Rich:
[You] On Iraq: OK, so I take it you want us to kill every jihadi in Iraq and without kidding ourselves that the Iraqis can provide any useful help?
[Me] Yes on both. And then some, in fact. My actual words were: “I want the US armed forces to kill every jihadi they can find, anywhere they can find them, and not to lose any sleep over collateral casualties or summary executions.” If, for example, we find jihadis in Xinjiang (Chinese Turkestan), I hope we will kill them. I want those jihadis killed. I do not, however, favor an invasion and occupation of China for that purpose.
The action would need to be deep-covert. But certainly I favor such action, and will cheer it if successful.
[You] I seem to remember … not too long ago you were in favor of pulling out from Iraq after the election.
[Me] I would have been happy to pull out long before that. My entire view of the Iraq War was that it ought to have been a punitive expedition, of the type that civilized peoples have conducted against barbarous peoples since time immemorial. Go in, wreck the place, kill the leaders, smash up their assets so THEY CAN’T MAKE NUCLEAR WEAPONS (whether they ever could or not — I don’t care), then get out. However, I grudgingly conceded that there just might, net-net, be some advantage to us in getting Iraqis to the election point. It would make our departure more acceptable — to the US public, mainly. Politically, I could see the case for staying till the election.
I’m having trouble seeing the case for staying until the crack of doom, which seems to be the current strategy.
[You] It was always a mystery to me why we would bother to spend so much blood and treasure in helping them to hold an election then immediately pull-out afterward, leaving the government to collapse.
[Me] We spend blood and treasure in pursuit of our national interests, as nations always have. The only mystery is why my assessment of the national interest differs from yours. (As mysterious to me, Rich, as it is to you.) I accepted — grudgingly — that there was a national interest in hanging on till an election. I did not, do not, believe we have any national interest in staying in Iraq later than that. Why should I care if their government collapses? Why should any American care? Governments collapse all the time, all over the world. I don’t give a fig about the Iraqis, and can’t see why I should. The Iraqis must shift for themselves. What is our national interest?
[You] …given that in your view it has no competent security forces nor any hope of getting any
[Me] Roger on both.
[You] I also seem to remember you advocated at some point “a fighting retreat”…
[Me] You’re probably thinking of this one, from last September, in which I had the President make a speech to Iraqis announcing a withdrawal: “Our task once done, as we withdraw from your country in good order, and satisfied that we have accomplished our mission here, should there be any attacks on our withdrawing forces, those attacks will be countered with utmost ferocity.”
[You] …which would have been a retreat in the face of jihadis.
[Me] Not if the jihadis have any sense. Look, if you favor a pullout for Iraq — yes, I do — of course you are willing to countenance a fighting pullout, since it may come to that. (Though a better jihadi strategy, just from the point of view of a jihadi body-count, would be to keep very quiet until we’d gone.) Your real point here — and it’s your best one — is that a pullout would leave lots of jihadis in Iraq. Naturally I’m not thrilled by that, but there are jihadis all over — seem to be quite a lot in England! — and we just have to hunt them down and kill them doggedly, in Iraq and everywhere else. The occupation of Iraq is not, I’ll grant you, an entirely separate issue, since being there in force is handy for killing local jihadis. However…
[You] I also recall that you once thought Iraq was an intolerable burden on the US military that would make it hard for us to fight anywhere else.
[Me] Just so. If Pakistan goes pear-shaped, we’ll be out of Iraq faster than you can say “nuclear terrorist state.”
[You] But you now you say you want us to kill all jihadis in Iraq indefinitely with no help from Iraqi forces and without trying to train any.
[Me] Yes. In Iraq and anywhere else they lurk. Those were my words. Here they are again: “I want the US armed forces to kill every jihadi they can find, anywhere they can find them, and not to lose any sleep over collateral casualties or summary executions.” I’ll grant you that an occupation of Iraq is handy for this purpose — as would be an occupation of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, or West Yorkshire — but the connection is not a necessary one. We must find and kill the swine as best we can.
“Nation-building” is an irrelevance, and a sure loser. Britain is a very nice nation, as I recall, quite thoroughly built; but they have lots of jihadis.
[You] That has the merit of being a very clear position.
[Me] Thank you! Look, so far as I can see, the great peril facing us is nuclear terrorism. Our counter-strategy has two parts: (1) Make being a terrorist a really, really unattractive line of work, and (2) Smash up any terrorist-friendly state that might be at, or close to, nuke status. I supported the invasion of Iraq because of (2), but now… Mission accomplished! Let’s get on with (1).