Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What’s wrong with cutting and running?
Nieman Foundation ^ | August 03, 2005 | William E. Odom

Posted on 11/18/2005 6:56:32 PM PST by owen_osh

What’s wrong with cutting and running?

If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren’t they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better.

Here are some of the arguments against pulling out:

1) We would leave behind a civil war.

2) We would lose credibility on the world stage.

3) It would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy.

4) Iraq would become a haven for terrorists.

5) Iranian influence in Iraq would increase.

6) Unrest might spread in the region and/or draw in Iraq's neighbors.

7) Shiite-Sunni clashes would worsen.

8) We haven’t fully trained the Iraqi military and police forces yet.

9) Talk of deadlines would undercut the morale of our troops.

But consider this:

1) On civil war. Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war. We created the civil war when we invaded; we can’t prevent a civil war by staying.

For those who really worry about destabilizing the region, the sensible policy is not to stay the course in Iraq. It is rapid withdrawal, re-establishing strong relations with our allies in Europe, showing confidence in the UN Security Council, and trying to knit together a large coalition including the major states of Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, and India to back a strategy for stabilizing the area from the eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Until the United States withdraws from Iraq and admits its strategic error, no such coalition can be formed.

Thus those who fear leaving a mess are actually helping make things worse while preventing a new strategic approach with some promise of success.

2) On credibility. If we were Russia or some other insecure nation, we might have to worry about credibility. A hyperpower need not worry about credibility. That’s one of the great advantages of being a hyperpower: When we have made a big strategic mistake, we can reverse it. And it may even enhance our credibility. Staying there damages our credibility more than leaving.

Ask the president if he really worries about US credibility. Or, what will happen to our credibility if the course he is pursuing proves to be a major strategic disaster? Would it not be better for our long-term credibility to withdraw earlier than later in this event?

3) On the insurgency and democracy. There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties will take over the government once we leave. But that will happen no matter how long we stay. Any government capable of holding power in Iraq will be anti-American, because the Iraqi people are increasingly becoming anti-American.

Also, the U.S. will not leave behind a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq no matter how long it stays. Holding elections is easy. It is impossible to make it a constitutional democracy in a hurry.

President Bush’s statements about progress in Iraq are increasingly resembling LBJ's statements during the Vietnam War. For instance, Johnson’s comments about the 1968 election are very similar to what Bush said in February 2005 after the election of a provisional parliament.

Ask the president: Why should we expect a different outcome in Iraq than in Vietnam?

Ask the president if he intends to leave a pro-American liberal regime in place. Because that’s just impossible. Postwar Germany and Japan are not models for Iraq. Each had mature (at least a full generation old) constitutional orders by the end of the 19th century. They both endured as constitutional orders until the 1930s. Thus General Clay and General MacArthur were merely reversing a decade and a half totalitarianism -- returning to nearly a century of liberal political change in Japan and a much longer period in Germany.

Imposing a liberal constitutional order in Iraq would be to accomplish something that has never been done before. Of all the world's political cultures, an Arab-Muslim one may be the most resistant to such a change of any in the world. Even the Muslim society in Turkey (an anti-Arab society) stands out for being the only example of a constitutional order in an Islamic society, and even it backslides occasionally.

4) On terrorists. Iraq is already a training ground for terrorists. In fact, the CIA has pointed out to the administration and congress that Iraq is spawning so many terrorists that they are returning home to many other countries to further practice their skills there. The quicker a new dictator wins the political power in Iraq and imposes order, the sooner the country will stop producing well-experienced terrorists.

Why not ask: "Mr. President, since you and the vice president insisted that Saddam's Iraq supported al Qaeda -- which we now know it did not -- isn't your policy in Iraq today strengthening al Qaeda's position in that country?"

5) On Iranian influence. Iranian leaders see US policy in Iraq as being so much in Teheran's interests that they have been advising Iraqi Shiite leaders to do exactly what the Americans ask them to do. Elections will allow the Shiites to take power legally. Once in charge, they can settle scores with the Baathists and Sunnis. If US policy in Iraq begins to undercut Iran's interests, then Teheran can use its growing influence among Iraqi Shiites to stir up trouble, possibly committing Shiite militias to an insurgency against US forces there. The US invasion has vastly increased Iran's influence in Iraq, not sealed it out.

Questions for the administration: "Why do the Iranians support our presence in Iraq today? Why do they tell the Shiite leaders to avoid a sectarian clash between Sunnis and Shiites? Given all the money and weapons they provide Shiite groups, why are they not stirring up more trouble for the US? Will Iranian policy change once a Shiite majority has the reins of government? Would it not be better to pull out now rather than to continue our present course of weakening the Sunnis and Baathists, opening the way for a Shiite dictatorship?"

6) On Iraq’s neighbors. The civil war we leave behind may well draw in Syria, Turkey and Iran. But already today each of those states is deeply involved in support for or opposition to factions in the ongoing Iraqi civil war. The very act of invading Iraq almost insured that violence would involve the larger region. And so it has and will continue, with, or without, US forces in Iraq.

7) On Shiite-Sunni conflict. The US presence is not preventing Shiite-Sunni conflict; it merely delays it. Iran is preventing it today, and it will probably encourage it once the Shiites dominate the new government, an outcome US policy virtually ensures.

8) On training the Iraq military and police. The insurgents are fighting very effectively without US or European military advisors to train them. Why don't the soldiers and police in the present Iraqi regime's service do their duty as well? Because they are uncertain about committing their lives to this regime. They are being asked to take a political stand, just as the insurgents are. Political consolidation, not military-technical consolidation, is the issue.

The issue is not military training; it is institutional loyalty. We trained the Vietnamese military effectively. Its generals took power and proved to be lousy politicians and poor fighters in the final showdown. In many battles over a decade or more, South Vietnamese military units fought very well, defeating VC and NVA units. But South Vietnam's political leaders lost the war.

Even if we were able to successfully train an Iraqi military and police force, the likely result, after all that, would be another military dictatorship. Experience around the world teaches us that military dictatorships arise when the military’s institutional modernization gets ahead of political consolidation.

9) On not supporting our troops by debating an early pullout. Many US officers in Iraq, especially at company and field grade levels, know that while they are winning every tactical battle, they are losing strategically. And according to the New York Times last week, they are beginning to voice complaints about Americans at home bearing none of the pains of the war. One can only guess about the enlisted ranks, but those on a second tour – probably the majority today – are probably anxious for an early pullout. It is also noteworthy that US generals in Iraq are not bubbling over with optimistic reports they way they were during the first few years of the war in Vietnam. Their careful statements and caution probably reflect serious doubts that they do not, and should not, express publicly. The more important question is whether or not the repressive and vindictive behavior by the secretary of defense and his deputy against the senior military -- especially the Army leadership, which is the critical component in the war -- has made it impossible for field commanders to make the political leaders see the facts.

Most surprising to me is that no American political leader today has tried to unmask the absurdity of the administration's case that to question the strategic wisdom of the war is unpatriotic and a failure to support our troops. Most officers and probably most troops don't see it that way. They are angry at the deficiencies in materiel support they get from the Department of Defense, and especially about the irresponsibly long deployments they must now endure because Mr. Rumsfeld and his staff have refused to enlarge the ground forces to provide shorter tours. In the meantime, they know that the defense budget shovels money out the door to maritime forces, SDI, etc., while refusing to increase dramatically the size of the Army.

As I wrote several years ago, "the Pentagon's post-Cold War force structure is so maritime heavy and land force weak that it is firmly in charge of the porpoises and whales while leaving the land to tyrants." The Army, some of the Air Force, the National Guard, and the reserves are now the victims of this gross mismatch between military missions and force structure. Neither the Bush nor the Clinton administration has properly "supported the troops." The media could ask the president why he fails to support our troops by not firing his secretary of defense.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

So why is almost nobody advocating a pullout? I can only speculate. We face a strange situation today where few if any voices among Democrats in Congress will mention early withdrawal from Iraq, and even the one or two who do will not make a comprehensive case for withdrawal now.Why are the Democrats failing the public on this issue today? The biggest reason is because they weren’t willing to raise that issue during the campaign. Howard Dean alone took a clear and consistent stand on Iraq, and the rest of the Democratic party trashed him for it. Most of those in Congress voted for the war and let that vote shackle them later on. Now they are scared to death that the White House will smear them with lack of patriotism if they suggest pulling out.

