Informed Speculation

Are human beings powerless to move events? Are we just pawns of history? Or do real decisions made by real people drive outcomes? I happen to believe in the latter, and so I must question Fareed Zakeria’s counsel that all is lost in Iraq:

When Iraq’s current government was formed last April, after four months of bitter disputes, wrangling and paralysis, many voices in America and in Iraq said the next six months would be the crucial testing period. That was a fair expectation. It has now been almost six months, and what we have seen are bitter disputes, wrangling and paralysis. Meanwhile, the violence has gotten worse, sectarian tensions have risen steeply and ethnic cleansing is now in full swing. There is really no functioning government south of Kurdistan, only power vacuums that have been filled by factions, militias and strongmen. It is time to call an end to the tests, the six-month trials, the waiting and watching, and to recognize that the Iraqi government has failed. It is also time to face the terrible reality that America’s mission in Iraq has substantially failed.

Worse than this unfettered pessimism is Zakaria’s prescription: hasten the inevitable bloodbath.

President Bush says that if America leaves Iraq now, the violence will get worse, and terrorists could take control. He’s right. But that will be true whenever we leave. “Staying the course” only delays that day of reckoning. To be fair, however, Bush has now defined the only realistic goal left for America’s mission in Iraq: not achieving success but limiting failure.

Zakaria thinks those of us who are clamoring for more troops are vainly refusing to face facts, but I say he’s wrong: if we can substantially secure Baghdad (not totally – that’s an unrealistic goal) and allow some sense of normality to reassert itself, the Iraqi security forces can begin to assert themselves and take control.  But, Zakaria notwithstanding, it will take tens of thousands of extra troops to do that, in my view.

With 50,000 troops in the capital, we still see stories like this far too often.  We have reached a turning point, though with four weeks until the elections, we cannot do anything drastically different right now.  But after November 7th, the Bush Administration will have to decide if it has the will to win.  God help us if there is a Democratic majority in either or both Houses, because we KNOW they don’t have the will to win (and you can’t convince me otherwise, I’m sorry.  I don’t care who thinks it’s unfair, ‘cut and run’ will be the goal of a Democratic Congress, only they’ll call it a ‘strategic redeployment’).

In this humble blogger’s opinion, we have two choices.  50-100,000 additional troops, nearly all in the Baghdad area, or we will likely lose.  And in that sense, Zakaria is right: if we can’t muster the additional troops, the sooner we leave the better. 

The clock is ticking…we need to move quickly.  George W. Bush leaves office on January 20, 2009.  He will not put more troops in anytime after the spring of 2008, because that will possibly cripple the eventual Republican nominee’s hopes.  Nothing will happen between now and year’s end, because we have the elections and then the holiday season.  That leaves roughly 15 months or so to make the final strategic decisions on Iraq, because we cannot predict the outcome of the 2008 elections. And 15 months is not a long time, particularly where something as massive as the deployment of 3 or more additional divisions is concerned.

I stated at the top that I believe real people and their decisions determine events.  It’s time for George W. Bush to finish what he started.  Put more troops in, Mr. President…and if the Defense Secretary, Joint Chiefs, or CENTCOM staff can’t or won’t aid you, remind them who the Commander-In-Chief is…