Posted on 03/02/2007 6:13:38 AM PST by Tolik
It's make it or break it in Iraq in 2007. Or so we are told, as America nears four years of costly efforts in Iraq. But how did we get to this situation, to this fury over a war once supported by 70 percent of the public and a majority of Congress, but now orphaned by both?
How did a serious country, one that endured Antietam, sent a million doughboys to Europe in a mere year, survived Pearl Harbor, Monte Cassino, Anzio, the Bulge, Tarawa, Iwo and Okinawa, the Yalu, Choisun, Hue and Tet, come to the conclusion — between the news alerts about Britney Spears’ shaved head and fights over Anna Nicole Smith’s remains — that Iraq, in the words of historically minded Democratic senators, was the “worst” and the “greatest” “blunder,” “disaster,” and “catastrophe” in our “entire” history?
Even with all the tragic suffering, our losses, by the standard of past American wars, have not been unprecedented, especially given the magnitude of the undertaking — namely, traveling 7,000 miles to remove a dictator and foster democracy in the heart of the ancient caliphate. This was not a 1953 overthrow of an Iranian parliamentarian. Nor was it a calculated 1991 decision to let the Shiite and Kurdish revolts be crushed by Saddam. And it was most certainly not a cynical ploy to pit Baathist Iraq against theocratic Iran. Instead, it was an effort to allow an electorate to replace a madman.
There were always potential landmines that could go off, here and abroad, if the news from the battlefield proved to be dispiriting.
First, George Bush ran for president as a realist, who turned Wilsonian only after 9/11, in the belief that removing Saddam and leaving democracy in his wake could break up the nexus between Middle Eastern terrorism and autocracy.
But his conservative base was always skeptical of anything even approaching internationalist activism. And his Democratic opponents were not about to concede his idealism. So when times got tough, the president’s chief reservoir of diehard supporters proved to be principled Lieberman Democrats and McCain Republicans — neither group a natural majority nor, after 2000, with any natural affinity for the president.
Second, after the relatively easy victories in Grenada, Panama, the Gulf War, Serbia, and Afghanistan, the American public became accustomed to removing thugs in weeks and mostly by air and light ground-support. All during the 1990s, the more we made use of the military the more we cut it, until things came to a head in Iraq in a postwar effort that has been both long and confined largely to the ground.
Since the most recent conflicts had been a far cry from the mess of Vietnam, Democrats saw that the upside of regaining lost stature on national security outweighed the dangers of being charged with war-mongering from hard-core leftists. And so they outdid themselves and the president in loudly voting for Iraq — but apparently only as long as casualties were to be minimal and public and media support steadfast and overwhelming.
There were numerous reasons to remove Saddam — 23, according to the Congress that authorized the war — but the administration privileged just one, the sensible fear of weapons of mass destruction. That was legitimate and understandable, and would prove effective so long as either a postwar weapons-trove turned up or the war and its aftermath finished without a hitch.
Unfortunately neither proved to be the case. So with that prime rationale discredited, the partisan Congress suddenly reinvented itself in protesting that it had really voted for war on only one cause, not 23. And when the news and evidence both went bad, that lone reason was now pronounced null and void and hardly a basis for war.
Third, Afghanistan also loomed large. Right after 9/11, Afghanistan, rather than secular and once-defeated Iraq, was seen as the tougher nut to crack, that warlords’ mountainous graveyard of British and Russian imperial troops. But when the Taliban fell in eight weeks, and a consensual government was in place within a year, then by that optimistic arithmetic, the three weeks it took to remove Saddam might mean less than six months before new elections could be held there. Suddenly the old prewar warnings of thousands of Americans dead were forgotten, as the public apparently assumed the peace in Iraq would ensue in half the time it took in Afghanistan. This analogy has proven inapt.
Fourth, this war was debated through one election and fought through two. Given the prewar furor over Iraq, the miraculous three-week victory over Saddam lent itself to a natural tendency afterwards to be conservative, hoarding hard-won — but easily lost — political capital.
So, with each new challenge — the looting, the first pullback from Fallujah, the reprieve given Sadr — the administration hesitated. Understandably it was afraid to lose broad public support for the conflict, or to restart a war already won, since that would only incite an inherently hostile media that had been temporarily muzzled, but not defanged, by an astounding victory.
Apparently, after the announcement of “Mission Accomplished,” and leading up to the 2004 elections, no one wanted CNN broadcasting live footage from a new siege of Hue in Fallujah. In the process, public support for the war was insidiously and slowly lost, by an Abu Ghraib or a grotesque televised beheading unanswered by a tough American retaliation against the militias. The terrorists learned from our own domestic calculus that each month of televised IEDs was worth one or two U.S. senators suddenly dropping their support for the war.
Fifth, the Sunni border-nations wanted Saddam defanged, but never removed entirely. Muslim lamentations for Saddam’s slaughter of his own were always trumped by his usefulness in keeping down the Shiite fanatics, both in Iran and at home. But the enemy of my enemy in the Middle East is not always my friend, so the Shiites did not instinctively thank the Americans who removed Saddam, or who gave them the franchise.
The result was Orwellian: We allowed the downtrodden Shiite majority one person / one vote, and in exchange Sadr and his epigones were freed to kill us; we championed Sunni minority-rights and got in exchange Sunni tolerance for Baathist and al Qaeda killers.
Through it all, competent and professional American diplomats and soldiers who sought peace for both were libeled by both. Islamists, taking their talking points from the American and European Left, complained about conspiracies and expropriations on the part of those who had in fact ensured that Iraqi petroleum would, for the first time, be subject to public transparency and autonomy.
Sixth, Europeans who profited from Saddam probably wanted Saddam gone, but wanted the U.S. to do it. In the same manner they profit from Iran, yet want Iran quieted and the U.S. to do it. In the same manner they want terrorists rounded up, jailed, and renditioned, but the U.S. to do it.
All the while a Chirac abroad was whipping up the Arab Street, or a Schroeder was awarding financial credits to Germans doing business with the Iranian theocracy, or a Spain or an Italy or a Germany was indicting the very American military and intelligence officers who protected them.
The European philosophy on the Iraq war was to play the anti-American card to envious European crowds all the way up to that delicate point of irrevocably offending the United States. Then, but only then, pull back abruptly with whimpers about NATO, the Atlantic relationship, and Western solidarity, just before a riled America gets wise and itself pulls away from these ingrates for good.
Somehow a war to remove a mass-murdering psychopath — a psychopath with his hands on a trillion-dollars worth of petroleum reserves, with a long record of attacking four of his neighbors and of harboring and subsidizing terrorists — who, once removed, would be replaced with the first truly consensual government in the history of the Arab Middle East, ended up being perceived, for all the reasons cited above, as something it was not.
But if we have an orphaned war that is dubbed lost, it nevertheless can still be won. None of our mistakes has been fatal; none is of a magnitude unprecedented in past wars; all have been cataloged; and few are now being repeated. We now understand the politics of our Iraqi odyssey, with all its triangulations, and the ruthlessness of our enemies.
Not arguments, rhetoric, pleading, or money right now can save the democracy in Iraq. The U.S. military alone, in the very little remaining time of this spring and summer, can give Iraqis the necessary window of security and confidence to govern and protect themselves, and thereby to allow the donors, peacekeepers, compromises, and conferences to follow.
If General Petraeus can bring a quiet to Baghdad, then all the contradictions, mistakes, cheap rhetoric, and politicking of the bleak past will mean nothing in a brighter future.
Added to the VDH ping list. Thanks
You lost me here. I guess I was not clear in my original post. I meant that FR as a slice of conservatism in general supports the Bush Doctrine (or so is my impression, individual opinions may vary). I also support the Bush Doctrine. What reactionaries are you talking about?
Just out of curiousity, but how so? I find VDH to be extremely accurate in his assessment.
The VP, for one. Remember that?
Now you're just being silly, and very simplstic.
Stop looking at the trees and look at the forest. Your comment reminds of the news papers in the Civil War. Whenever the Union lost a battle the papers would scream that all was lost, the same went for the Confederate papers.
What is there in the consevative movement (or at least some) that is always ready to declare defeat at the drop of the hat, or are wanting to find a silver bullet answer to whatever the problem is?
Well that's pretty much simplistic nonsense.
