The Essential Tension
Today's Washington Post editorial on Iraq raises a good issue and then really doesn't follow through:
The president also didn't speak candidly enough about the primary mission the United States now has in Iraq, which is not "hunting down the terrorists" but constructing a stable government in spite of Iraq's sectarian divisions and violent resistance from the former ruling elite. It's harder to explain why Americans should die in such a complex and ambitious enterprise than in a fight with international terrorists, but that is the case Mr. Bush most needs to make.
The trouble is that this isn't just a rhetorical ambiguity, it's a substantive one. It's easy to imagine a situation emerging where Iraq has a new constitution and a new government elected under that constitution. The elected government has security forces at its disposal that are capable of holding Islamist terrorists at bay. Nevertheless, as with many developing nations it can't exercize effective control over 100 percent of its territory and Iraq consequently still suffers from a lot of terrorism. The question becomes -- is that victory?
If the mission is to put a stable government in place, it is. If the mission is to hunt down and kill terrorists, then it isn't. That ambiguity has important implications for how long we should stay. The debate over whether or not setting a deadline would do more harm than good is interesting, but basically secondary. You can think a deadline would be a bad idea and still think the troops should be brought home fairly soon -- once an elected government is in place and we think it's strong enough not to be toppled by the insurgency. But if you think the purpose of the deployment is to stick around until all of the bad guys are dead then you're talking about a war that's open-ended not just in theory (i.e., no firm deadline) but in practice as well. That question -- do we want to assign ourselves a mission that will let us leave soon, or do we want an impossible mission that will extend forever -- is the really important one. Debates about timetables versus checklists versus "stay the course" are much less important than the debate about what sort of a course it is we're trying to stay.
Comments (14)
I vote for "none of the above". The course we are trying to stay is one that leads to Iraq becoming the American power base in the Middle East, with large fully staffed military bases, with an embassy big enough and well enough defended to govern that base, and with a totally compliant puppet "government" in place ready to do whatever we ask. So, how long will that take?
June 29, 2005 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
To pacify Iraq at the beginning of the war would have required 500,000 Americans, plus keeping the largest part of the Iraqi Army intact. To pacify Iraq now might well require upwards of 750,000 men, for at least a short-time. 135,000 Americans and/or 160,000 ill-trained and ill-equipped Iraqis is not going to cut it.
You want tension, look to the gap between means and ends looming there.
Of course, Bush has not articulated a goal, even now. So, complaining about inadequate means to achieve it may be misplaced. One might suspect that Bush wants a permanent U.S. military presence, and an Iraqi government weak enough to require it, and nothing else really matters to him, except perhaps the availability of billions to feed the corrupt at Halliburton and their ilk.
Pro-war liberals can only ponder the folly of supporting a President in war, who had goals of his own he felt best kept private, and no willingness to accomplish the goals he articulated in speech after speech.
June 29, 2005 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's really chilling is that of your two alternative victory conditions, "killing all the bad guys" is the only one that could conceivably have justified the war.
June 29, 2005 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 29, 2005 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a quote from Harold Meyerson at the American Prospect on the implication of Bush's speech last night.
Okay.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that means - in actual hard fact - that Bush spent over 1,700 American lives and billions of dollars to make America less safe.
Seems to me that from now until there is peace in the Middle East the Democrats needs to say the following in response to any question about national security:
This meme of incompetence has the advantage of being true. On any area of discussion: national security, the economy, Social Security, education, etc. the Republicans are incompetent.
They may have "good hearts" but they lack the expertise to actually achieve what they say they want to achieve.
Sadly, Exhibit B of Republican incompetence will be when the next bomb explodes on American soil. (Exhibit A is 9/11.) At that point our Army will be tied down in Iraq fighting the terrorists there instead of here, except of course when they are here.
Above and beyond using "incompetence" as a sledgehammer to beat up Republican candidates is an actual hard truth. The TRUTH is that Republican incompetence is - in fact - placing the lives of American citizens at risk.
Understanding that the lives of American citizens are actually at stake, the Democrats need to approach everyday with all of the passion and fury that is necessary to sustain the lives of one's countrymen. Because, in fact, the continuation of Republican incompetence in Washington will continue to place the lives of ourselves, our children, our families, and our friends at risk.
June 29, 2005 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush's speech failed to answer the one question that, to date, the administration has never answered: what does victory look like?
