Decision ‘08

What In The World Are We Going To Do About Iraq?

I ask the question with a considerable amount of foreboding; as you all know, I supported the war, I support the surge, and I think we have to prepare to be in Iraq for a good long while - years, in fact. Nevertheless, the political will is crumbling by the day, and today’s Interim Benchmark Assessment will not help matters. The most charitable interpretation, as given by the President, is that we’re batting about .500:

Of the 18 benchmarks Congress asked us to measure, we can report that satisfactory progress is being made in eight areas. For example, Iraqis provided the three brigades they promised for operations in and around Baghdad. And the Iraqi government is spending nearly $7.3 billion from its own funds this year to train, equip and modernize its forces. In eight other areas, the Iraqis have much more work to do. For example, they have not done enough to prepare for local elections or pass a law to share oil revenues. And in two remaining areas, progress was too mixed to be characterized one way or the other.

Keep in mind, as you hear all the Democratic noise machine hacks say that this proves the surge is a failure, that this is an interim report; the final report on the success of the initial stages of the surge is due in September. Nevertheless, it’s hard to see much progress being made between now and September. As Fred Kaplan points out in this damning condemnation of the report, the eight benchmarks that we (or more accurately, the Iraqis) are flunking are, in many cases, the most important ones:

Here are the benchmarks at which, even the White House acknowledges, the Iraqi government has not made satisfactory progress:

Legislation on de-Baathification reform

Legislation to ensure equitable distribution of oil revenue without regard to sect or ethnicity

Setting up provincial elections

Establishing a strong militia-disarmament program

Allowing Iraqi commanders to pursue militias without political interference

Ensuring that the Iraqi army and police enforce the law evenhandedly

Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces capable of operating independently (here, the number has actually gone down)

Ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of Iraqi security forces

The status of former Baathists, distribution of oil revenue, local elections, disarming militias, sectarianism within the police, the legitimacy of the national army—these are the main issues grinding the parliament to a standstill, aggravating ethnic conflict, and forcing millions of Iraqis to flee the country. These are the issues that the Iraqi political leaders are supposed to be resolving while American troops fight and die to make Baghdad secure.

Yet the White House is admitting that the Iraqis have made no real progress on any of these fronts.

This is, of course, par for the course; in a depressingly familiar pattern, we see our soldiers performing with their typical efficiency and bravery while the Iraqi politicians sit around doing nothing, or worse, actively interfering against concrete positive steps.

The unpopularity of the war threatens to further drag down the Republican House and Senate numbers in November, 2008, and it may be so unpopular that it catapults the otherwise unelectable Hillary Clinton to the White House. But Hillary is not the hawk she once was, and the closer she gets to the prize, the bigger a dove she must become. Make no mistake - if a Democrat wins the presidency, the war is over.

It’s a classic damned if you do and damned if you don’t: we must stay in Iraq to finish the job and prevent an all-out bloody civil war, but our early bungling and the ineptitude of Iraq’s political leadership has made the job so much harder that it’s quite likely a pullout will be mandated by domestic politics. Readers who are puzzled or angry that I am so supportive of Giuliani should view the 2008 election through this prism: of what import is the endless ‘war’ over abortion in the face of a complete collapse in the real war in Iraq?…

19 Responses to “What In The World Are We Going To Do About Iraq?”

1 Chris J. Breisch Says:
July 12th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
This is, of course, par for the course; in a depressingly familiar pattern, we see our soldiers performing with their typical efficiency and bravery while the Iraqi politicians sit around doing nothing, or worse, actively interfering against concrete positive steps.

Substitute American for Iraqi in that statement, and it still makes sense. I don’t think we’d fair any better if another country was setting similar benchmarks for us.

But that’s beside the point.

The Republicans are screwed, and you are correct, that this is the shot that an otherwise unelectable Hillary has. Republicans that think that backpedaling on the war will save them are delirious. 1) It looks too much like a political move, rather than a principled one, 2) An antiwar voter isn’t likely to vote Republican in any case, and 3) Backpedaling on the war alienates their base.

Basically, the 7 Republican senators that have come out criticizing the war are trying to commit political suicide.

So, not only will Hillary have the Presidency, she’ll have both chambers, and a strong grip on the Senate most likely.

The question that hardly anyone is asking and no one is answering is this: is it better for America and for Iraq if we pull out? I know it’s better for the troops (maybe…certainly won’t be good for morale), but is it better for America and Iraq? I doubt it.

Look, I’m not for occupation for one second longer than is absolutely necessary. And I’ve said since 2003 that the day the Iraqis ask us to leave, we should be on the first plane out. But we also can’t leave there one second sooner than is absolutely necessary.

