The American People Get It -- Why Can't Bush?
When it comes to Iraq, the American public clearly gets it. A new ABC-Washington Post poll released today shows a growing belief among Americans that the United States is getting bogged down in Iraq. Four in ten Americans polled think our position today is analogous to our position in Vietnam thirty years ago. Three-quarters of all Americans believe the number of American casualties is unacceptable, and almost 6 in 10 believe the war was not worth fighting. The public knows that things are not going well in Iraq -- but does the Bush administration?
It is, of course, difficult to ignore developments in Iraq, which have steadily gone from bad to worse. Since the new Iraqi government was formed in late April, the insurgency has really taken off -- at great cost and consequence for the country. In May alone, more than 700 Iraqi civilians were killed and thousands more wounded as a result of bombings, killings, and executions. Two-hundred and seventy Iraqi security forces were also killed that month, as were 77 American soldiers and marines. All told, 12,000 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives in the last 18 months as a result of the insurgency -- as have more than 1,500 Americans in uniform. (The most complete data on casualties and almost anything else on Iraq can be found in the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index.)
Many hoped that the elections last January would bring an end to the fighting. Indeed, Bush still touts the vote as the reason for optimism about Iraq's future. But it took three months for the varied factions to agree on a government -- and that was just to decide who would get what position. Still left to do is the difficult work of governing -- rebuilding a destroyed infrastructure, creating business opportunities and jobs, and, of course, establishing some basic sense of security. And then, of course, there is the little matter of the constitution -- which is where the real bargaining begins about who will get what power when.
As it has been from the start of this war, restoring public security has been the critical imperative for everything else. Yet, for all the money and effort devoted to training Iraqi security forces, maintaining a semblance of security is still largely America's responsibility. According to Sen. Joe Biden, who returned last week from Iraq, of the 107 battalions of police and military in uniform (or 160,000 men overall) "only three are 'fully operational,' meaning able to perform largely independent operations. Twenty of the battalions are 'partially operational,' or able to perform missions in tandem with American units." The rest, Biden said, are in various states of training and have varying degrees of utility. As a result, American military commanders in Iraq told Biden that US forces had to remain in Iraq at current or even higher levels for another two years.
You wouldn't know any of this if you listened to Bush -- who seems to be hearing only the good news (of which there is some) but none of the bad news (of which there is plenty). Of course, there hasn't been an American ambassador in Iraq since John Negroponte came home to run the intelligence community. (A hearing on the nomination of Zal Khalilzad to replace him was held yesterday.) Rumsfeld also seems to have tuned out -- he now spends a couple of hours a week in video conference with American generals in Iraq rather than the hours each day that he used to devote to the largest sustained US military operation (with the largest number of casualties) since Vietnam.
But now the American people are increasingly clamoring to be heard. They know this is a war that America cannot possibly win -- only the Iraqis can. So we need to put all our effort into training Iraqi police, paramilitary, and military forces. That must be America's number one, two, and three mission. And we must make clear that when Iraqis decide and vote on a constitution, our job there will be done, and our troops will come home.
So, having critiqued Bush as insincerely democratic, the Dem "foreign policy professional" position on Iraq is that we leave immediately after the new constitution is agreed to, even if that's against the express wishes of the democratically elected Iraqi government, and even if that would leave the Iraqi democrats to be sliced up by terrorist groups. Outstanding.
June 8, 2005 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, Mr. Hero, your position is that American troops should stay indefinitely? If so, how about enlisting, so that the troops currently there can be relieved? If you're too old, then how about encouraging your younger family members to enlist?
June 8, 2005 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, but to set an arbitrary deadline of six months from now is, given what we know, simply a way to put a figleaf on a shameful betrayal of all those Iraqis who ignored bombs to come out and vote. It would certainly vitiate any Dem claim to "really" care about democracy, unlike the hypocritical Bush administration.