June 29, 2005 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a non sequitur. By definition, terrorists resort to terrorist tactics precisely because they don't have the strength to threaten the government through other means.
The question is whether the government will be strong enough to withstand the threat from the tens of thousands of well-trained ex-military insurgents who have at their disposal almost unlimited amounts of ammunition and willing bodies. At this point there's almost no chance of anything less than a full-fledged civil war.
What's more, this whole "deadline" debate should make any serious American sick with disgust. There is no reason a timeline can't be associated with benchmarked triggers, the way that Kerry (good job!) has outlined it. With a benchmarked apporoach, there's no opportunity for the insurgents to wait it out, and there's no opportunity for the Iraqi government to use us as a permanent security crutch. Kerry's is the best approach, and one that any serious analyst would endorse (if not the specific benchmarks).
June 29, 2005 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Construing the two issues seems an easy way for Bush to claim victory and justify the presence of permanent bases. Last night he claimed numerous instances in which the insurgency failed to stop the transition to democratic governance. I suppose when the permanent government is seated he'll be able to claim a final verdict of success on the project. Now, that's obviously going to be a false and incompete measure, but these guys will take what they can get.
"Because the United States answered the call of liberty in Iraq, elections were held and a permanent, free, and democratic government was seated. Because of the brave sacrifices of our men and women, Iraq, like Afganistan, is a victory in the war against the terrorists and killers who brought the battle to our shores on 9-11."
But The foreign terrorist threat is never going to go away, even if Zarqawi and company lose support among the Sunni hardliners and ex-regime elements there will always be some element large enough to give them support they need. And I doubt the Iraqi government is going to be half as willing or a quarter as able to fight them, kill them, expel them. So it's a threat, or at least a plausible threat that never goes away.
"Some have suggested that the victory of democracy in Iraq means we can withdraw all American troops. Make no mistake, this is a short-sighted view and doing so would embolden the terrorist who seek to topple democracy in Iraq and kill both innocent Iraqis and Americans here at home. I know the desire to see our American fighting men and women return is strong. I see the families of our brave soldiers, I understand the sacrifice our troops and their families make. But just as Iraq is a forward base of freedom in the Middle East, so American bases will be in Iraq. The small number of troops who remain will assist the Iraqi armed forces as they..."
It's about perpetual victory and perpetual threat. We "won" Iraq before we even invaded. But we could have "lost" it every step of the way, yea until some poor Democratic president decides to cut and run.
June 29, 2005 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"do we want to assign ourselves a mission"
Who is "we"? The people who have authority to do this have been and will continue to exploit ambiguity.
I think high-minded policy dreams are just that -- dreams. Opponents of Bush and his disaster should think about political advantage at home. That's what Bush thinks about.
June 29, 2005 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
A tree planted in a soil of lies will bear bitter fruit.
Bush will not define success because it will also define the real reasons he invaded. The WMD threat was a cover story, fighting terror was a crock, and bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people was an afterthought, and certainly not Plan A.
Ask yourself, would Bush et al have invaded Iraq if there were no oil there? Of course not. Success for Bush must include secure access to Iraq's oil. This requires a stable government that is not allied with Iran, and with sufficient military strength to protect pipelines, refineries and oilfields, suppress insurgents, and fight off external threats.
There are reasons why the U.S. is building military bases for a long term presence in Iraq. The intent is probably not to "occupy" but to protect our interests in Iraq's oil. Bush will not admit to the U.S. public that it his intent that we stay in Iraq for a very long time to protect our oil supplies.
June 29, 2005 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saddam was our best hedge against fundamentalists ruling Iraq. The government we install (after the Kurds break away) will be far more sympathetic to Islamic terrorists than Saddam was. He may have been a brutal sonofabitch but he was our sonofabitch. A democratic Iraq will not be as close to the United States as it will be to Iran.
June 29, 2005 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first question of Project Management:
"What does 'done' look like?"
Unanswered. By our MBA President.
June 29, 2005 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are exactly correct. The "mission" is military control over a large reserve of oil, now that Texas is running out. The rest is a smokescreen.
June 29, 2005 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the bushites had a plan they'd have been shoving in our face and down our throats until we had to vomit. They are simply wingnutting it. They haven't got a clue. All the preznut is doing is stalling for time until 06. Thats when he'll make some karl Rover conceived gesture to win the elections for Repigs then he and rover will begin again until 08 then he will pass the pile of Sh*t on to the next guy.
June 30, 2005 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink