I wouldn't be so quick to claim that, given what we did 140 years ago!
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
"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."
OK, we can't secure a city after 4 years? We damn near secured the world in that amount of time 60 years ago. How would you define victory?
The truth is, regardless when we leave, today or 10 years from now, bad elements are going to continue to move in. Wll the Iraqis be able to stop them or will they welcome them? I smell another Lebanon in the making, personally.
I agree that the prospect for transforming the political landscape in the M.E. through democratization was always a long shot. However, it had to be tried. History would have judged us poorly had we not made the attempt.
This war will go on, and it will come here once again - just as it did in 1993 and 2001 - only the next time it will be nuclear. These fanatics will never stop until they, or we, are exterminated. That is the trajectory we are on.
I do not regret that we took a shot at liberalizing the culture there. However, if this effort has truly failed, as our esteemed leaders think it now has, we must gird ourselves for the next phase, which IMO will be the most destructive that the world has yet seen.
What the hell is this, 19 freakin' 69?
I see it as the last chance to avoid massive death and destruction on both sides. Iraq was the best place to attempt democratization. Why the "democrats" fail to grasp this is beyond irony and is a bitter shame upon them.
If the Iraqi leadership and people don't pick up the ball and run with it, it's a failure that belongs to Iraq.
As I have said before, the current strategy is working, but very slowly, and the problem with thsi approach is that the political will to continue it may falter before it is complete.
But it's a rational way of avoiding a WWII style mobilization (and WWII style slaughter). The sad part is that, if the stupidity and immaturity of our political class stampedes us into withdrawal, we will be back with a WWII style mobilization (and slaughter) within a few years, probably after tens of thousands of Americans have been killed.
So... Who are are at war with? If anyone say Islam, it can't be defeated. Just like the Christian and Jews were not eliminated. Our fore fathers knew this and made American great by having religion of choice written into the constitution. Our mistake was turning this war in to a religious war and for that I blame Bush. Yes I said it, I blame Bush for standing on the podium and bring his religious comments and views on other nations. Every leader in history who tried this has failed miserably.
The main difference between the civil strife in Iraq and that here in the U.S. is that we don't kill each other, even though a little maiming crosses our minds occasionally.
You are exactly right.
(and how often does that happen?)
I wouldn't be so quick to claim that, given what we did 140 years ago!
"Similarly, in Iraq we had no "plan" beyond the hope the the Shock and Awe of a decisive military victory in Iraq would break the will of Islamic Fundamentalism, and reorder the balance of power in the Middle East."
I guess you were briefed by the Sec Def personally to know this was the total plan?
It now and has been for a little while now, the Iraqis war to lose.
The Japanese didn't have a plan, in the sense that they foresaw a favorable outcome for themselves should the US react in likely ways, what they had was the "hope" that the US would react in the ways most favorable to their efforts.
Similarly, we did not have a plan should the the Iraqi population react in likely ways, what we had was the hope that they would react in the ways most favorable to our efforts.
Unfortunately for us, factions of the Iraqi population fought back relentlessly, and did not let us implement out "plan".
But Japan armed itself as an agressive force with the goal of Far East domination. We entered Iraq with the goal of giving the country back to its people. The Iraqi factions have been supplied by neighboring countries and seeing as how our Democrats have cried incessantly about this being an illegal war, the typical Iraqi probably thinks that we are going to leave them high and dry like we did after Gulf War I.
Would you stand behind a country showing signs of wobbly knees and a new government not yet in control when you have Iran, Syria and Al-Qaeda threatening you unless you side against the US?
You may want to look at pre and post-WWII Japan.
The Japanese were DEFEATED and had no choice.
That's a good analysis/summation.
Good point. Glad you brought up the differentiating characteristic.
The dems grasp it just fine. They simply cannot abide by the fact that they were not able to get credit, therefore they must destroy and erase the victory. They will stop at nothing, including the undermining of national security, for political power, and it's attendant chance to do dictate to you.
was gonna post a clever reply, but, it goes without saying.
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.