Journalists can ask all the questions they like but none will prompt a more serious debate as long as no political leaders create the context and force the issues into the open.

I don't believe anyone will be able to sustain a strong case in the short run without going back to the fundamental misjudgment of invading Iraq in the first place. Once the enormity of that error is grasped, the case for pulling out becomes easy to see.

Look at John Kerry's utterly absurd position during the presidential campaign. He said “It’s the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time," but then went on to explain how he expected to win it anyway. Even the voter with no interest in foreign affairs was able to recognize it as an absurdity. If it was the wrong war at the wrong place and time, then it was never in our interest to fight. If that is true, what has changed to make it in our interest? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

The US invasion of Iraq only serves the interest of:

1) Osama bin Laden (it made Iraq safe for al Qaeda, positioned US military personnel in places where al Qaeda operatives can kill them occasionally, helps radicalize youth throughout the Arab and Muslim world, alienates America's most important and strongest allies – the Europeans – and squanders US military resources that otherwise might be finishing off al Qaeda in Pakistan.);

2) The Iranians (who were invaded by Saddam and who suffered massive casualties in an eight year war with Iraq.);

3) And the extremists in both Palestinian and Israeli political circles (who don't really want a peace settlement without the utter destruction of the other side, and probably believe that bogging the United States down in a war in Iraq that will surely become a war between the United States and most of the rest of Arab world gives them the time and cover to wipe out the other side.)

The wisest course for journalists might be to begin sustained investigations of why leading Democrats have failed so miserably to challenge the US occupation of Iraq. The first step, of course, is to establish as conventional wisdom the fact that the war was never in the US interest and has not become so. It is such an obvious case to make that I find it difficult to believe many pundits and political leaders have not already made it repeatedly.


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 109th; cutandrun; iraq; murtha; surrender; war; whywefight; yourjobiniraq
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

1 posted on 11/18/2005 6:56:33 PM PST by owen_osh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: owen_osh

The terrorists have made it very clear that if we cut and runm they're coming after us.


2 posted on 11/18/2005 6:59:06 PM PST by cripplecreek (Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: owen_osh

You owe me one keyboard.


3 posted on 11/18/2005 6:59:25 PM PST by Gordongekko909 (I know. Let's cut his WHOLE BODY off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: owen_osh

Treason seems to be the in thing this season. Like a lot of other fads, it won't look so hot a bit later.


4 posted on 11/18/2005 7:01:08 PM PST by speedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: owen_osh
The US invasion of Iraq only serves the interest of:

Certainly not the Iraqis headed to mass graves and shredder machines To begin with.

5 posted on 11/18/2005 7:03:40 PM PST by sionnsar (†trad-anglican.faithweb.com† || (To Libs:) You are failing to celebrate MY diversity! || Iran Azadi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: speedy

Actually I think "living in alternate universes simultaneously" is the "in thing" this season, treason and sedition are mere accesorizors!


6 posted on 11/18/2005 7:05:33 PM PST by acapesket (never had a vote count in all my years here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: owen_osh
Wow- and we paid this guy?
7 posted on 11/18/2005 7:05:46 PM PST by fat city ("The nation that controls magnetism controls the world.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: owen_osh
I for one am glad this idiot is no longer in a position of influence. His arguments seem plausible on the surface, but they are the arguments of an academic. The world works by schoolyard rules. And those rules mean that whoever is the tough guy always gets chalenged. To cut and run invites nothing but relentless abuse and is perceived as a sign of weakness. In the Darwinnian world of schoolyard rules the weak get eaten for lunch.



8 posted on 11/18/2005 7:06:46 PM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: owen_osh

"So why is almost nobody advocating a pullout?"

