Posted on 12/11/2006 6:12:13 AM PST by Flavius
GEORGE Bush is right about one thing, though, unsurprisingly, for the wrong reasons. There can be no “graceful exit” from Iraq. America faces defeat.
The eventual cost, in lost prestige and influence in the Middle East and beyond, as well as in blood and treasure in Iraq, will be immense. It may seem trivial to Iraqis.
A year ago, the bipartisan Iraq study group might have hoped to supply the architecture for a half-elegant US departure. That was always an overambitious aim. In any event, it was overtaken some time ago by the rapid escalation in Iraq of sectarian violence.
Robert Gates, the US defence secretary-designate, got it right when he told the senate defence committee last week: “It’s my impression that, frankly, there are no new ideas on Iraq.” The study group’s task thus became to put existing ideas together in such a way as to oblige Bush to change course.
We cannot be sure the president will listen. The risk is that Bush will seek to cherry-pick — but the options are narrowing fast. In this respect the group has fulfilled its mandate.
The report is candid and concise in description, pragmatic in analysis. The tone is set by the opening sentence: “The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating.” The report’s great service has been to state the obvious.
America has lost control in Iraq and its influence is diminishing further by the day. If the US administration is to have even a slight chance of salvaging something from the wreckage, it must admit the connections it has denied.
That means between security, politics and reconstruction in Iraq and, outside, with the array of other conflicts across the region. Above all, the report says, the Arab-Israeli conflict can no longer be ignored; nor can the influence and interests of Syria and Iran.
Nothing new there, you might say. But the timing and provenance of this report matter. The end game is more about US politics than about the grim realities in Iraq.
Last month’s midterm elections saw the American people bluntly reject the administration’s approach in favour of disengagement. As co- chairman of the study group, James Baker, a former Republican secretary of state and long-time Bush family consigliere, carries more clout than the president has ever been comfortable with. Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic congressman, gives the report its all-important bipartisan stamp.
The administration’s inner torture, meanwhile, has been regularly bleeding into the pages of the New York Times. Every time Bush reaches for another mantra about accomplishing the mission, the publication of another classified memorandum tells the story of an administration bereft of strategy. The most chilling example is a leaked Pentagon missive written by Donald Rumsfeld. There could be no better illustration than Rumsfeld’s private musings of the hubristic incompetence that has led the US into this mess.
The sacked defence secretary recently remarked that the defence department was getting along fine with its “piece” of Iraq, a curious choice of words given his insistence from the outset that he retain full charge of the conduct of the war. His memorandum, which history will surely rate as one of the most shallow documents ever written by a politician carrying such grave responsibilities, tells a different story.
Rumsfeld admits the US is failing: “In my view, it is time for a major adjustment.” He then produces a laundry list of choices. Almost casually, he admits that these putative changes — from US troop withdrawals and redeployments to cash bribes for friendly political and religious leaders in Iraq — may well not work.
No matter. Whatever decisions the US takes, he suggests, should be on a trial basis: “This will give us the ability to readjust to another course, if necessary, and therefore not ‘lose’.”
Not lose? Where has Rumsfeld been? One suggestion for dealing with the upsurge in violence conveys the sheer vacuousness of it all. The US, he scolds in the manner of a parent set to punish a naughty child, must not reward “bad behaviour”. It should cut off aid to any towns and villages where there is any violence. In other words, entire Iraqi communities should be punished for the actions of insurgents. Just the way to win hearts and minds.
Yet Rumsfeld has not been alone. Fear of rewarding bad behaviour remains the stated rationale for the administration’s refusal to engage Syria and Iran in an effort to stabilise Iraq.
That might have had some superficial logic during that brief spell some years ago when American power seemed poised to sweep away all its enemies. Now it simply marries failed ideology with chronic weakness.
The study group has its own laundry list. Its recommendations run to nearly 80. They are strongest in their understanding of the intricate power struggles — between Shiite, Sunni and Kurd, the secular and Islamist, as well as Arab and Israeli — that now describe the Middle East. Above all, it recognises: “There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the US to a comprehensive Arab-Israel peace on all fronts.”
Other recommendations are less convincing. Many are a reminder that the group’s priority is to map a path for US disengagement rather than necessarily to fix Iraq. Some carry the impression that the Iraqis are being blamed for the shortcomings of the US. The binding thread is a proposed withdrawal from Iraq of all US combat brigades by early 2008. If the carnage in Iraq has shaped the politics of Washington, those politics will now determine America’s future in Iraq.
In spite of its flaws, though, the report offers an intellectual coherence that has thus far been so sadly lacking.
What all this demands of Bush is nothing less than the complete up-ending of his foreign policy. The goal of spreading democracy remains a noble one but a crude vision of a world in thrall to American military might must be replaced by one that recognises both the complexities of foreign policy and the limitations of US power.
That may well be too much for this president to grasp. And it may, anyway, be too late for Iraq. But the delusions of the past few years are at last being swept away. Financial Times
Dear enemies of America. FYI: In gage us in war for 3 1/2yrs & you'll win.
Nice job you leftist whimps. Thank God it's not 1939, although it sure feels like it.
The writer, of course, has no prejudices or pre-conceived sense of what HEW wants to do: Create a socialist world government with the US contributing our tax dollars to European bureacrats.
I can't believe the turn of event lately. I am not going to rant about Bush but only say he let us down. I think it went down hill ever since the USS Abraham Lincoln stunt. The buck stops at the top.
There is no tradition of freedom or democracy or inherent value of the individual, no "..all men are created equal". These ideas are western, and the east doesn't share our view of their importance. In short, Islam and democracy are antagonistic to one another.
An ABC radio "news" reader just said that President Bush is bringing in "outside" people for advice. Outside people, like retired military and historians.
IOW, he appears to be questioning the assemblage of prestigious notables like political hacks, a representative of a government known to fund our enemies, a fix-it man for former President Bill Clinton, and a former Supreme Court justice known to prefer "how they do it over there."
"How dare he!" demand piqued MSM employees.
We can't transform Islam; if there is to be any transformation or moderation of that religion, Muslims must do it.
MSM: Oh happy day! Sweet defeat is now within our grasp. Now we can finally get on with the serious business of providing free health care for everyone.
"I am not going to rant about Bush but only say he let us down. I think it went down hill ever since the USS Abraham Lincoln stunt. The buck stops at the top."
Next time, if you say you're not going to rant, don't.
There are a lot of victories that this President has brought our country.
We outlawed emperor worship in Japan as well as Nazism in Germany. Do we have the stomach to outlaw Islam? Not to mention that we destroyed Germany and showed that we would destroy Japan.
Could have written all this garbage after Dunkirk...
"The closest you had was Baghdad Bob. We ACCOMPLISHED THE MISSION of removing Saddam from power."
And the Abraham Lincoln accomplished her mission in the gulf. People are letting libs write history even before it's history.
The fact of the matter from a purely military point of view is that we can afford to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
From a political perspective, however, much of the political and business elite have somehow convinced themselves that the sectarian violence largely limited to Baghdad and its environs is a "defeat" for the UNited States.
In fact, Anbar is slowly being filled by Iraqi soldiers loyal to the new order. These are, for the moment, largely garrison infantry troops without the logistics, transportation or armor needed for mobile operations. Within a year, however, I think that will change considerably.
So we will then have a 100K+ Iraqi Army that is mobile and well-trained.
It will also be a largely Sunni army.The minds of Shia politicians should begin to focus wonderfully at that moment.
"We outlawed emperor worship in Japan as well as Nazism in Germany. Do we have the stomach to outlaw Islam?"
You hit the nail on the head. The answer is "no". As a result we are in a war that we will go on forever or until we lose completely, IMO. The elephant in the room is Islam and our leaders refuse to see it. For that, we will pay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.