Some have brought up civil war in Iraq, genocide in Iraq as possibilities. Frankly, those are the least of our worries.

If we pull out of Iraq, we lose not only in Iraq, but we could quite easily lose the War on Terror in the next 12-18 months.

No one ever brings this up, and I don’t know why. Surely I’m not the only person who studies history of the Middle East.

These folks have long memories. When we abandoned the Shah in 1978, it sent a sign to every single person in the Middle East that America was weak, unreliable, and would not stand up for her allies. None of the leaders in the Middle East have forgotten this. Not the political leaders, and not the terrorists. The reason that we have so much trouble getting the Saudis and others to help fight terrorism is that they’re afraid that when the chips are down, the won’t be able to count on us. They’re a lot closer to the problem than we are. It’s literally their necks on the line. If we pull out of Iraq one second too soon, we will never have a Middle East ally against terrorism again. And without that help, we may as well all sign up for Sharia law now. It’s over. I’m sure that some will think I’m exaggerating. I’m not. We can’t defeat terrorism in the next 18 months. It will take longer than that. But we can be defeated in the next 18 months, as surely as the Japanese defeat at Midway in 1942 signaled their defeat 3 years later in the Pacific. It’ll take longer than 3 years before there will be a victor declared (probably), but defeat in Iraq will be our Midway.

Whether or not you think we were right in 1978, or wrong in 2003 is immaterial now. Going into Iraq may have been the wrong thing to do. Leaving too soon certainly is.

So, what do we do? I don’t know. Make sure that whoever our elected officials are realize the truth of that. Make sure that they realize that nothing less than the continued existence of this 230 year old experiment in representative democracy is at stake.

I look at my daughters every day wondering if they will grow up to see the same kinds of freedom that I have seen.
2 Fargus Says:
July 13th, 2007 at 12:38 am
By what measure are you trying to quantify our “defeat” in the War on Terror? What’s the metric? Will our country be overrun, our women forced into burqas, and all Americans forced to pray toward Mecca 5 times a day within a year and a half if we pull out of Iraq?

Without any metric, most of what you said above is less than meaningless.
3 b washington Says:
July 13th, 2007 at 3:27 am
Yeah, my first problem is what exactly do you mean by “the war on terror could be lost”.

Does that mean that the federal government will be run by terrorists (well….it sort of already is…). Does that mean that we will all become slaves that are forced to make suicide belts for terrorists? Will the American homeland be invaded?

I feel sorry for anyone who doesn’t realize that America can never “win” the “war on terror”. First, there is no real definition for victory. Second, there is no real definition for defeat, as my previous statements indicate. If you can’t figure out what a win looks like, and you don’t know what a loss looks like, then there is a very good chance that you will just be flailing about wildly and hoping that something good happens (which is pretty much what BushCo has been doing).

The American homeland will never be invaded by an actual terrorist group. It can be “infiltrated” but it can never be “invaded”. An invasion is when you have boats and planes and ground troops. An invasion is part of a declared war. That will never happen.

I can’t stand it when people talk about how our freedoms are at stake. The only person taking away freedoms is Bush. How can terrorists take away our freedom? No one has ever explained that. How can a couple camel jockeys take away the freedom of the most powerful nation? They can’t. BushCo totally misrepresented 9/11 for political gain, so instead of telling the truth about the problem, and working on a realistic solution, they decided to scare everyone into thinking their freedom is about to be stolen. They managed to convince the majority of Americans that if we don’t invade Iraq, then muslims will be killing us in the streets. None of it ever made any sense, and it never will.

I truly feel sorry for the “author” of this article. We should all sign up for Sharia law right now? Within 18 months America will be defeated by Iraq? what kind of garbage is this? IS the author on LSD or something? HOW WILL IRAQ BLOW UP AMERICA IN THE NEXT 18 MONTHS?

HOW WILL THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BE SUCCESSFULLY INVADED BY IRAQ?
4 too many steves Says:
July 13th, 2007 at 8:38 am
How do we leave? How long will it take? How bloody will it be? Will there really be a political win for the anti-war crowd if we leave? Depends, I guess, on the answers to the first three questions. The American public are fickle and unrealistic. It is fine that public opinion is in favor of leaving but how many understand that it won’t happen in a day or a week or a month? How many understand that we will still be in region in Afghanistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, and Pakistan? What will public opinion be if our leaving precipitates and allows a civil war to erupt, full force, in Iraq? Better or worse than it is now? Recall that public opinion of Bush, the Congress, and the War are all in the toilet, which of these, if any, will improve when we leave?