June 8, 2005 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democracy will probably not stabalize and consolidate in Iraq while American troops are there--not because it can't, but because stabilization and consolidation can take years if not decades when the process takes place under ideal circumstances and where there is a history of democracy previously, at least that is the story we get from the empirical record. Setting an arbitrary time table doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, especially when it comes to battling the insurgency--if they know when they will have to deal only with a weak, ill-prepared and inexperienced Iraqi force rather than US troops they can simply bide their time or be even more selective, knowing all they need to do is agitate and cause just enough uncertainty so that consolidation is not complete before the departure of US forces.
As far as Bush not knowing what is going on or getting information that paints a different picture I think this is a bit disingenuous--he is a politician, a statesmen--what would we expect him to say? Things are going poorly, I am having second thoughts, the Iraqi forces are ill-prepared to take over, security is minimal in many parts of the country, the insurgency isn't in the 'last throws'...what sense would this make? Surely we can't be expecting that our leaders would be completely forthright with us because its normatively the right thing to do...this is naivete at its worst. Every president must project an image of confidence about a policy to which the political stakes at home and abroad are so closely tied--from Kennedy to Nixon, from Reagan to Clinton this has always been the case.
June 8, 2005 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing "arbitrary" about setting a performance metric, and there is certainly zero chance - none - of a constitution being written and voted on in six months.
The important questions are about what are the correct performance metrics. The hubristic certainty of the bush administration that after a cakewalk and a little greeted as liberator action we could pretty much leave (30-40K troops by september '03 was the planning assumption) has now resulted in such a mess that it is incredibly difficult to decide exactly what those metrics are.
The costs of the war are astonishing and mounting: it's not just the direct costs of the war. It's matters like the collapse of recruiting, the extended tours of duty resulting from stop loss orders, the failure to retain young officers, the opportunity costs of attention, the lack of a ready reserve should we need actual military deployment, the borrowed dollars to pay the bills. This is what the public is grasping.
As for Bush, i don't expect him to be LBJ, pouring over maps of North Vietnam. I don't expect him to be Nixon, thinking about geostrategic questions. But i also don't expect the man who declared major combat operations over 2 years ago to act like everything is just going swimmingly and according to plan when it so manifestly is not....
June 8, 2005 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps it is worth reading to the end ... I believe that we should make clear that our troops will be withdrawn as soon as the constitution has been agreed and voted upon, which could be as soon as the end of this year.
June 8, 2005 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If a majority in Iraq wants and needs us to stay indefinitely to help them to deal with an angry and alienated minority, then I suppose one could argue that supporting "democracy" means that our troops should stay.
On the other hand I would argue were we to hold out to the Shia majority the prospect that we are willing to stay as long as they want us, we would be enabling and even encouraging that majority turn its back on compromise with minority groups. It would be a glaring contradiction to, in the name of "democracy," encourage the dominant ethnic group to build an Iraq based on our military support rather than one based on some sort of internal compromise that would offer the prospect of them to finding a way to live in peace with their minority.
It all depends upon what you mean by 'democracy' I suppose. The difference here is between what is called "constitutional democracy" and something that could just be called "majority rule". But of course the Iraqis are just getting started in writing their constitution, and if we let them know that they will always be able to count on our troops to hold the country together they may write and ratify a very different constitution than they would if they thought that while we were in some sense "giving them a republic" it would then be up to them to "keep it" (i.e. without the help of our ongoing military intervention).
June 8, 2005 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, my dears, I only give a damn about "public opinion" when it agrees with my position. Words put into the mouth of Ivo Daalder
As Walter Lippman argued, the "public" is too badly educated, ill-informed, feckless, and stupified by the press of quotidian affairs to have an opinion about foreign affairs that anyone responsible for a country's foreign policy should take into account.
June 8, 2005 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This debate raises an interesting question from the domestic policy discussion areas: Is it better to oppose without offering concrete alternatives, thereby maintaining unity, or is it better to propose constructive alternatives through messy internal debate. The Duke is sympathetic to the "unity" of opposition on domestic issues, but he would argue -- particularly with regard to Iraq -- that singlemindedness becomes dangerous simplemindedness when it comes to foreign policy.
Why?
