But I also have a couple concerns that get at just how complicated the way forward in Iraq is for the U.S. First, I don’t think Ferguson is wrong to suggest Byman and Pollack believe withdrawing troops would precipitate this descent into chaos. This is the full quote from Byman and Pollack:

“The only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into a Lebanon- or Bosnia-like maelstrom is 135,000 American troops, and even they are merely slowing the fall at this point. Unless the United States and the new government of Iraq take dramatic action to reverse the current trends, the internecine conflict there could easily worsen to the point where it spirals into a full-scale civil war that threatens not only Iraq, but also its neighbors throughout the oil-rich Persian Gulf, with instability, turmoil and war.”

The “dramatic action” Byman and Pollack favor involves a major increase in troops that is almost assuredly unfeasable, as Obamarama notes. But Byman and Pollack clearly believe that a full-blown civil war will occur more rapidly in Iraq if we pull out the troops we have there now; hence their claim that U.S. troops are “slowing the fall.” And the tactics Byman and Pollack argue will be necessary for dealing with a full-blown civil war — both in this report and a March 2006 article by Pollack titled “The Right Way: Seven Steps Toward a Last Chance in Iraq” — also involve the U.S. maintaining a significant military presence in Iraq, not pulling all our troops out by 2008, as Obama has advocated. They believe we should use the current troops levels to stablize the parts of Iraq that are deemed “areas of high importance and high support for reconstruction,” as Pollack explained in “The Right Way”:

“To secure the remaining 22 million people, then, would require about 440,000 security personnel. This number is the baseline figure for what will be required ultimately to stabilize Iraq. Unfortunately, we are far from that number. At present, the United States has 135,000 to 160,000 troops in Iraq at any given time. They are joined by roughly 10,000 British and Australian troops, along with a grab bag of other detachments that may withdraw in 2006 and so should not be considered for planning purposes. There are probably some 40,000 to 60,000 Iraqi security personnel in the army, national guard, police force, and other units that are capable of participating in security operations in a meaningful way. This yields a total of 185,000 to 230,000 Coalition security personnel, a force that should be capable of securing a population of 9 million to 11.5 million, or about half of Iraq’s population outside Kurdistan.

If the United States and the Iraqi government were to begin with only this baseline of troops and were to employ a traditional counterinsurgency strategy, withdrawing most of their forces from those areas of Iraq most opposed to reconstruction and instead concentrating the troops and resources on areas of high importance and high support for reconstruction, its starting oil stain could encompass Baghdad, all of central Iraq, and a significant portion of southern Iraq, with a smaller “economy of force” presence in northwest Iraq to prevent the situation there from deteriorating. Different strategists might draw the oil stain differently, but that is a very big area to start with and would allow the further pacification of the rest of Iraq within a number of years. ”

I am not saying that Byman and Pollack are right. But I am saying Ferguson is not totally off base in citing them to challenge Obama’s withdrawal policy.

Also, on the difference between civil war and genocide: It is true that there is not a genocide occuring in Iraq at present, but there is certainly a possibility one could occur if we remove all U.S. troops, who are handling most of the security situation over there. The fact is that 60 percent of the population are Shiites, and only 20 percent are Sunni. The Shiites rightfully feel they were horribly oppressed under Saddam Hussein’s Sunni regime, and if a situation develops where the Shiites have free reign to enact revenge, it is reasonable to suggest that it could devolve into a genocide against the Sunnis.

Speaking towards charisma (and yes, Obama possesses it), a good leader needs charisma. People will follow someone who has it. If you combine charisma with intelligence and good policies, you have a good chance of success. I don’t see Obama’s charisma or sexual attractiveness as anything more than a positive thing, because his message is positive.

Thank you (FOR) posting this.

;p