The question and debate are taking place at too high, and too political, a level. A clear examination of alternatives and consequences needs to happen, but don’t hold your breath waiting.
5 Andy Vance Says:
July 13th, 2007 at 9:31 am
The American public are fickle and unrealistic

Yes, unrealistic because they tend to take it on faith that their leaders are competent and trustworthy, and fickle because they tend not to believe those leaders who prove to be foolish liars.
6 too many steves Says:
July 13th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Fine. So how will the American public respond when Iraq descends into a civil war hell-hole and we remain targets of Islamic terrorism because of our continued presence in the Middle East? What will John Q. Public say when Al Qaeda are emboldened by our defeat in Iraq?
7 Andy Vance Says:
July 13th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Iraq is a civil war hellhole, we are targets of Islamic terrorism, and al Qaeda has been and is being emboldened by our defeat in Iraq.

Right now John Q. Public is asking himself, “Why did I allow these morons to throw gasoline on the fire?” and “I wonder if it would be a good idea to elect that other chest-beating moron holding two more jerry cans?”
8 too many steves Says:
July 13th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Ok, I get it, you just want to be angry.

I want to talk about alternatives and the best course of action from this point forward and am concerned that pulling our troops out is no more than public opinion appeasement that might have consequences worse than staying in Iraq or doing something else. I’m also concerned that the “public” doesn’t understand that leaving Iraq isn’t simple and won’t happen over night.
9 Andy Vance Says:
July 13th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Being a bleeding heart liberal, I’m genuinely sympathetic to the “best course of action from this point forward” mumbo jumbo. But there comes a time when one has to admit there’s simply nothing we can do (not to mention that the people we’re ostensibly there to help, like the antique shop owner in Borat, just want us to stop smashing the merchandise as we “fix” what we’ve already broken; they just want us to get the hell out).

As Jim Henley puts it,

This notion of a “responsibility to try and prevent” some bad thing by government action, independent of whether government action would be just or effective, is emblematic of stereotypically bad liberal sentimentality. Even the liberals I know don’t fall for it this badly. It’s the kind of argument right-wingers used to scorn.

He also notes that this line of argument involves a rhetorical slight of hand, shifting the blame from those who supported this fiasco to those who warned against it.
10 peter Says:
July 13th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
The debate about what we should or should not do always seems to ignore what the Iraqis want us to do. My view is that we should ask for a referendum to be voted on by Iraqis and follow their wishes. If, as I suspect, they overwhelmingly want us to go, then it is the height of arrogance to continue to occupy their country against their expressed desire. On the other hand, if they want us to stay, then we have a moral responsibility to do our best to fix what we broke, albeit with some defined end-point to our occupation.

If we truly believe in democracy, then we ought to put it into action.
11 Bob from Ohio Says:
July 13th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I can’t believe I am saying this but I agree with Peter.

Have a referendum.
12 peter Says:
July 13th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Kumbaya.
13 too many steves Says:
July 13th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Ditto Bob and Peter. Wow.
14 Stan Peterson Says:
July 13th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
My definition of Losing a war is succinct and not so sweet. Manhattan and Hollywood disappear into a radioactive gas.

I am an American first and most of all, even if that would remove for a generation most of the anti-American Copperheads now controlling the media and one of our great political parties. These people are my political opponents in the USA nd drove me from the Party of my forefathers. But I don’t want them dead, even if some would surely willingly liquidate me if they could establish their Politburo.

The establishers of the American Republic did not suffer and die so that Larry Flint is safe to make millions debasing the society; nor for the right for Oliver Stone to peddle his society debilitating non-sexual pornography. There are other democratic methods from removing these boils on society.
15 Fargus Says:
July 13th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
You’re right. This isn’t about George Bush and his Administration. It’s about how best to get rid of Hustler.

Geez.
16 Gulf Coast Bandit Says:
July 13th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
I’m agreeing with Bob, Peter and Steves all at once. Mark it down, it’s a miracle.
17 Peter Says:
July 14th, 2007 at 9:51 am
also known as syzygy
18 Ryan Bonneville Says:
July 14th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
I’m with Stan. Larry Flynt is the greatest danger to the Republic. Gull darn naked ladies is ruinin’ us all.
19 Stan Peterson Says:
July 19th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Y’all asked for a definition of defeat. I gave y’all one; losing an American city or two to an Arab suitcase nuke. Or more realistically to an Arab bomb arriving in a shipping container.

I merely said that I may not like Surrendercrats or others brigandizing society but like Voltaire would defend to the death their right to try (and eventually fail) in the quest for the almighty buck or position of power.