caused by destroying fascism, it was caused by acquiescing to the ambitions of the USSR. The same with Iran. Removing Saddam will not be the cause of Iran taking hold in Iraq. Refusing to confront and deal with Iran will be the cause.

And there is always something that can be done, the only question is how much will it cost to actually remedy the situation. The longer it goes on the more its going to take to roll it back.

No, that logic is ridiculous. There is nothing even remotely analogous between those two situations. Had we actually made Germany into a communist state, or at least turned its government over to a local Bolshevik movement, thereby facilitating an alliance between post-Third Reich Germany and the USSR, then it would be a little bit closer to the mark.

We deposed Iran's sworn enemy, dismantled the existing Sunni-dominated political and military infrastructure that had kept it at bay for so long, then essentially handed absolute power to Iraqi Shiites. What did you expect would happen? Now we can either don the mantle of outright empire and begin crushing everyone who opposes our agenda, which we have neither the money, political will nor military strength to do right now, or we accept that we made some very bad decision that have very unfortunate (but very predictable) consequences. On what grounds do you propose we confront them? Their desire to be involved with a country on their border in their region that shares their religion? They arguably have more right to be there than we do, especially considering how nasty their relationship with Saddam was. Also, it seems fairly clear that Iraq's government will itself desire this alliance. What will you tell them? That everything we said about freedom and self-determination becomes hot air the second Halliburton's profit margin is threatened? Since you like historical analogies so much, I'd compare them to France and Germany during the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Union. Can you stop something like that?

I hate to be the one to tell you, but our power is not limitless, Iran's position is stronger than you think and we've already mortagaged the United States to China to pay for OIF. Iraqi Shiites and Iranian Shiites are going to be allies, and there isn't much we can do to prevent it at this point. Life, unfortunately, isn't a video game. It's never as simple as just killing wave after wave of monsters until you defeat the boss and save the princess.

Umm… wasn’t Nazi Germany the sworn enemy of the USSR (like Iran/Iraq)? Like Iran/Iraq they were mortal enemies and there was a Bolshevik government in Germany following the war, it was called East Germany. Besides, we didn’t try to turn the Iraqi government into a government like Iran’s (we tried to make it like ours) so your WWII analogy is also flawed. Maybe if we would have tried to overthrow Nazism circa 1935 we would have just opened the door to communism in Germany (There was a communist presence in Germany in the 30’s) but I still think that would still be preferable to waiting until 1942 to start dealing with them (the Nazis) don’t you? Just like I think it was preferable to deal with Saddam now, not later (I know, Iraq isn’t the same as Nazi Germany they (Iraq) seemed not to be a threat after the invasion. However, if we invaded Nazi Germany in 1935 they too would have appeared as impotent as Iraq). And… it doesn’t change the fact that the above poster brings up a good point that Iran’s growing influence in Iraq has a lot to do with our unwillingness to confront them.

quillsinister,

The US did give half of Germany to the Soviets no questions asked, and they did give Eastern Europe to them without a fight at the Yalta conference. The situation is very similar, communism only took root in East Germany, Czech, Hungary, Poland etc because the Allies didn't oppose it. Those countries all had democratic governments in exile that tried to reestablish themselves but were pushed out by the Soviets. So here is another history lesson. You don't understand several things thats skewing your judgement on the matter:

1) Islam is not monolithic. I know everyone seems to want to think the "Shiites" or the "Sunnis" are all either with or us or against us but thats is just not true. The Iraqi Shiite population will not simply side with Iran because they are Shiite and we are not. Thats like saying German Protestants would side with America over France because it is Protestant and France is Catholic. These people have Iranian leanings because for twenty years while the US was supporting Saddam and then the Iraqi National Congress these people were being supplied, trained, and harbored by the Iranians. They are political allies with them, and as we know once situations change political allegiances can be broken by better offers. Iraqi loyalties are based on tribal loyalties, not religious sect, most tribes just happen to be of the same sect.

2) Iranians are not Arabs. They are Persians. So they have a different culture than Arab Shiite Iraqis who they have more or less been at odds with since the 12th century. Its like the culture of Mexico and the US. Kinda the same, but big differences. Iranians speak Farsai on the large part, Iraqis speak Arabic. There is no unbreakable cultural bonds between them.

3) America's power is not limitless, but it is hegemonic. That means it holds supremacy over everyone else. The Iranian military and economy is significantly weaker than Iraq in 1991. Iran knows their armed forces would last a matter of weeks against an American attack and so they aren't the Soviets. They aren't going to stand toe to toe with the United States if it steps up to the plate, they are at the disadvantage if the US starts sabre rattling.

4) The United States still runs Iraq, not the Shiite government, thats the point. It obviously wouldn't be wise to just start toppling democratic governments, because hell that would kind of making the mission worse than it already is. But the Iraqi government is paid for, trained by, supplied by, and allowed to survive by the grace of the American government. Now is precisely the time to ramp up the pressure and force the Iranians out before the Iraqi government can stand on its own two feet and support itself.

The point is that nothing is set in stone in Iraq yet. It is better to force the Iranians out now by weakening their internal allies and showing whoever America picks to be in charge that there is more profit in towing our line than theirs. You for some reason think that the Iraqi Shiites are married to the Iranians, but thats not true. Its simply an alliance of past experience and convenience. All the United States has to do is make it less convenient.

Yes. Let's fight a war on three fronts... on borrowed money.

My main point is that we can't sustain this!

Good points, though you misunderstand the nature of hegemony. Even imperial influence is based mostly on economics and culture. Athens, Rome, Great Britain, etc. Their military might was a direct result of economic power. We used to rule like that, but not anymore. Just having a more powerful military does not mean that everyone has to always do what we say. Iran probably isn't too worried that we'll open up a war on three fronts. We'd have to abandon Iraq to even attempt any meaningful conventional action against them, and I have to tell you, they could make a far better fight of it than Iraq did.

Given the decline of the dollar, the gutting of our core manufacturing capability and the fact that we're paying for Iraq on borrowed money, my main point remains that our current strategy cannot be sustained. I'm not sure how that point is even up for debate. We've already mortgaged the country and maxed out our proverbial credit cards. The only way to continue this is to actually put the country on a war footing, which Bush steadfastly refuses to do. We either get out before we cripple the economy in a bigger way than we already have or we double taxes, reinstate a draft, mandate the purchase of war bonds and the planting of victory gardens, require people to take mass transportation to work to save fuel for the war effort, etc. If American's don't have the stomach for that, then I suggest we concern ourselves less about the leadership of other nations--at least those who do not directly threaten us.

It isn't really what we're doing that bothers me. I kill people for a living and have no issues with Machiavelli's philosophy. I have few moral qualms about America's wielding of imperial power. What bothers me more is that we're doing it in a stupid way.

This. Cannot. Continue.

At least not in its present form.

The US still accounts for 20% of the global GDP.

The US still spends more on its military than most of the world combined.

The US is still the most advanced nation technologically and culturally.

The current economic downturn is not the war in Iraq's fault. It was a housing and credit bubble, something started a long time ago due to lack of regulation in those sectors. The bubble just happened to pop now.

Additionally, the loss of the manufacturing sector in the US is not a bad thing. Its called Globalization. Those jobs have been replaced by high technology and services sector jobs. The problem is that people who formerly worked in manufacturing now don't have the skills to work in the new jobs created to replace manufacturing, and are unwilling to downgrade to McDonalds or WalMart. Its called the missing middle.

Moral of the story is that economic downturn is not affecting the US alone. Everyone is being hurt, and US power is staying comparatively high compared to everyone else at the same time. If there has been any lowering of power then its happened at the same time as everyone else weakens as well. Granted the war in Iraq is expensive, but all prolonged wars are expensive.

US power has survived it in the past, it will survive it again now. Its just now the nature of US power and economics is being changed by Globalization, its not a bad thing, its just change.

I'm not worried about globalization per se, but the combined effect of several factors, not least of which is the abject stupidity of our foreign policy. Of course America will survive. But I'd prefer to survive and not be stupid.

Out of curiosity, do you have an opinion on military retention, deployment frequency and material condition of military equipment?

I could give you an opinion on those, but it wouldn't be a very educated one. I'm more of a policy hack than a tin head.

Obviously retention, stop loss, and extended deployments aren't a sustainable or advisable policy, but with an all volunteer force now there really isn't very many good options. The problem, in my opinion, is that after the Gulf War and the Powell Doctrine the US military decided to focus on reducing its size and increasing its efficiency. That is great and all for a short conflict, but once you start talking about years and decades of continuous deployment the fact that you have a smaller and more flexible force stops being beneficial and starts becoming a problem. Nobody liked the draft and Vietnam, but atleast the military had a massive pool of fresh recuirts they could rotate in and out.

Equipment I couldn't even begin to argue, the only thing I would assume is that the longer the conflict goes on the more strain that is going to be put on equipment. The US military isn't a military of occupation doctrinally, its a fighting military. So Iraq is just the opposite of what a decade of US policy was tailoring the military for, and now that the Pentagon has realized this they have to cut corners in order to try and make up for it.

And after seven years spent mostly deployed overseas, watching many of my best people seek greener pastures--or destroy their families by not seeking them--and watching expensive equipment fall apart literally decades before its time, that's kind of my point. This cannot be sustained. We must either adjust our goals to something more realistic or become in truth the empire that we've so far only been in theory. If we're really forced to borrow so much money to pay for a minor war like Iraq, is that option even on the table? Even taking on Iran at this point would be a disaster, and they know it. OIF has strengthened their position by both deposing their sworn enemy and tying our hands. And don't forget, sooner or later, every cent we've borrowed must be paid back with interest. Our grandchildren will be writing checks to the Chinese long after we're dead. And this was the obvious outcome of cutting taxes and going to war at the same time. If we really want to keep doing this, putting the country on a war footing is the only way. Since we're still at least marginally a republic and Iraq has no bearing on American security (or even the GWOT), I don't know if you'd be able to pull this off.

For a host of reasons, I don't think empire is really what we want to be doing. And if we do end up going down that path eventually, I'd hope that a pathetic invasion like Iraq isn't what drives us to it. I'll be happy to become the evil empire when Hannibal is at the gates; not before.

But again, all I'm really saying is that this cannot be sustained under the current circumstances, and as I mentioned before, I'm really not sure how a rational person can debate that particular issue at this point in the game. :-)

I never said overall it couldn't be sustained, it can, it just wont be a very smooth ride. Obviously things like stop-loss are just temporary measures while they try and find some kind of permanent solution. The military needs more personnel NOW, but it takes time to recruit and train more forces during a war, and force levels will need years to rebound. And all countries have problems with decaying equipment, the US military has been thus far ahead of the curve, but no one should expect perfection. I'm sure even during WW2 the soldiers actually on the ground in Europe were kicking their Jeep tires and wishing they had better equipment.

As for debt, well its at the same levels as the Reagen/Bush Sr. years, before Clinton brought it down, and America wasn't even in ongoing war during those years. During the WW2 years of FDR and Truman US debt was exponentially more than it is now.

So even though some of today's policies may be unsustainable, the policies are still in flux. The Pentagon is trying to fix their mistakes but things like that take years, maybe a decade to repair. My point is that between broken and fixed it is going to be a bumpy ride. But things will eventually get better, especially because there will be a new administration coming in and that means new appointments and reappraisals of past policies.