I don’t blog much about Iraq these days, because I find the whole situation — both military and political — extremely depressing, and I really have nothing constructive to say because I have no idea what we should do. But let me start small, by quoting and responding to Bill Kristol’s commentary on Harry Reid’s statement that the “war is lost“:
If he believes it is lost, he has an absolute responsibility to cut off that funding and bring those troops home as soon as possible  three months, six months, maybe, not 15 months, which is the appropriations bill that he just supported with this gradual withdrawal.
(Hat tip: InstaPundit.) On the one hand, Kristol’s got a good point, logically speaking. On the other hand, if Reid actually exercised that “absolute responsibility” and called for an immediate or near-immediate “precipitous withdrawal,” Republicans would accuse him of “not supporting the troops” (not that they aren’t already doing that, but the accusations would be even louder and angrier), and Kristol would be first in line to back them up. Which raises the question of whether Kristol and his ilk have an “absolute responsibility,” or any responsibility at all, to be honest and consistent in their commentary on such an important issue. If so, they’re failing miserably.
The Republicans have very consciously fashioned their rhetoric and their actions in order to put Democrats between a rock and a hard place, and as a side effect, have made honest debate impossible. Honest negative assessments of the war effort, without legislative action to back them up, are regarded as inherently off-limits and borderline unpatriotic — but legislative action to back up such remarks is considered even worse. So Democrats are left with no choice but to either a) support Bush’s surge, or b) be accused to “not supporting the troops.” Which isn’t to say that the Democrats aren’t equally calculating in their framing of the issue, or that their negative assessments are always honest; on the contrary, both sides are utterly shameless in their politicization of the war. (To read a critical response to Reid’s statement that doesn’t fall back on “how dare you stab our troops in the back” type rhetoric, check out what Joe Lieberman said. He might or might not be right, but at least he’s being honest, as always.)
I have no idea what the right answers are, I just know we’ll never find them by asking the wrong questions, which is what both sides are doing. Ross Douthat, at least, is asking a reasonable question of the unreasonable questioners:
Here’s my question: Is there any imaginable point in any imaginable conflict where Mark Levin would admit that the United States had lost a war? I don’t mean to be flip, and I say this as someone who generally thinks that the U.S. hasn’t necessarily lost in Iraq; we probably have, but the outcome is still sufficiently in doubt and the stakes sufficiently high that I want to give the “surge,” however ineffectual it may prove (or may already be proving), at least a Tom Friedmanesque six months to work. But even allowing that Reid shouldn’t have said what he said, it’s still the case that the United States can lose wars, like any world power; that we may well lose this one (in some sense, at least); and that at some point, in this struggle or another, some American politician will say “we’ve lost the war” and be entirely correct. Given this reality, I wish Levin (and many of his fellow “till the last dog dies” Iraq War backers) would clarify whether there’s any situation in which they would greet a U.S. defeat abroad with any response save a rote invocation of the stab-in-the-back narrative.
(Hat tip: The Moderate Voice.) More thoughts after the jump.
Enough rhetoric, what about the substance? What should we do? As I said, I don’t know, but I’m sort of on board with Douthat’s “at least six months to work” idea… but then again, Alan Sullivan (whose political views are usually too far-right for me, but in this case he struck a chord) may have a point:
When I said a few days ago that the US was “playing at war,†I did not mean to denigrate the efforts and sacrifices of US troops in Iraq, but the hesitation of policy-makers in Washington, who have deemed the war winnable in Iraq, despite the actions of neighboring states or the realities of US politics. I think this proposition has been disproven. What Patreus is doing might work  given two or three more years of sustained effort. But the US electorate has already turned Congress over to the appeasers. Time is running out. And Iraq’s neighbors appear to be redoubling their covert war.
Here’s the key excerpt from the referenced earlier post:
It is both foolish and dangerous for [CIA] Director [Michael] Hayden to claim that “a precondition for our winning this conflict is to take the fight to the enemy wherever he may be.†He might as well join Harry Reid in announcing defeat, because we are not taking the fight to the enemy, and we never will. Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia continue to support Iraqi “insurgents.†If we were at war, we would have assailed the regimes of those countries for warring on us. But we are merely playing at war, while defense industries get fat and Iraqis die in droves.
Since 9/11, America has acted like the callow, hollow power Osama Bin Laden supposes us to be. We knocked off the Taliban, but we let their “guests†escape from Tora Bora. We toppled Saddam, but we failed to secure his ravaged nation  or leave it promptly. We played at victory, when Bush landed a fighter on an aircraft carrier; and now we shall play at defeat, with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi delivering surrender. But they don’t expect to pay the price of surrender, any more than they expected to reap the rewards of victory. It’s all a game of narcissists.
I’m not sure what else to say. As I said, the whole situation is just depressing and I don’t have any constructive ideas for how to solve it. I just wish we had competent and honest political leadership in this country, on either side of the aisle. We live in perilous times, times that call for great men (and women) to lead us, and I’m afraid our current political class is simply not up to the task. Alas, I don’t have a solution for that problem, either.
|
Categories: Iraq, Iran & the Middle East
|
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:00:46 pm
Hmmm, I think Alan Sullivan’s words capture my sentiments pretty well. I’m mad at the Dems for playing the surrender card and emboldening our enemies, but I’m equally pissed at the administration and Congressional war supporters for not taking the fight to Iran, Syria, and/or anyone else who is undermining our efforts by actively aiding the insurgents. As we saw with Vietnam, half-assed wars are the worst of all. So if Bush and company think Iraq is not another Vietnam, why are they following the same formula of half-assed fighting?
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:04:26 pm
You’d like Alan Sullivan, Andrew… he’s your kind of guy. :) Much moreso than that other Sullivan who shares your name… hehe.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:26:54 pm
P.S. By saying “he’s your kind of guy,” I of course refer only to his commentary and ideology, despite the fact that he, like that other Sullivan, is (I believe) gay. :)
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:28:49 pm
The Republicans may have very consciously fashioned their rhetoric and actions to put Democrats between a rock and a hard place, but the Democrats, perhaps not so consciously, fashioned their rhetoric and actions so that a U.S. victory in Iraq is bad for them politically. The converse is also true, that Bush and Co. have positioned themselves so that a U.S. victory in Iraq is of course good for them politically. But isn’t that true for any POTUS? Just because POTUS benefits politically from a victory doesn’t necessarily mean that the opposition party must benefit from a defeat. Yet that is where we are.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:35:32 pm
A thoughtful post, Brendan. And, it’s Douthat. (who is great, by the way, even if he does hold bizarre [to me] views on procreation.)
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:38:23 pm
Good post.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:47:05 pm
Reid is doing what nobody else has the balls to do. He is calling Bush on the carpet to resolve this war instead of handing it off to the next President - be he/she a Republican or Democrat - to clean up. Bush is doing just enough to keep this war going so he doesn’t have to admit defeat.
Frankly, I think Bush is being a coward. Either start a draft, raise the troop levels and go in to win, or set a timetable to withdraw the troops before your term is up. Maintaining the status quo to avoid taking responsibility is the ultimate form of political cowardice.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:50:23 pm
Thanks Aaron, spelling error fixed.
Angrier, I’m not sure the surge is “the status quo.” I guess the question is whether Bush truly believes it’s enough to actually win. If the answer is no, or if he thinks it’s 50/50 and that a bolder strategy* would actually work, then you’re right. And I give Bush zero benefit of the doubt at this point, beyond the basic benefit of the doubt that I extend to nearly all humans… and he’s even used up some of that at this point, especially in terms of competence (I still think he’s mostly well-intentioned, but a well-intentioned incompetent isn’t much of a president).
*Well, a bolder strategy that it would actually be possible to implement. If Bush believes that this is the boldest strategy that he can realistically implement given the domestic political situation (which is different than saying, he could do something else but it would be politically harder), and he believes it has a reasonable chance of succeeding, then I’m not sure it’s fair to call his decision to proceed “cowardice.” Bush isn’t a dictator, after all; he doesn’t have unlimited power to snap his fingers and, for example, start a draft. Should he have a moral obligation to go down in flames advocating a politically hopeless (as opposed to merely unpopular) “solution”? Hmm. Not sure that makes sense.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:06:25 pm
I don’t know if I’m crazy or what, but does anyone know what victory in this war is supposed to look like?? We toppled Saddam’s government and killed him and his sons. What else is our military supposed to do, especially at the troop levels they were sent in at? No matter what anyone else wants to say we are sitting in the middle of two religious factions that hate each other and will continue to kill each other whether American forces are there or not. The problem with the current situation is that it is the product of the poor planning and naivete of Bush and his cronies. If they would have included at least a couple of people that did not subscribe to the Bushie worldview then maybe there would have been some different results. But if they weren’t going to listen to Colin Powell, then who would they have listened to?? And it was clear that Bush and his people were more concerned about winning the ‘04 election than actually coming up with and implementing a plan for victory in Iraq. Any suggestion that adjustments needed to be made was met with withering accusations of treason or hatred of the troops. This followed the Rove play book of never admitting a mistake and always staying on the attack. Although I disagreed with his initial support of the war and his continual acceptance of Lieberman’s wisdom on the subject, Brendan is correct: this situation is so depressing that it is difficult for me to think much about. There are no good solutions and we will pay for it for generations and it has hurt our standing in the world and our ultimate security.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:14:04 pm
Why isn’t it an option to declare victory while leaving? Haven’t all of the stated goals of the invasion been met, some even before we got there? (ie no WMDs and no help for al Qaeda.) It wasn’t defeatist when we left Germany (both times) or Japan or Tripoli or the half of Mexico we didn’t conquer. When you leave college after four years, it doesn’t mean you dropped out…
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:23:30 pm
Hi, Brendan, I found your blog through your post on the “Jericho” blog on PH.
I’m not sure what the right move is at this point, but I’ve lost faith in this President holding the keys to victory. At the time of the invasion, I really didn’t know what to think of the war, but now I’m sure it was a bad idea to go in at all. There’s no doubt that Saddam was a very bad man, but he was an enemy we knew (and a huge rival of Iran, who has subsequently gained power in the region as a result of our actions) and I’m not sure there is any way to leave Iraq without it resulting in a power vacuum. No U.S.-backed government stands much of a chance at holding any credibility with the Iraqis. I believe the Shiite population is the largest in the country, so they will likely take power and align themselves with Iran, creating more problems for us in the region.
I argue with my Republican friends about this all the time. I think it was a huge error destroying the Taliban but not capturing/killing OBL. What message have we sent to other wannabe terrorists? That if you are smart and determined enough, you can attack us and get away without consequence? My friends argue that an example had to be made of an anti-US government in the Middle East, and Saddam’s number came up. They agree that there was no (good) plan for a post-Saddam Iraq, and are disappointed in the way things have gone, yet they still think it was a good idea to go in.
From my perspective, Saddam didn’t pose a threat like OBL does. OBL was able to launch an attack on US soil. Saddam wouldn’t have dreamed of doing such a thing for fear of reprisal. We should have used our resources to capture/kill the group that actually attacked us.
But enough about the past. I can’t blame Democrats for their actions since the 2006 midterms. They are a diverse group trying to come up with a consensus to argue what one man (Bush) believes. It’s difficult for them to make their case when he’s talking to the press twice a week saying that the Dems aren’t “supporting the troops.” This surge is the fifth or sixth escalation of troops since the war began and each escalation has had no positive effect on the violence over there. Now there are reports that the US military doesn’t believe that training the Iraqi army is the way to go. Their thinking is that if we want to find the insurgents, we’re going to have to do it ourselves. This is a very bad idea. The insurgents will continue to replenish themselves, gaining support from neighboring countries as long as the US is occupying Iraq.
Like you, I am sad and depressed about the way things are going. I don’t see a viable solution in Iraq other than to leave and help things shake out a favorable way. In the long term, the solution to our problems in the Middle East is simple - we need to stop buying their oil. It is the #1 export for most of these countries, and if there aren’t billions of US dollars going over there each and every year, they’re going to have a tough time putting food on the table, much less plan and launch an attack on the US mainland.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:21:22 pm
Lieberman has been consistently a dissembler on his position on Iraq: http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/27/lieberman
April 24th, 2007 at 8:56:31 am
This entire post and most of the ensuing comments are a perfect example of why some folks think this war is “lost”. I too blame President Bush for his naivetee’, but not like I think most of you do. I blame him for misunderestimating the lengths the his opposition would go to to undermine any and all efforts undertaken.
Whatever one thinks of the democrats, the fact is that they HAVE aligned themselves with the enemies of the US. Look at what Pelosi did in Syria. Syria is a terror sponsoring state, and they firmly believe they will get a better set of circumstances should the dems win the WH in ‘08.
OBL, while a pitiful excuse for a human, was certainly right when he said the US doesn’t have the stomach for the fight. We simply do not understand what we are up against. With all the carping about tortue, trials for the Gitmo animals, “innocent” civilians getting killed, etc… we establish yet another circumstance where we are clearly at a disadvantage to a group people who think nothing of using their own women and children as shields.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:27:45 am
JRDickens-
What you say might be true if the Democrats were calling for troops to be pulled out of Afghanistan, which they are not.
The people who struck us on 9/11 are in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq. The people who financed 9/11 are in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and UAE, not Iraq.
The fact is if Bush really placed the level of importance on Iraq that people like you do, he would have given Paul Bremer the troops he requested in 2003 when Republicans controlled Congress and Bush had an approval rating in the 60s. Bush didn’t. Obviously Bush didn’t - and doesn’t - believe his own bullshit.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:33:11 pm
Whatever one thinks of the democrats, the fact is that they HAVE aligned themselves with the enemies of the US. Look at what Pelosi did in Syria. Syria is a terror sponsoring state, and they firmly believe they will get a better set of circumstances should the dems win the WH in ‘08.
Bullshit. The Bush family and this administration have a long history of allying themselves with Saudia Arabia, a country that is actually sponsoring terrorism. And if you think that one of our leaders meeting with leaders of another country is proof that the Democrats have allied themselves with the enemy are off your rocker. Have you ever heard of diplomacy?? I suppose you will next admit that when Nixon went to China or when Reagan met with Gorbachav they were also aligning themselves with the enemies of the U.S.?
OBL, while a pitiful excuse for a human, was certainly right when he said the US doesn’t have the stomach for the fight. We simply do not understand what we are up against. With all the carping about tortue, trials for the Gitmo animals, “innocent†civilians getting killed, etc… we establish yet another circumstance where we are clearly at a disadvantage to a group people who think nothing of using their own women and children as shields.
Yeah, damn all of us for actually wanting to defend freedoms and keep ourselves from descending to the level of the terrorists. Curse us for thinking there is a better way! Clearly torturing people is the way to go (despite the numerous numerous accounts of actual intelligence experts along with psychologists etc showing that torture doesn’t yield credible evidence). You may like to believe that the world really works like “24″ but i hate to break it to you, thats a T.V. show.
OBL and Saddaam didn’t have then and don’t have now the capabilities to take away our freedom. They have the capability to harm us, certainly and thats a very serious threat, but the bigger threat to our freedom is ourselves, and more specifically people on the right like you who have decided to start equating dissent with treason. Facism and communism weren’t forced on a populace of people opposed by external forces, those threats, the biggest examples of countries losing their freedoms in modern history, came from within. You can disagree about how important it is to win in Iraq or how we should fight the war, but as soon as you start equating dissent with supporting the enemy, and claim that anything but 100% endorsement of Bush’s plan is wanting the terrorists to win, you, not the left are the ones who are truly damaging the cause of freedom in this country.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:31:37 pm
I completely agree with #7, Angrier. To steal Mark Shields line, “countries fight wars, not armies. If fighting in Iraq is so important this country, then it is worth having a draft. If a full scale invasion of another country is not worth having a draft over, its not worth fighting. This is about President Bush doing everything he can to save his legacy while not imposing the kind of burden on average Americans that will promptly lead to a complete loss of any public support for the war.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:17:23 am
Yes, if Bush has shown us anything, it is that he cares only about his legacy and is unwilling to try and tackle tough problems. If only Clinton were still in office…
April 25th, 2007 at 12:27:07 am
I suppose you will next admit that when Nixon went to China or when Reagan met with Gorbachav they were also aligning themselves with the enemies of the U.S.?
There’s an old saying: Only Nixon could go to China. Pelosi’s trip to Syria proves the point.
And dissent isn’t treason, Mr. Strawman.
April 25th, 2007 at 2:18:15 am
Really? Tell that to Harry Reid. For daring to utter the opinion that this war is allready lost he has been told he doesn’t support the troops. Sounds like something pretty treasonous to me. As Brendan himself has pointed out, its the modus opperendi of the Right to paint anyone who considers this war to be a failed effort in that light. And there are worse examples, some of which you yourself have uttered.
And i notice you completely ignored the question at hand, namely that our leaders can and should meet with our enemies or people who we may not see eye to eye with, rather than simply going to war with them, not to mention the fact that Bush and co are quite buddy buddy with Saudi Arabia a country whose anti-freedom behavior is well known and support of terrorism has much more teeth to it than did Iraq’s.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:25:42 am
Specter went to Syria last December and discussed making peace with Irsael.
April 25th, 2007 at 10:33:16 am
Yes, David, not all dissent is viewed as treason by those who disagree with the dissent. That is the frequent straw man thrown out by those who are uncomfortable with having the likely outcome of their policy preference pointed out to them.
For example, rather the blithely insisting, as Harry Reid has, that there are no series of events that could occur over the coming months that would cause our policy to be judged a success, Democrats like Reid would be much better served to argue that our security interests are not sufficiently at stake in Iraq to justify more than a year’s worth of further costs. This argument would avoid the valid charge of defeatism, and would be consistent with the Democrats’ policy of setting a deadline for withdrawal. If we have already lost in Iraq, then it is irrational to continue funding the war for another year. On the other hand, it is logical to say that we haven’t yet lost in Iraq, and that we have enough security interests there to justify some further effort and costs, but that those interests are sufficiently peripheral that if another twelve months aren’t enough to bring success, the costs have exceeded any potential benefits, and we should pull the plug.
But Reid can’t bring himself to do this. Instead, he persists in defeatist rhetoric (yes, defeatist . . . saying the war is “lost” in no way supports the troops, and probably does the opposite) which is inconsistent with Democrats’ own policy prescription (to the extent they have one other than BUSH SUCKS).
And i notice you completely ignored the question at hand, namely that our leaders can and should meet with our enemies or people who we may not see eye to eye with, rather than simply going to war with them, not to mention the fact that Bush and co are quite buddy buddy with Saudi Arabia a country whose anti-freedom behavior is well known and support of terrorism has much more teeth to it than did Iraq’s.
Um, that is not a question.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:39:24 pm
In fairness to Harry Reid, he did (rightly IMHO) backoff — or shall we say redeploy — from his statement that the war was necessarily “lost,” but more than enough Democrats and others have insisted that the war is simply a lost cause no matter what for the point to still stand.