Cave! Hic Dragones

Colin Kahl and Shawn Brimley are calling for a strategy of “conditional engagement” in Iraq, to replace the Bush/McCain unconditional engagement and forestall the left’s and Clinton’s new-found unconditional disengagement. But always be wary of two-by-two’s with empty cells; Kahl & Brimley overlook a 4th option: conditional disengagement. This is almost the Obama strategy — the U.S. should withdraw main combat forces, in 16 months if it is possible, but will not do so that rapidly if conditions on the ground in Iraq make a 16-month withdrawal impractical or dangerous for U.S. troops or harmful for long-term U.S. regional interests. I say ‘almost’ because Obama and his proxies have never committed to staying longer if the Iraqi government achieves some of the benchmarks that have been outlined in the past.

The distinction between the strategies is subtle but important. CE says to the Iraqi government “reform or we will leave; if you reform, we will stay.” CD says “we are leaving; but if you reform, we might stay longer.” The conditionality that Kahl & Brimley refer to is not the military condition on the ground, but the willingness of the Iraqi government to take measures necessary for reconciliation. The question is: what if reconciliation efforts fail? What if one set or sub-set of the Iraqi factions refuses to reconcile? Will the US continue to wage a counter-insurgency on behalf of the Iraqi government? CE implies that the US would stick by Baghdad, whoever that happens to be. CD, by contrast, says that the US will not continue fight the insurgencies indefinitely, but it will not abruptly depart either.