It isn't an indication.
Your home page reminds me that I have been negligent in updating mine...hopefully, I can get to it after 4/15.
Thanks for the ping !
Victor "Panglos" Hanson bump.
For example Al Sadr. Al Sadr is a clever little thug. He walks right up to the line but he does not cross it. He is typical of the sorts of messy little problems that crop up in a Counter Insurgency. NOT exactly an enemy not exactly an ally. So how you deal with him is troublesome.
Since Malki and Al Sadr are both Shia, Malki cannot squish him without splitting his own power base. So he keeps trying to negotiate with the twit. We have FINALLY caught a break since the twit ran off to Iran.
Here is how Counter Insurgency run the Dinocon way would look.
. - Americans: Yo, all you Iraqis. Now we know you all have been oppressed and terrorized by Saddam and his goons for about 40 years so we came over here to show you a better way. So gather round and we are going to teach you this thing called Democracy. We want to teach you this cause we figure if we get can get enough of you following this ideology you will not follow the ideology that preaches it is a good thing to fly airplanes into buildings full of our Civilians.
Now the first things you need to learn is this part about the Rule of Law. Study the sub chapters on Innocent until prove Guilty, Trial by Jury, Right to Legal Representation and really important, the chapter on outlawing Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ok, now while you do that, we are going to arbitrarily round up and kill any Iraqis who we think maybe have ever talked mean about us.
What? No we are not going to bother with any of that messy Democracy stuff cause we are at war. And according to our Holloweird Movie guide to Military Action flicks any time you are at war you can waste anyone who pisses you off for what ever reason you want any way you want to do it. According to Hollyweird, we don't need nothing like proof or nothing we can just go wack that little Al Sadr freak cause he pisses us off. Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence. Our action movie heros never bother with any evidence. In the Movie we watch on TV says we are just suppose to go kill him because he pisses us off so that what we want to do here. Now quit talking back and learn our lessons on Democracy.
Iraqi 1. Hey Mahmoud, why are we helping these clowns?
Iraqi 2. What do you mean Achmed, they got rid of Saddam!
Iraqi 1. They did? Looks to me like they just took his place.
Iraqi 2. Well ya so?
Iraqi 1. Well at least the old thugs were from around here. These guys are not only from out of town they are not even Muslims. We may has well have Muslim thugs if we got to have thugs.
Iraqi 2. You right, time to join the Jihad!
That is what this "Counter Insurgency doctrine as learned from watching TV dramas" would produce. It is utter stupidity but forget trying to penetrate the Dinocons welded shut minds. They are too busy screaming their group think on Iraq to actually LEARN anything about Iraq.
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!
I was sickened and disgusted that the President had so shallow and foolish an attitude about the American people. We were crying out to be rallied. More than a billion dollars was raised by private sources in a month. We wanted, needed, demanded to sacrifice.
Alas, our desires were ignored, our hopes dashed and we were told to act like nothing happened. Big Bropther, after all, would take care of everything.
The elitism of Bush and the power of Central Authority took over. In the end, when they needed our support, we had lost interest in their private little war.
Exactly! Thus allowing the majority of Americans to think we are not at war. Seems I remember Bush 1 saying the same thing about going shopping to ease the recession. How lame.
Johnnie, your posts always make me smile...
Please, don't dismiss this so cavalierly.
Recall that, in September, 2001, our economy was indeed in precarious condition -- the left-over Clinton recession was in full swing, before the Bush tax cuts could kick in. Jobs were still being lost, in the aftermath of the high-tech bubble bursting.
Then, when the WTC went down, everything stopped!
Parking lots were empty. Shopping malls were vacant. Restaurants started laying off people. For about seven-to-ten days, the entire economy was teetering -- which had been the very intention of Osama's plan.
Finally, the log jam broke. But it was still a "close run thing". The administration's insistence on "keep on shoppin'" was exactly the medicine the economy needed.
Be assured those two weeks were very scary for people in retail.
Nobody did...that I am aware of. Not in the administration, that is.
But there were a number of pundits -- both liberal and conservative -- who adopted that stance. And promoted it via the media.
Things were said. Things were remembered. But the blame was placed on those who did not say them, to save the skin of those who did.
See #38
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.