Because, despite your bleatings to the contrary, it's an idiotic idea?


9 posted on 11/18/2005 7:07:42 PM PST by Starter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: owen_osh

You could have saved a lots of space by just saying surrender is the best course.


10 posted on 11/18/2005 7:09:29 PM PST by armydawg1 (" America must win this war..." PVT Martin Treptow, KIA, WW1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: owen_osh

I suppose that handing the terrorists a massive, unearned victory isn't that big of a deal. After all, we're the "hyperpower", our credibility means nothing, and allowing AQ, and their leftist allies, to crow in the worldwide media about driving out the infidel might make the world a safer place.

If I have any problems with the handling of the war, it's that we're not being ruthless enough.


11 posted on 11/18/2005 7:10:07 PM PST by Sterm26 (Indict....no, HANG Joe Wilson!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: owen_osh
and squanders US military resources that otherwise might be finishing off al Qaeda in Pakistan.);

Huh?

12 posted on 11/18/2005 7:10:09 PM PST by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: owen_osh
The good general would seem to owe more to Yale than to West Point.

I would point out that Odom's generation of generals were not known for their war-fighting abilities nor strategic acumen.

McMasters captured their essence in Dereliction of Duty

13 posted on 11/18/2005 7:10:42 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: owen_osh

What's wrong with winning?


14 posted on 11/18/2005 7:11:09 PM PST by Brett66 (Where government advances – and it advances relentlessly – freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass
From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Took great pains to avoid using the name "Carter."

15 posted on 11/18/2005 7:12:03 PM PST by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: owen_osh
From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Ah, yes, the Carter administration, which raised "cut and run" to an art form.

16 posted on 11/18/2005 7:12:23 PM PST by Uncle Vlad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: owen_osh

Tagline says it all...


17 posted on 11/18/2005 7:13:45 PM PST by jim-x (God help America survive its enemies within.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Vlad; owen_osh

I've got the ropes for all of those pukes


18 posted on 11/18/2005 7:15:20 PM PST by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: owen_osh

Must be nice living in such a simple black and white world, Mr. Odom.


19 posted on 11/18/2005 7:17:05 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts ("If the Marine Corps wanted you to have a wife, they'd have issued you one." - - Chesty Puller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: owen_osh
Let's go through the points in order.
  1. This would guarantee the Iraqis we want to win will win. CF: Vietnam 1975. Ted Kennedy is still in office.

  2. Speaking of the 70s... Brings to mind Moynahahn's quip about how it was inconvenient to be an enemy of the US, but lethal to be an ally. Hyperpower status needs to be maintained. It can slip away.

  3. The Sunnis are anti-American. The Kurds and Shia are not. Give them the strength and the capabilities to run the country and the pool for the Ba`athists dries up.

    And (despite many wiseguy comments to the contrary) I do not believe that Islamic society is any more immune to the powers of democratization than the Japanese or South Koreans were. It just has to be implemented.

  4. Iraq is already a training ground for terrorists.
    Maybe. But, unlike under Saddam, they can't train openly inside Iraq.

  5. Iran is happy we're there? Right. Maybe they see the US troops as a target of opportunity, but there is real nervousness in Tehran that so many US guns are in a quarter from where they've been attacked before. The stress is affecting the regime.

  6. Have you seen how nervous Assad Jr.'s been lately. If Ivy didn't drag Saddam out of his spider hole, he'd be still openly raping Lebanon.

  7. We delay the conflict until it stops being relevant or until our side can win.

  8. But South Vietnam's political leaders lost the war.
    This is an outright lie. Congressional Democrats, strengthened by the radical influx in 1974 cut off all military aid over the protests of the scandal weakened White House. South Vietnam could not stop the NVA because they did not have the ordinance, equipment or fuel they were guaranteed under the agreements that led to the 'Peace Accords.'

  9. Sorry, but these sweeping statements are so vague (yet risible on so many levels) that one has to look askance at them with no comment beyond a scoff.

20 posted on 11/18/2005 7:18:26 PM PST by JAWs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson