Against The Odds
Andrew Sullivan reminds us that he doesn't "support any timetable for withdrawal from Iraq" which "puts [him] in the excruciating position of supporting a war conducted by an administration whose key players are manifestly incompetent and reckless." In addition, he doesn't "have an alternative master-plan to win either" and while there are various policy shifts he would support, "as long as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are running the show, I cannot say I am optimistic that such a sane strategy will be employed or that it will succeed."
They say the definition of insanity is trying the same thing and expecting different results. But, as Andrew also says, I suspect his point of view on this is fairly widely held in this town by the saner Republicans as well as your hawkish Democrats. It's also a little crazy.
I mean, consider what we're contemplating here. Twelve months from now the war will have lasted about as long as American participation in the second world war. Twelve months after that there will still be six months left in the Bush administration's lifespan. In January 2009 when a new administration takes office, the war will have been going on for five and a half years, virtually the entire span of time between Hitler's invasion of Poland and the Nazis' surrender. With the difference being that Andrew doesn't believe we'll actually make any serious amount of progress between now and then.
This gets us toward what is, I think, a fairly fundamental point of political morality -- it's wrong, seriously wrong and seriously irresponsible, to support military action that has no likely prospects of success. It's one thing to ask young men and women to kill and die for a good cause. It's another thing entirely to ask them to kill and die as a token of your support for a good cause.
Clearly, my first-choice scenario for the world would be one in which the nominal goals of American Iraq policy -- killing terrorists, preventing a civil war, building a stable liberal democracy -- are achieved. But I can't support the war -- can't say it was a good idea to launch it, and can't say I think it's a good idea to continue it -- precisely because I don't think the war is accomplishing its goals, don't think it stands a good chance of accomplishing them, and don't think it ever did stand a good chance of accomplishing them.
Under the circumstances, a symbolic stand in favor of what the war's supposed to be about is, in practice, not much more than a stand in favor of continued torture and pointless bloodshed.
This is one of the best posts you have written. It is what I expect. More of this please, with less whale butchery and clear cutting thank you.
(Just say no to 0 ratings. Especially from petey, the ratings spammer.)
June 23, 2006 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unsurprisingly, I totally agree and think this is a pretty cogent summary of the key issue. It always baffles me that war supporters can't get their heads around the simple premise that our moral obligations are necesarily mitigated by our practical capabilities.
When talking about this with war supporters, I often use what I call the "Scissorhands Example": If a child is falling from the top-floor window of a very tall building, I have a moral obligation to try to catch the child...unless I'm Edward Scissorhands, and my attempts to catch him will inevitably impale and kill him with a certainty far greater than that resulting from a fall alone.
(The analogy, of course, extends further; I could probably resort to multilateral persuasion, and begin begging normal-handed passersby to catch the child. Of course, the child's rapidly accelerating velocity does present a grave and growing threat that requires immediate...oh, never mind.)
Anyhow, maybe there's a good slogan here: "America: The Edward Scissorhands of International Democratization."
June 23, 2006 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good post. Sullivan continues to believe the world exists solely as the object of his tedious agonies of moral judgement. However . . .
"Twelve months from now the war will have lasted about as long as American participation in the second world war."
Try six.
June 23, 2006 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously. "Let George Bush and his gang of fools run out the clock to 2009 and hope the situation, which has been getting steadily worse, magically gets better," is indefensible.
Bush isn't Lincoln. He's not firing the generals and demanding success. He's Buchanan, who in the face of secession hid in the oval office and hoped that the problem resolved itself. Heck, history may even judge Buchanan more kindly than Bush--Buchanan didn't cause secession, and he abdicated his responsibility to deal with it when he had only a few months left in office and his successor was already known.
Bush started this war in Iraq three years ago, on pretenses we have since learned he knew were false. The war has not achieved what he said it would achieve. With three years left in his Presidency, he still refuses to say what victory would look like, and he still refuses to replace any of the Administration leaders who spearheaded this debacle.
How can anyone suggest that three more years of this are the least bit acceptable? The very least any sane pundit should be calling for is some step, ANY STEP, that will force some kind of accountability on this insane administration.
June 23, 2006 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Between Pearl Harbor (12/7/1941) and VJ Day (8/15/1945) there were three years, eight months, and a week. The US invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003. We're up to three years, three months, and three days at this point. So, in fact, it'll be just over five months until we reach the "Can you believe that FDR beat back the Japanese and German Empires in this amount of time and you cannot even win a war in Iraq???" threshhold.
Of course we'll still be way short of the Vietnam precedent.
The problem is that the rationale for the war in Iraq has never been honestly explained to the American people. The excuse agreed to "for bureaucratic reasons" was WMDs, but everybody in the know at the time knew that Iraq did not have WMDs of note with which it could threaten the US. The intent all along was to invade and occupy indefinitely.
The fact that this has turned out to be much harder than previously anticipated, and that the leaders are finding it increasingly difficult to pass off a bogus justification for the war, can be interpreted as evidence that their plan was flawed in all respects from the start.
June 23, 2006 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm as anti-war as they come, but I can't support immediate withdrawal right now. I subscribe to the we-broke-it theory. If we left right now it would be disastrous for Iraq. We need to prop up the new Iraq government, al-Maliki seems to me like someone we can work with. The only hope was Kerry's more-international-support possiblity, but with Bush that isn't going to happen.
Is it more immoral to stay in Iraq and kill more Americans (and Iraqis), or to pull out and watch the country descend into civil war and anarchy? Anybody remember what happened when we let Afghanistan descend into anarchy in the 90s?
I'm with Sully on this one. As the Clash said, "If I go there will be trouble
And if I stay it will be double", though in this case I think it's vice-versa.
June 23, 2006 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Killing terrorists" ??
Your argument is seriously flawed on two counts.
First, it is not possible to "kill all the terrorists." The policies of this current administration are producing the kind of desperation and fanatacism that breeds the practices lumped under the rubric of "terrorism."
Second, what we are doing in Iraq is NOT war. It is OCCUPATION. I think that there is little doubt that many in the US would turn hostile, and indeed murderous, against a foreign occupation, particularly one that has engaged in the sort of callous brutality that we have inflicted on ordinary Iraqis.
If you want a template for what the US would look like under your scenario, look at Israel after 30 years of occupation of Palestinian land. The major difference, of course, being that we won't have a benefactor willing to supply us with unlimited amounts of capital to sustain our unsustainable practices of occupation abroad and tax cuts at home.
June 23, 2006 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Winning the war would require a massive escalation on our part that is inconceivable right now. We don't have enough troops over there to win, never did, and never will. The only voice out there calling for escalation is McCain, and he's not pushing for it seriously.
Bush (or rather the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld troika) lost the war due to strategic and military incompetence. They invaded Iraq with 1/3 the troops needed to win. Gen. Batiste (who commanded the 1st ID in Iraq, then turned down a promotion so he could resign his commission and be free to speak out about against Rumsfeld) has said we needed 380,000 troops, plus the Iraqi security forces, to impose security and prevent the insurgency at the start of the war. We had less than a third of that.
I can't imagine that fewer troops would suffice now that we are facing a mature insurgency.
We are not entitled to win just because we had (arguably) good intentions, or because we are the US and we always win, or because losing would have horrible consequences.
June 23, 2006 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is an excellent post. I was against the war before it began. Once it started, I hoped we could finish the job and leave quickly. I don't believe Bush ever had the intention of leaving, however. His goal was to create a permanent presence in the region for the U.S.
The debate going on in Congress and the media is the Reps accusing the Dems with wanting to "cut and run." Unfortunately, I haven't heard a strong, coherent Dem response. The choice becomes one of a fuzzy, hazy, undefined notion that maybe in time we can "win" something versus a pullout that amounts to surrender. The Reps are hoping that voters would rather opt for a slim chance of winning than a sure thing of losing.
This probably works better than a lot of Dems would like to admit. Convincing people that there is no chance to "win" -- i.e., that Iraq is a lost cause -- is not a good campaign strategy. Even if it's Bush's fault. Nobody wants to admit that America is losing. Denial runs strong in our national character.
I think Dems may need to frame Iraq another way. At least to be successful at the ballot box. Let's just say that the mission has been accomplished (to coin a phrase). Saddam is out. A new government is in place. Our military forces have done all that can be done. It is time for us to give Iraq back to the Iraqis. Our presence is no longer needed.
Perhaps the short version of this is "declare victory and punt." I know nobody wants to say we have won, for obvious reasons, but I think it helps get us out faster.
Trying to convince the American people that Iraq is a lost cause is as unproductive as arguing that we need to stay to win.
The parallel with Vietnam may be growing. By 1967 or '68 nobody thought we were going to "win." We were just looking for a way out, without admitting defeat. From that time on, tens of thousands of Americans died.
We're at a similar point with Iraq. We can't win, but we can't admit we lost.
Dems need to convince Americans not that we've lost, but that the job is done. Time to come home. And thanks to the men and women who've served our country so well.
June 23, 2006 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Dem position should be that they will end the war quickly and with honor, unlike the Republicans who have no idea how to end the war.
Only the Democrats can end the war. That's the winning theme I think.
June 23, 2006 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
They say the definition of insanity is trying the same thing and expecting different results.
The thing is, the U.S. strategy in Iraq has not stayed static. Up until sometime around mid-2004, the plan was to simply try and crush the insurgency and then get out.
After that, it changed to training a decent Iraqi army that actually manages to shoot back. Success in this department has been mixed. There are some decent units, some bad units, and severe problems with logistics (units in Al Anbar often go unpaid for months at a time, for example).
The plan for dealing with the insurgency has also changed. It has gradually gone from one of trying to beat it altogether to trying to split off the Ba'athists and Al Qaeda and (at least as far as I can tell) try to negotiate a settlement with some of the more secular nationalist elements. Again, results have been mixed, with the strategy failing pretty spectacularly in Ramadi and working decently in some of the western parts of Al Anbar.
Likewise, the way of dealing with Al Anbar was changed from a policy of moving from place to place, essentially playing "whack a mole" to one of clearing and holding starting from late summer of 2005.
That the U.S. (and Iraqi government) has been trying the same thing over and over again in Iraq and continually failing is a canard. What's happening is that the U.S. is working to adapt and the Ba'athists and jihadis are also adapting. Which is what you would expect in a guerilla war.
June 23, 2006 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly, my first-choice scenario for the world would be one in which the nominal goals of American Iraq policy -- killing terrorists, preventing a civil war, building a stable liberal democracy -- are achieved.
But they ARE being achieved. You'd have to be blind not to see that.
The Iraqis have a Consitution approved by the people, and have a fully elected representative government, a first for an Arab Muslim country. That IS PROGRESS - unless the term "progress" is meaningless.
What Matthew really is complaining about is that progress is just not fast enough for him. He is demanding that Iraq not only have a Constitution and an elected government, but that it ALSO have Western European liberal values AND that all of those things be accomplished while the country remain free of any violence by those who oppose those goals. As if accomplishing that could be done in 3 years or 4 years or whatever short time frame Matthew chooses today.
Matthew wrote the other day that "Democratic transition is really, really hard, especially for countries well-endowed with natural resources." Well, YEAH... DUH!!! But that doesn't mean - as Matthew seems to think it should - that we ought to whine that it's just too hard, and thus we should abandon all hope of making some progress. On the contrary, it means that we need to go into the project with an understanding that it is going to take a lot of hard work to make even a little progress, and redouble our efforts.
June 23, 2006 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
A true Nixonian. Only a "new leadership will end the war and win the peace in the Pacific."
The American voting public as Charlie Brown? Probably right.
June 23, 2006 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Iraq War equivalent of VJ+1 will be the Sunday after Thanksgiving, in my reckoning.
Good thing major combat operations were over by May 1, 2003. But the minor combat operations ever since have sure been hell.
June 23, 2006 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with that argument is that the country's already descending pretty deeply into civil war and anarchy, with us there, as the Khalilzad cable reminds us.
What we have to ask ourselves is, if Iraq has reached this point despite our existing policies, what change could we make that would stop the bleeding? If we have no answers to this, it's time to - at a minimum - retreat to our 'enduring bases' where we can be in a position to prevent neighboring countries from invading (although it might be a blessing if they did).
FWIW, I don't think anybody's seriously suggesting an immediate withdrawal, though some are suggesting that the withdrawal should begin immediately.
June 23, 2006 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...our moral obligations are necesarily mitigated by our practical capabilities."
So lets stop talking about withdrawal.
June 23, 2006 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we start asking the war supporters (even the reluctant ones) the following question:
"How many more US servicemen and women do you expect to die in Iraq before we withdraw and what eventual goal will these deaths achieve?"
If the war falls to the next president, given the current fatality rates of roughly 2 soldiers/day, it appears that the "stay the course" message is committing another 1000 US soldiers to death.
What do they imagine these deaths will accomplish, exactly?
P.S. It breaks my heart to ask this question focused exclusively on the soldiers and ignore the Iraq civilian deaths associated with the occupation. But many war apologists seem to only care about US soldier deaths and since they claim to care about the troops, I want to know what strategic or geopolitical advantage they believe we are attempting to gain by following policies likely to result in the deaths of a thousand more US soldiers.
June 23, 2006 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo, RT. This whole "pro-war" vs. "anti-war" thing is meaningless.
The question isn't if you like war or not. The question is what do you think we should do about this particular war at this particular moment.
At this point, we've got Republicans who are so clueless as to what to do next that they are going on the record saying we should support amnesty for people who are killing American troops. They are incapable of understanding the difference between amnesty as part of a negotiated peace settlement between all parties and a amnesty as a sign of a floundering Iraqi government selling out its American allies in order to stay in power. They have moved far past wishful thinking and into the realm of outright delusion on this war.
We've been there more than three years, and it's getting worse every day. Someone needs to tell this President to "fish or cut bait." Republicans have had three years to do it. They won't. It's time we found out if Democrats will.
June 23, 2006 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The American voting public as Charlie Brown?"
My moron theory.
You're insulting Charlie Brown.
Lucy as neocon?
June 23, 2006 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If we left right now it would be disastrous for Iraq."
And if we leave in a year, two years, five, ten, how do you KNOW it won't STILL be a disaster for Iraq?
Your argument boils down to one simple concept: stay until we don't need to stay - with NO definition of either WHAT will indicate we don't need to stay or HOW to get to that point.
It's the same crap argument Bush makes - as Josh has said, "Stay forever."
"We need to prop up the new Iraq government"
This is part of the problem. If the government NEEDS "propping up", it's a disfunctional government that WILL fail the instant we leave.
"Is it more immoral to stay in Iraq and kill more Americans (and Iraqis), or to pull out and watch the country descend into civil war and anarchy?"
This is NOT the issue. The issue is is it more moral to stay in Iraq and kill US troops and Iraqi civilians (100-250,000 to date and counting), or pull out and LET THE IRAQIS handle their own problems?
Sure, "we broke it." But it is ENTIRELY the Iraqis's problem to rebuild it. The US does not and never did have the ability to do that. Only the Iraqis can deal with their own culture, their own politics, and their own security. Either they will or they won't.
Our presence there has not been demonstrated by anyone to be helping that process, and has been argued cogently by many, including the members of the current Iraqi government, to be hindering that process.
June 23, 2006 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But they ARE being achieved. You'd have to be blind not to see that.
The Iraqis have a Consitution approved by the people, and have a fully elected representative government, a first for an Arab Muslim country. That IS PROGRESS - unless the term "progress" is meaningless."
What part of "puppet regime" that wouldn't last five minutes if the US left plus civil war plus insurgency plus corrupt regime using torture and execution squads don't you comprehend?
This is "progress"?
You'd have to be BLIND not to see that Iraq is a disaster and it's getting worse daily.
Stop listening to Fox "Happy News" and start reading the international press.
June 23, 2006 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Under the circumstances, a symbolic stand in favor of what the war's supposed to be about is, in practice, not much more than a stand in favor of continued torture and pointless bloodshed."
And a symbolic stand against the war is, in practice, not much more than a stand against Democratic governance in the next generation of our lives.
Someone ought to be paying attention to the politics of the Dolchstosslegende.
I know it's hard to feel as morally self-satisfied that way, but politics ain't about feeling morally self-satisfied.
June 24, 2006 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Especially from petey, the ratings spammer."
If memory serves, I've rated a totality of two comments of yours, both on the same thread. There were no other ratings from me on other folks' comments on the thread. To the best of my recollection, I've never rated comments of yours in the past.
You might want to re-look up your definition of spammer if that's the basis on which you're accusing me.
-----
You, on the other hand, responded to that by mass rating a huge number of my comments, without any relevance to their content.
I'd say your behavior might be a wee-bit closer to the definition of a spammer.
Cheers.
June 24, 2006 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink