Posted on 12/06/2006 3:51:04 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Next week, the Baker-Hamilton Commission will make its recommendations on U.S. Iraq policy, and Congress will begin hearings on defense secretary nominee and Cold War realist Robert Gates. Both events will reflect the failings of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. But even as a grudging acceptance of reality takes hold in Washington, the architects of the war are urging that we double down on the losing bet in Iraq.
Amid spiraling sectarian violence, the leading advocates of invading Iraq seem now to have centered on an explanation for how their idea has driven that country to blood-soaked disaster: deposing Saddam Hussein and replacing him with a secure, stable and democratic government would have required around 400,000 troops—as well as a willingness to occupy Iraq for many, many years.
But that was never going to happen. The elusive significance of this acknowledgement is that a serious strategy to democratize Iraq was impossible. America was never going to make such a commitment. So the strategy itself was the flaw.
Early reports indicate that the Baker-Hamilton commission will recommend that U.S. troops "pull back" from the fighting in Iraq, perhaps cutting the U.S. presence in half. Many observers have wondered whether the commission can salvage the U.S. position in Iraq.
But James Baker and Lee Hamilton aren't in charge of U.S. foreign policy, and the report itself can do little more than provide political cover for the president to change course—if he wants to. And as President Bush said on Thursday, "This business about a graceful exit just simply has no realism to it at all." The president appears to have jettisoned the rhetoric, but not the substance, of "stay the course."
Part of the problem is rooted in the neoconservative ideology by which the president is inspired. The track record of neoconservative thought is not good. Max Boot, the Council on Foreign Relations fellow and LA Times columnist, wrote in 2003 that 60,000 to 75,000 troops could stabilize Iraq. Oddly enough, now that disaster has ensued with twice that number, Boot now concedes that "pacifying the entire country would probably require 400,000 to 500,000 troops, an obvious nonstarter."
But it was equally an obvious nonstarter three years ago. The passion with which the neocons argued for invading Iraq was never coupled with a serious examination of what it would require to achieve our goals there. An honest discussion about the costs of war would have greatly diminished the case for invading. But neither the advocates for war nor the Bush administration were interested in such a discussion, as evidenced by the apparent dismissal of a NSC memo in the spring of 2003 that warned that if historical precedent were followed, the Iraq mission would require 500,000 troops.
But hawks have now settled on the way to fix things: pour an additional 50,000 troops into Baghdad in an attempt to secure the capital. First proffered by Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, this plan would try to tamp down the civil war by demonstrating that the capital is secure, providing a clear symbol that the country is on the path to stability.
To be sure, the importance of securing the capital of a state pervades the literature on reconstruction and stabilization. As James Quinlivan, an expert on stability operations at the RAND Corporation wrote in 1995, "unless the capital city is quickly brought under both control and visible order, the credibility—locally and globally—of the intervention as a force for stability drains away together with whatever political legitimacy the intervention possessed."
In the case of Iraq, the capital city was not quickly brought under control, and could not be brought quickly under control now, even with 50,000 more troops. A low-level civil war is ongoing, and in order for it to stop, either one side is going to have to win, or both sides must become fatigued enough that they compromise.
The Baker-Hamilton commission cannot change this reality. And if the commission were to confront the negligence and recklessness of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq, it is certain that President Bush would dismiss their thoughts out of hand. The only thing that can right our course at this point is an outright rejection of the neoconservative approach that steered us into the quagmire in Iraq in the first place.
Neoconservatives have been wrong about every possible aspect of Iraq: wrong about the threat from Saddam, wrong about the way to deal with it, wrong about the costs of war, wrong about the insurgency, and wrong about staying the course. The only question left is how long the country and the Bush administration will continue listening to them on foreign policy. And at what cost?
We allowed politicians to fight VietNam. We should not repeat that error.
Baker is basically advising us to abandon Israel, one of our closest allies.
Now that the Democrats control Congress, and the pursestrings, Israel had best toughen up because I see the world turning against Israel more and more every day and it worries me as much, if not more, than what is going on in Iraq.
Now I see that they would of recommended that we hold bilateral talks with Germany, Italy and Japan.
Libertarians are whackdoodles!
They're the party of narcotic usage and child molestation.
We apparently are now.
Are you going to reply to the article or spew the obligatory Libertarian BS.
What do these aholes expect in 3 years ? Democracy takes time.
Cato seems to be adopting some of the language of the liberal enemy.
It's evident that they didn't get the Multi National press release yet.
The last organization to get foreign policy or national security analysis from is Cato. I have spoken to some of their scholars over the years and they can best be described as neoisolationists.
If the scenario is going to involve "negotiating" with Iran and Syria, it's Yalta all over again, with NO Churchill, Bush taking the place of FDR, and TWO Stalins, called Assad and Ahmadenijad. If that is indeed the next step, then we might as well have done all this in Iraq OUT OF DEFERENCE TO Iran and Syria, because THEY are going to be the direct beneficiaries, not us or millions of the Iraqi people. THere will be no "next time" to learn how to do it right---by now, and increasingly over the next 6-8 months, millions of Americans are going to see how this IN FACT has resolved itself, and where we wind up on the totem pole, and it might be impossible to wage war again, even for our direct defense. War should have been waged as war the first time, but we keep sitting on our hands with our fingers crossed, inversely echoing LBJ's assurance "We seek no wider war" with the hopeful "We hope no one else seeks a wider war".
The war should have been conducted AS A WAR, not a "police action". How we are going to be able to put a positive spin on what might transpire over the course of the next year is going to be very interesting/ I'm not sure I have to stomach to witness it.
Are you mad at what I said about the Libertarians? Maybe you should relax and take another bong. /sarc
Believe me, as questionable as it may have been to go into Iraq, it would be insane to withdraw without Victory, if only because withdrawal now would be a massive betrayal of all those Iraqis who wanted freedom and helped us.
baker...another antisemetic a-hole....who did he get to ghost write this study about Israel....jimmah carter!!!
That would have made more sense than attempting to negotiate with the Jihadists. At least our WWII enemies theoretically cared about survival.
The report will just cause deeper divisions of already held beliefs. Its vagueness allows one to put his or hers own interpretation on it. Not unlike other government reports and laws.
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.