Having said all of that, the Duke does not (yet) have a comprehensive proposal on Iraq. However, he is convinced that those arguing for a "withdrawal trigger" place too little weight on the significant national security interest in a stable Iraq.
-- The Duke
June 8, 2005 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just as we don't relinquish foreign policy decisions to the French, neither should the deployment of our military be dictated by the Iraqi government.
Let's get out of there asap. How? Democracy Rising offers a responsible (and too slow for my taste) three step plan.
June 8, 2005 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have always been an optimistic nation - we think every problem has a solution, usually one that we dictate. It is increasingly clear that in Iraq there is no solution in sight, and anything that we would dictate fails to be a solution before even being tried. If we stay there the insurgency, whch is aimed at getting us to leave, will continue, probably for many years. But, if we leave, the insurgents, being armed and trained will probably take over, leaving Iraq with Saddam II in charge. But, if we stay without a deadline for leaving, the Shiites will rule Iraq behind our bayonets, further aggravating the insurgency. But, if we set a deadline for leaving, the insurgents, largely Sunnis, will just wait until we leave and then take over, leaving Iraq with Saddam II in charge. In fact, the only thing that really changes if we leave and leave very soon, is that our military will suffer fewer casualties in Iraq. That is why we should set a short timetable for a working government to be in place, a government military in operation, and then leave as fast as we can remove our troops and contractors. The mistake that dooms Iraq was made when we invaded Iraq. It isn't correctable.
June 8, 2005 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Bush Administration knows precisely what is happening in Iraq. They spin it another way. To suggest that they "don't get it" is ludicrous. They absolutely get it, they just don't care; they are pursuing an agenda and will continue to do so until its pursuit is no longer advantageous.
June 8, 2005 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as the admin. goes, they can't admit the truth because Iraq is their legacy. It's somewhat similar to what LBJ did with Vietnam. Everyone around him could see the situation was bleak, but he had invested so mush into it, he just couldn't admit defeat. And no, I'm not comparing Bush to LBJ in terms of how good they are as President. At that level, politicians have to have such massive egos, they can't admit when they are wrong. As for the plan in Iraq, I think we should intensify our efforts to train the police, militia, and military. Then, when the government is in place, we should bring home half the troops, leaving there special forces and units that are uniquely trained to capture terrorists and fight the insurgency. At some point, the Iraqis have to own their country. They have to fight for it if they expect us to.
June 8, 2005 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
As was the case from the beginning of the serious reconstruction effort, some time in the fall of 2003, the barriers to success in Iraq are partly A) the difficult environment (history, geopolitics, group and individual grievances), B) technical competence (or incompetence) with regard to post-conflict reconstruction, and C) political considerations and ideology in Washington DC. Of those, C) is the most important and tragic.
The real "alternative policies" that anti-internationalists accuse the left in America of not providing are all non-starters in Washington DC. Iraq does not have to be a failure. But Iraq will continue to be a failure under the current Administration and national leadership. Would America agree to unilaterally fully funding a genuinely multi-lateral security and reconstruction effort in Iraq to the tune of an additional, say, $500 billion? $200 billion? $100 billion? If you take the foreign policy experts at the CFR at face value, how important is Iraq to America's national security? How important is national security to America? Would America be willing to spend contract money on Siemens instead of Halliburton? Would America be willing to make concessions on trade, the ICC, Kyoto, et al. in order to encourage greater international participation in Iraq? To encourage greater cooperation among other nations on which America depends for her security? Of course not. But luckily the question is moot.
The problem is that American's tend to view important decisions as binary: yes or no, right or wrong, good or evil. The world is not binary. Security is not binary. Politics is not binary. Except in America, where, by national definition, there must be winners and losers.
Iraq "belongs" to America. Some in Washington and their kneejerk jingoists in your exurbs and so-called Heartland see that as a good thing. The more enlightened in America correctly see sole ownership of Iraq as a nightmare scenario. As long as the former exist, America will continue to dig its own hole in Iraq. Until the latter can regain power in America, expect little progress.
PS - what ever happened to the great American pragmatism we used to read about? You know, the risk taking, trial and error secret to American success? What happened to curiosity and experiment?
June 9, 2005 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is a politician, a statesmen--what would we expect him to say? Things are going poorly, I am having second thoughts, the Iraqi forces are ill-prepared to take over, security is minimal in many parts of the country, the insurgency isn't in the 'last throws'...what sense would this make? Surely we can't be expecting that our leaders would be completely forthright with us because its normatively the right thing to do...this is naivete at its worst. - Anonymous Hero
"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering." - Winston Churchill
June 9, 2005 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
My problem with this article is that, while its facts are good, it proceeds from a false premise. In order to determine if the war against Iraq is going well by the standards of the Bush administration, do you not have to first know why Bush decided to invade Iraq? And given Bush's penchant for lying, could we credit the actual reason if we heard it.
I do not accept the 'bad intel' theory of why we invaded Iraq. For that matter, I can't even accept that's we actually engaged in a 'War on Terror'. Letting bin Laden go pretty much killed any small belief I ever had in that as a Bush motivation. Bush and Co knew Iraq had no WMD. Bush and Co knew Iraq was no threat to us. Bush and Co knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It simply suited Bush's purposes to invade that country, just as it suited Ronald Reagan's purposes to invade Grenada (the reasons given for which were equally spurious). I do not know whether Iraq was invaded to give Western multi-nationals control of Iraq's oil, or to establish a strategic base for our military, or for some obscene religious war. But the war is going just fine if one of those three things is the reason Bush chose to invade Iraq. It's only going badly if the purpose had something to do with the defense of the USA.
The Bush Administration 'gets' Iraq. They simply choose to continue lying to the American people about it. To the extent that the American people accept those lies, and extend their reasoning from those lies, it's the American people who do not 'get' what's going on in Iraq.
As for only 'Iraqis can win this war', it's Iraqis who are fighting against us in this war. We've set up a Vichy government in Iraq, and it's not at all surprising that we face a quite determined native resistant. (I use the analogy advisedly. Most of the French accepted the Vichy government during WWII. Many of the few who did resist did so quite violently.) It would be more accurate to say that only an Iraqi faction perceived as representing Iraqi interests, as opposed to American interests, can win in Iraq.
Lastly, the Bush administration has, quite deliberately, plunged Iraq into civil war, is building 11-14 military bases in that country, and has constructed a 3000 person spy center in the capital. (I concede we call it the US embassy.) You don't build a dozen military bases for a temporary stay. Any practical reading of the Bush administration's actions reveals the intent is to turn Iraq into a permanent staging area to project American military power in the region. Or vast stupidity. Either way, how can the author, in any sane universe, write...
'And we must make clear that when Iraqis decide and vote on a constitution, our job there will be done, and our troops will come home.'
There is NOTHING in any of our actions to date, that indicates that our intentions on entering Iraq had anything to do with bringing that country a constitution, or democracy. That's just Bush propaganda. Now that America has brought the hell of civil war to the Iraqi people, America's job there will be done when the civil war is over. Which will be when we either defeat the resistance, very tough in a fourth generation war, or when the entire country is united against us (the war won't be 'civil', then).
June 9, 2005 5:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. I have always thought the real reasons to invade Iraq were three:
1. to get our own gas station
2. to crusade against the infidels
3. to one-up Poppy Bush
Add to this Bush's constitutional inability to admit a mistake and the current situation isnt hard to explain at all.
June 9, 2005 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
two fallacies here
1. "democratically elected iraqi govt." presumes that the process is in fact democratic and that minorities arent trampled on - neither of these is obvious
2. The civil war has ALREADY started. The "sliced up" thing you are referring to is already happening.
My main objection though, is that our presence is making things worse, not better. It is an article of faith rather than a fact that our departure would make things worse. Maybe they would look worse for a while (or not) but there is only one sure thing that would result from our departure - OUR soldiers would stop getting killed, and we the US taxpayers would stop paying close to a billion a day for the priviledge of having our soldiers be daily targets for people who hate us and want us gone.
June 9, 2005 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink