January 04, 2005
Trial Balloons
A number of months ago I seriously considered sitting down and grinding out an essay advocating an unconditional and unequivocal withdrawal of U.S. forces, from Iraq. As I pondered and wavered, we were making the transition from former Bush Treasury Secretary John P. O’Neill reprising the role of John Dean, into the Rovevian Inquisition of Richard Clarke.
There was still a solid majority of support for the war at the time, with an equal number of Americans still giving the administration the benefit of the doubt of finding WMDs. Abu Gharib was just on the horizon, yet for some of us, the worrisome signs of a deteriorating and possibly untenable situation, were already starkly apparent.
It was not fear of vitriolic comments and accusations of being anti-American that gave me pause, it was unease over being premature and not being taken seriously. However, do not assume that such a declaration was all I had to offer. On the contrary, I had devised a post-pullout scenario, mixing pragmatic diplomacy and savvy political maneuvering with strategic propaganda (think Tom Friedman meets Dick Morris) - but only successful with the aid and support of a contrite and patient American public. It was a plan, requiring this nation it supplant its ego and suspend infallibility, for a greater and lasting victory within our reach.
Yet even now, there is still a vast majority of Americans - Blue States, Red States, Bush Majority, and Kerry Minority - that still cannot accept an unconditional withdrawal from Iraq. That is a harsh defeat, a bitter pill indeed.
Hindered by an American media affixed with a Fox News-type silencer, you have to encourage the reasonable American to go searching for the truth about Iraq, or you'll have more than the 47% percent who still believe a stable government is likely in Iraq. An MSNBC promo tease actually got me to tune in to Scarborough Country, anxious to hear about Bush's 'bold new plan for Iraq', that already had 'growing support'. Could it have been the idea to guarantee the Sunnis' a number of seats in the new coalition government? Hope not, seeing that Colin Powell shot down that idea earlier in the day, as the elections shall be the only determinant for acquiring seats. Instead, the low-rated O'Reilly clone went on a blame rant, utilizing selective 'real news out of Iraq' polling to accuse the Mainstream (Liberal!!) Media, with smiling soldiers and happy Iraqi children in split-screen!
So, when I read about USA Today's founder Al Neuharth's editorial advocating an Iraqi withdrawal, and the firestorm of reaction in response, I was anxious to gauge where we stood as a nation, at this critical juncture.
As I read a sampling of the letters the editorial received, I was encouraged by the clarity of those who thoughtfully articulated their agreement with Neuharth's call. Yet, I was equally dismayed (but not surprised) at the ignorance and bile of personal attacks from most of those opposed, with only a few offering a respectful dissenting opinion.
I firmly believe that a prideful American public is willing to accept the legitimacy of any possible election result and subsequent Iraqi government, regardless of the violent and brutal process from which it is rendered. And ironically, it is Donald Rumsfeld who is laying the groundwork for the 'worst case scenario rationale', which doubles as the emergence of the first real 'exit strategy' from the Bush administration. Passing the buck, Rummy explained '...and the time has come for ordinary Iraqis to realize that they - not the Americans - will ultimately decide who prevails in this conflict'. This is what a frustrated Bernard Kerik must've witnessed, forcing him to bail halfway through a six month contract to train 145,000 Iraqi policemen to protect Baghdad.
Not surprisingly, the 'Blame Iraq' mantra is on a test run around the Conservative Echo Chamber presently, giving credence to the continued demonization of all who practice their faith as 'Islamofacists', courtesy of the Limbaugh radio crowd. With one simple call from the White House, Roger Ailes and Fox News could pull the trigger on the next, Christmas Under Attack!
You see, in the CEC, there is no such thing as 'trial balloons'.
I remember being the first writer at WatchBlog to call for a declaration of victory over removing Saddam Hussien and give the world a 6 month notice that we are pulling out, and Iraq will become either stable under Iraqi rule or a regional problem for neighboring states.
My views received a very mixed reception. But, to this day, I still insist, it is the only logical and rational course of action given the sum total of the circumstances both there and here in our homeland. Bush did not get his oil revenues out of Iraq, nor will he ever, hence, Iraq is now a fiscal liability given the deficits and escalating national debt. Not to mention the growing education of Americans as to the demonstrably and tragicly flawed rationale for invading in the first place.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 4, 2005 06:27 AMAs trite as it sounds, two wrongs do not make a right. Leaving Iraq now would lead to a bloody civil war that could destabilize the entire region as Iran would fund one side while others would be funded by other sects. Yes, we started it by removing Saddam without him actually having the WMDs, but that is a long time ago and what is done is done. The real mistake would be to compound our mistake by making another one. If anything we need to support Iraq even more, with more troops and aid, saturating Iraq on the scale of a Marshal plan. That is the only way to rectify the wrong of going into Iraq in the first place.
Posted by: mig at January 4, 2005 11:19 AMmig,
We need to be careful with that rationale, because there is bloodbath there now. We tend to measure it in US deaths, and we are only being told about how many “insurgents” we are killing and how many are being killed by the insurgents. We are not being told how many others are being killed collaterally by our ordnance. Some estimate (BMJ 2004;329:1066) that as many as 100,000 Iraqis have been killed by fighting. Whether more or fewer would die if we left is open to question.
I don’t pretend to know what the right thing is to do right now.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at January 4, 2005 12:44 PMFuture American tax payers cannot afford to save rebuild the Tsunami hit nations, prevent poverty and disease for millions of its victims, develop international Tsunami warning systems, AND continue throwing large numbers of billions of dollars into Iraq and Afghanistan, save SS, keep Medicare, pay the one and a half billion dollars a day in interest on our national debt, and continue to grow that debt from the current 7.6 Trillion dollars.
Sorry, folks, the Absolutely stupid Democratic leadership and liberal media politicially took advantage of Bush’s initial low ball committment to the Tsunami disaster, now look at the huge addition to the national debt. The Drunken Sailor Republican leadership are bankrupting America’s future in plain view for all to see, and there is no groundswell of concern by young people who will bear the brunt of the highest levels of national debt, trade debt, and personal debt our nation has ever seen.
Charity begins at home, and if we aren’t charitable in lowering our debt burdens, we will have nothing to be to charitable with in the future.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 4, 2005 02:12 PMStaying is not good, but what is the likely cost of leaving Iraq? As things stand now, it seems very likely to turn into a Sunni/Shite civil war, with Iran, a nascent nuclear power, quite likely being sucked in. The last Iran-Iraq war had a disasterous toll on both countries, and precipitating something like that could dwarf the estimated 100k dead civilians in this Iraqi war. Remember this is on the borders of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and America will be perceieved to be responsible.
I do not advocate a cut-and-run. But we should be realistic about the commitment we need to make. I would not be surprised if we are still “keeping the peace” in Iraq a decade from now.
Posted by: William Cohen at January 4, 2005 02:17 PMI agree with David in principle, that we need to give ourselves a date and keep it. However, I don’t think that date should be too soon. Right now, I would set it at Dec 31, 2006. That’s a long way away, but it’s realistic.
The danger of pulling out is a lot worse than simply Iran funding the militants, as mig suggests. Iran could simply invade, especially if/when it completes a nuke. After invading Iraq ourselves, we have no authority to tell others they can’t. Maybe Stephen can write another story for us about Turkish, Syrian, Iranian, and Jordanian soldiers meeting at a Baghdad brothel by night and blowing each other and Iraqi civilians into pieces by day. Whether Mental Wimp’s figures are right or wrong, it is doubtless that casualties would be much higher if it weren’t for the U.S. presence.
Iraq presents the U.S. with conflicting needs: the need to withdraw, and the need for Iraqi stability. We have to somehow meet both of these needs. If we fail, then we might as well let Saddam and Osama hold a joint press conference on an aircraft carrier in front of a banner that says “Mission Accomplished”.
Posted by: Chops at January 4, 2005 02:21 PMI feel we have an obligation to stay and try to reslabilize Iraq, although I think invading was a blunder to begin with.
I don’t have any great confidence that the Bush administration, however, is really capable of persuing a sensible stragtegy here. They are too caught up in their dogma and unwillingness to admit error. At some point we will withdraw, If not in Bush’s term then shortly after. I only hope the Shia can establish some semblence of order themselves. Over time, I suspect this will come back to haunt us.
Posted by: Greg at January 4, 2005 02:50 PMWhat is being missed my the majority of Americans, who in the opinion of many around the world, is the lack of information being afforded them by our corporate (and hence political) run media. Our populace has been deliberately misguided by the likes of Fox News and those who believe that deception and misinformation will lead this administration through the quagmire that it has created in Iraq.
An open mind to search out the truth about the directives of Corporate America and the oil magnates who do not need the Iraqi oil, but simply the power to control the price at the expense of not only our troops, but also of the true democracy our nation was once proud to embrace. American citizens need to see through the fog laid out by our media, get off the sofa and out of their comfort zone, and realize that the propaganda machine that is in place in today’s corporate run media will only continue to divide our nation.
We need to openly speak out against the atrocities of this administration and make our voices heard that the greed on which this war was built was a fundamental mistake and that the neo-conservative Republican agenda to control the world through the pretence of Democracy will eventually bring this country to its knees. The need to inform ourselves about the truths that are being withheld from us is paramount. Speak out and be heard…that is true democracy in action.
Posted by: Matthew Hopkins at January 4, 2005 06:56 PMChops, setting a date certain, makes sense. Whether it fall in 6 months or 18 months, is not as important as establishing a stop loss mechanism and expecting regional nations to take some responsibility for the consequences of neighboring regimes. Iraq has got to become a regional management issue for the Middle East and Europe and cease to be a management issue for the U.S.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 5, 2005 05:37 PMChops-
The setting of dates is good goal oriented behavior, but I think Bush values it way too much, as he does other cut and dried measurements of situation. Diplomatic, military, etc. And while it gives him a certain stubborn advantage in carrying out his agenda here at home, it creates serious strategic problems.
If you make it very clear what you want, an enemy can prepare the means to keep you from what you want, or give it to you in a way that gives them the advantage.
The feel of a situation is often more important than the official status. You can say you have sovereignty, but the meaningful feel of that depends quite heavily on how much control you actually have over the territory in question.
I would say there’s no sense in having the moral victory of not letting the terrorist win in knocking us off the election schedule, only to loose the battle to introduce legitimate and trusted government to Iraq. Successful mayhem during that process will embolden the terrorists, and disappoint those we would have follow us in the region.
As for the Brothel idea, that’s too artsy for me. My brother might go for that, he’d like that sort of European style story.;-)
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 6, 2005 01:15 AMFirst off, this discussion is moot since Bert’s right - Iraq will effectively be on its own by the end of the year. Mission accomplished!
Hypothetically though, a better goal would have been some minimum number of insurgent actions per month before holding an election, rather than some arbitrary date. It would have meant a larger force and time commitment, but Americans were ready for that even if our leadership wasn’t.
If Bush was trying to achieve some kind of region-wide change, the half-assed manner in which he went about it guaranteed its failure.
BTW, if you want to know how to win a counter-insurgency war, the lessons learned when the British actually won one in Malaya are still valid. The basic lesson being security: The people will not help you if you cannot protect them.
