It seems that saying the Iraq war was already "lost" was just not quite enough for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Apparently he and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sent a letter to President Bush saying, "...the escalation has failed to produce the intended results." So final judgment has been passed, as far as Reid and Pelosi are concerned, even though the last of the so-called "surge" troops involved in the President's security plan for Baghdad and al-Anbar Province have just arrived in Iraq's capital.
Breitbart.com quotes the two Democratic congressional leaders as saying that "The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation." Maybe I'm a little bit on the slow side here, but I just don't understand how someone can definitively declare a strategy dead before it has even had a chance to be implemented in its entirety. What happened to waiting for General Petraeus's report on progress, or the lack thereof, due to the Congress in September?
If our elected leaders actually have a little patience and wait for the full plan to be put into action, they may be surprised at the results. In an interview with USATODAY on June 13, Petraeus said he was seeing "astonishing signs of normalcy" in at least half, and perhaps as much as two-thirds of Baghdad.
According to the paper Petraeus said, "I'm talking about professional soccer leagues with real grass field stadiums, several amusement parks-big ones, markets that are very vibrant." Soccer leagues? Amusement parks? Vibrant markets? How can that possibly be the case if Baghdad is the center of what has been described as a country engulfed in a chaotic civil war where sectarian executions in the street are common occurrences and where people are afraid to leave their homes out of fear of being caught in the running battles between insurgents, militias and coalition forces? Is General Petraeus lying to us (a claim that is probably not far from the Senate Majority Leader's lips)? More importantly, what basis would he have for doing so? No, the likelihood is that the general sees a glimmer of hope and is merely reporting what he is sensing as the head guy on the ground in Baghdad.
Now, this is not to say that everything is rosy in Baghdad, or elsewhere in Iraq for that matter. But it is a sign of possible progress in a country desperately seeking an end to the ongoing bloodshed and violence. And while Petraeus conceded in the interview that many problems still exist, he also said that what he sees is a sign that the new strategy in Iraq is working.
What General Petraeus is seeing in Baghdad should come as no surprise, even to the casual observer of the conflict. The American military can pacify virtually any city in the world, but only for a limited amount of time. The key to success for the "surge" security plan is, and always has been, the Iraqis themselves.
Iraqi security forces must be able to hold on to the areas cleared by American soldiers, and they must be non-sectarian in their administration of Iraqi law. They must put the nation of Iraq above their loyalties to sheikh, tribe, militia, or sectarian affiliation. And the Iraqi government must live up to its responsibilities as well. That means providing services to the Iraqi people in a fair and just manner, and not based on whether they are Sunni, Shi'a or Kurd. It means making the political concessions necessary to achieve national reconciliation, including the distribution of oil revenues, adjustments to the Iraqi Constitution, and revision of de-Baathification policies. It means getting control of the militia death squads that are perpetuating the cycle of violence. And it means treating all Iraqis as Iraqis, fairly and equitably.
It is a tall order, to be sure. We can buy some time for the government in Baghdad, but only Iraqis can do what it takes to move their country forward. The breathing room we are providing for political progress is being paid for with the sweat and blood of our sons and daughters. The patience of America's citizens is quickly running out, and Iraqis should be cognizant of this fact. But as the final "surge" troops move into place this weekend, the least we can do as Americans is wait until they've had a chance to execute their mission before passing judgment on their success or failure.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 24
The point is simply that the leaders of the House and Senate should not be declaring that we have "lost" or that a military strategy is a failure BEFORE it is fully implemented.
And don't tell me it's Bush obstructing Reid and Pelosi. If they truly wanted the troops out of Iraq, they could end it as fast as the transports could bring the boys home because they control the funding. By controlling the purse, congress can simply not fund the effort or they can attach very specific strings to how it is spent. If the President vetoes it, eventually the money will run out and the troops will have to come home anyway. He can't just crap the cash. The congress has to give it to him.
But instead they rewrite the bills to the President's satisfaction. If you are going to blame someone for keeping troops in Iraq, then cast some of that towards the Democratic leadership in the congress.
75 killed today? It's Iraqi on Iraqi. Sectarian conflict will not just fade away if we leave. To believe so is naive and foolish. But hey, what the hell. They can kill each other all they want as long as we're not in the way, right. Who cares if the Shi'a ethnically purge the Sunnis from Iraqi society. Genocide doesn't warrant our involvement, does it?
Maybe we can apply that standard to other parts of the world as well. That way we can stop worrying about places like Rwanda and Darfur and just go on in our ignorant bliss here at home.
A return to isolationism. Is that what you're advocating?
The military's Joint Staff have been reading Colonel Gregory Fontenot's assessment of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a 500-page volume on the US military's performance in the Iraq war. It seems to show no amount of military might can reverse a disastrous political decision. It indicates there is no way to win in Iraq , in any case. The assessment also says individual Americans fought well and with courage,but in key situations, the military failed to anticipate, failed to plan, failed to estimate, failed to perform. At any other time, and against any other army, we might have been defeated. It points toward a shift of policy away from escalation and confrontation. While there are powerful people in Washington who are still committed to confronting Islam, there are others now, also powerful, who oppose them.
The retirement of Pace and Giambastiani ("St. John the Baptist, " who was Wolfwowitz' aide in the Pentagon) completes the "clean sweep" of the senior military leadership that marked the tenure of former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld. Since the swearing in of Gates as Rumsfeld's successor, nearly every major senior military officer responsible for the war in Iraq has been replaced.
I am not a fan of Secretary Gates, but he is a highly qualified professional. Gates arranged with General Petraeus for General Caldwell to be replaced as military spokesman in Iraq because of Caldwell's giving out information to the press about Iranian arms being imported into Iraq. Gates also got his choice, General Lute, approved for the "military tsar" or co-ordinator on Afghanistan and Iraq. It was a tough sell to get White House approval. He stood his ground. He was able to move out Abizaid and Pace in a very diplomatic way (and get rid of Abizaid's bloated staff of 3,800 and take steps to have many of them sent to Iraq to serve in the field). He found the Pentagon a mess with no "unity of command" and people not knowing who was doing what. That is the bottom line. That will take quite some time to change.
On a side note, my problem with Reid is that he declared the current strategy a failure without even allowing for all of the required troops to hit the ground. I understand debating the pros and cons of the plan, but to declare its outcome a failure before it's even in place is irresponsible for the Senate Majority Leader.
He might as well have said to the soldiers executing the surge: "This won't work, and you will fail, but I'm going to give the president the money to do it anyway and I'm going to support the commander he has chosen to execute it, even though I'll denounce the commander on the ground from my comfortable office in Washington."
The reality is that Reid will not cut off funding for the war because he is not willing to take responsibilty for what happens when we pull out. And I'm not talking about 'supporting the troops.' He's afraid that the whole region will go to hell and he will be blamed for it. That's why the smart Democrat strategy is to keep denouncing the president while not taking any real action to end the war. Maintaining the status quo through November 2008 maximizes political advantage for next year's elections.
I would guess Fontenot's report was not required reading because it doesn't fit the mindset embodied in the courses. Although Mission Command has been covered in theory for twenty or more years, it hasn't been taught and adopted in practice. Fontenot's study clearly brings this situation into focus and therefore raises questions that are not welcome or wished to be considered.
I heard Reid explain his views . It is not correct to say he said the war was "lost," although some reported that way. To suggest he was "denouncing the commander in the field" is not accurate. Of course, there is politics. But putting pressure on the administration to adopt a strategy - and the "surge" plan adopted isn't enough to be called a realistic strategy, if only because it employs 10% of additional forces needed for Baghdad alone - is important.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was forthright in speaking to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees annual convention in Washington.
"I would withdraw all of our forces, without any residual troops, by the end of this calendar year."
He would work to have an all-Muslim international peacekeeping force and negotiate with Iran and Syria in an attempt to bring more stability to the region. He would leave no U.S. forces in Iraq.
"We cannot do the hard diplomatic work in Iraq until our forces are withdrawn. When 61 percent of the Iraqi people say it's okay for troops in Iraq, American troops, to be shot, it is wrong. When 70 percent of the Iraqi people say they want Americans out -- Sunni and Shiite -- by the end of the calendar year, the time has come to withdraw our forces."
Richardson criticized Congress for failing to take aggressive action to end the war and recommended it withdraw the authorization for the use of military forces it approved in 2002.
He makes good, reasoned sense. It could take 18 months to withdraw forces, however.
"To suggest he was "denouncing the commander in the field" is not accurate." Maybe denouncing is too harsh a word, but he did say that Petraeus's comments were indicative of someone not in touch with the real situation on the ground. How is he qualified to make that statement from Washington, claiming that the guy in Baghdad is the one not in touch? Petraeus' comments may be a bit biased as the guy in charge of the strategy, but Reid's comments are irresponsible at best.
See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-14-reid-jointchiefs_N.htm?csp=34 or here's the passage from USA Today:
"Reid said he also was concerned about Petraeus, who told USA Today this week that there are 'astonishing signs of normalcy' throughout the majority of Baghdad. Petraeus was quoted as saying, 'I'm talking about professional soccer leagues with real grass field stadiums, several amusement parks, big ones, markets that are very vibrant.'
Reid said the remark 'gives you a feeling that he's not in touch with what is really going on in Iraq or just trying to make the president feel good.'
And I would disagree that the surge is not a strategy. A strategy is composed of three elements, ends, ways and means. For the surge, the endstate is an environment conducive to political accommodation, the ways are the provision of increased security in Baghdad and Anbar Province, and the means are the additional forces involved in the surge. By definition, the criteria for a strategy are met. Now, that said, we can debate all day long whether or not the strategy is a good one or not, or whether or not it is likely to succeed. But it is a strategy.
As for Richardson, I like the guy. I think he's the most qualified Dem running for the Presidency, but he doesn't have the heavyweight status of a Clinton, Edwards or Obama.
He would withdraw all forces. The only way I could accept that is if there was a concrete promise that U.S. troops would not have to go back to clean up the inevitable mess. An all-Muslim international peacekeeping force would not solve the sectarian problems in Iraq. There seems to be this notion that if we just leave everything will be fine. That viewpoint is detached from reality and does not recognize the nature of the Iraqi on Iraqi violence that is happening everyday. Sure, Americans would not be exposed to the fighting, but Iraqis would still be killing Iraqis and international forces would face competing loyalties. To disregard this reality is naive at best.
On the other hand, if they force an end to the war this year and the region explodes into a wider war, a humanitarian crisis ensues, Iran moves in to Iraq, Saudi Arabia jumps in, etc., Reid and crew will bear the blame for pulling out the only force holding the situation together. He can't have that happen. The current strategy allows him to keep blaming the president without taking responsibility.
It really is that simple. To say only the president has the power to end the war is just not factual.
Our presence is risking a wider war; withdrawal is a precondition to the "hard diplomacy" that Richardson speaks of as needed. There is going to be a bloody showdown in Iraq. We haven't the means and won't to bring about better conditions in which that showdown will work out. Is Reid's political rhetoric
so far from expressing what most in Washington already believe? Reid's comment on Petraeus' saying what he was allowed to say was fair. It was not demeaning him or his performance. To suggest that Congress is not qualified to criticize military strategy at any time is against the Constitution, literally and in principle.
Withdrawal can lead to others getting involved in efforts to create security. Srategically , withdrawal is a step toward rebuilding our status in the region and globally. A "defeat" in Iraq is relatively unimportant for us.
How it will be perceived by the public in the United States is problematical.
Withdrawal will be very difficult and take perhaps as long as 18 months. A negative that seems likely is that some Iraqis who have been fighting with us will want to prove they are against us by attacking us.
I'm not saying congress can't criticize military strategy. Of course they can. What I'm asking for is consistency. Reid has been opposed to the surge from the beginning, yet he refuses to stand by his convictions because of the possible consequences associated with premature withdrawal. He caves to the president because he doesn't want any responsibility for the mess that will ensue.
As for withdrawal leading to others getting involved, it will not be as rosy as you predict. It will get much, much worse before it gets better. I understand the theory of letting the regional players take care of the mess in their backyard, but the power plays will take precedence over Iraqi security and stability in the near term. There have been numerous reports of Arab countries in the region telling us in private that we cannot leave with conditions the way they are.
The invasion of Iraq hurt our global status, but leaving the country in its current state will damage that status even further. It will send the message to the 25 other countries involved in the coalition that we will not stick it out when it gets too tough, even though they have been sticking with us for the past four years. Next time we need those allies, will they be there for us knowing that we may end our commitment prematurely?