I’ve been pondering this for a number of days.<\/p>\n
Let me step back a moment. One of the biggest problems in the debate over Iraq, and what the US should do next, is partisanship, intentional and unintentional.<\/p>\n
On the intentional side, there are too many people in the political leadership of this country whose positions are shaped on the issue because of what it means to them and their party and their political future specifically. The Bush White House is far more interested, at this point, in its future place in history, I believe, than in coming up with the best course for the US or Iraq, and so is unwilling to do anything that will look like a loss, instead leaving hard decisions up to the next hapless inhabitant of the White House. Too many Republicans see their party’s fortunes rising or falling (mostly falling, of late) with the White House, and so have toed the line with the President, even while muttering about him in public. <\/p>\n
Conversely, too many Democrats are taking positions based on what will benefit their party, their run for the White House or other office. If Bush or his cronies somehow magically came up with the best !plan! evah!<\/em> for resolving the Iraq issue, they would perforce oppose it because of what it would mean in November 2008.<\/p>\n Listening to both side’s Presidential candidates debate on the topic, as well as listening to the more partisan shills in Congress pontificate about it, demonstrates my point.<\/p>\n But beyond intentional partisanship, there is unintentional partisanship, something that goes beyond counting coup in political debates. That is this: George W. Bush has squandered, if not poisoned, the trust, good will, and prestige of his office for too many people, and they are reacting to the situation in Iraq based on that. In the case of too many of the dwindling Bush supporters, the reaction is fear<\/strong>. Oh my God, we’ve been supporting this lunatic and his coterie! To admit that, though, is to admit my complicity in what’s happened, to take responsibility for the blood and pain and death. And to admit we’re being run by an Administration that is, at best, insane, at worst, the darkest enemy the Republic has ever known But that’s way too scary and daunting and shameful — so I’ll simply stuff it back into the mental closet and wave the flag some more.<\/em> If Bush suggested that Osama Bin Laden was, in fact, an alien out to eat our children and use their organs for building an army of cyborg robots, they would nod nervously and wave their flags and send in their checks and hope the clock runs out before Bush does something even more stupid.<\/p>\n Conversely, on the open opposition, the reaction is anger and hatred. George W. Bush is a lying bastard, and anything he does, says, or proposes is dead wrong, and I will oppose it on that basis with my dying breath.<\/em> As a result, if Bush suggested that crossing a busy boulevard on red was dangerous and just what the terrorists wanted folks to do, too many people’s knee-jerk reaction would be to do so just to spite him, to demonstrate their contempt and disbelief, to not give him the satisfaction of following a suggestion of his. The hatred of the messenger has rendered the message not only suspect, but prima facie <\/em>wrong.<\/p>\n Which brings us to Iraq. Too many Bush supporters are behind the President’s Iraq policy (to the extent they can be), not because it is the right thing to do in their opinion, but (in the case of too many GOP Pols) because of the harm to the party and its November 2008 chances (as they see it) if they break ranks and oppose it on its merits.<\/p>\n Similarly, too many Bush opponents are against the President’s Iraq policy, not because it is the wrong thing to do, but because Bush is the one touting it — which, to be sure, makes it automatically suspect to some degree, but even if there are doubts, one gets the sense that even if it’s precisely <\/em>the right thing to be doing, the pols sense blood in the water and oppose it for political gain, and the populate so mistrust and are angry with and even hate Bush that they won’t support him on it.<\/p>\n Both of which are exactly the wrong courses to be taking in evaluating what the US should next be doing in Iraq. Supporting the President because he’s the President, or because it’s the Republican Thing to Do, is just plain crazy. Knee-jerk dismissal of anything that comes out of his mouth, while emotionally satisfying, is also crazy (after all, even a broken clock is right twice a day).<\/p>\n In other words, I think too much (not all, but too much) of the opposition to the war in Iraq is based on political opportunism by the Dems in power and blood-weary hatred by the population that the Bush Administration has manipulated, lied to, and screwed over too many times.<\/p>\n This is not to say that the war has not been mismanaged from the get-go (regardless of what you believe about the run-up to it, its motivation, etc.). This is not to say that the cost in lives — American and Iraqi — has been trivial (though compared to other armed conflicts that the US has engaged in, or even in terms of common causes of death in our own nation, the numbers are passingly small for all the passion they engender). But the reaction is an emotional one, not a rational one — and the results of that will continue to affect this nation for decades to come.<\/p>\n Proposals for what to do in Iraq seem to fall into three groups:<\/p>\n The Petraeus plan faces huge obstacles. First off, it plays directly into the hands of (if not being dictated by) Bush, by vindicating his actions (the Surge, the ongoing presence) and his rhetoric. That does not mean it is the wrong thing to do<\/em>, however. Yes, I’d hate to see that smug little smile on Bush’s lips even one more time by “going along with him.” But that’s not the basis for foreign or military policy. It can’t be, otherwise we’re as shallow as folks who claim we went to war because Dubya wanted to show up Dad (or, conversely, punish Saddam for trying to bump Dad off) say Bush is. Hardly a stirring example to follow.<\/p>\n Reports of how successful the Surge has been are mixed. I honestly don’t know. I would feel better if they weren’t being seized upon (by both sides) for whatever political and emotional advantage they accrue. And, of course, such things don’t function with a smooth curve, especially over a matter of a few months. It’s quite reasonable, in a situation like Iraq, to say that it will take several months to a year to really make a perceptible, sustained difference. And the big problem is that — for partisan and emotional reasons — nobody wants to wait that long, especially since it was sold as a — well, short-term surge of troops that we’ll know whether it’s working in just a few short months. Chalk up another bait-and-switch lie to the Bush column, which makes it all the harder to do anything that seems to follow their cue.<\/p>\n The draw-down\/mission-shift plan sounds good, and supposedly it’s modeled more after how the Brits have managed their part of the country (without necessarily going into whether the situations are analogous). The problems here are multifold, though. First off, as incompetent as the White House has been in its management of this conflict, I have zero faith in letting Congress micro-manage military and foreign policy strategy. Ze-ro. There’s a reason we have an executive Decider (as awful as he may be), and while I have no problem with trying to work around him in various ways, substituting a political committee of 500 seems pretty hopeless.<\/p>\n Secondly, I have a sense that this is more a matter of “Let’s do something different in the hope of a quick fix” than an actually well-thought-out plan — again, doing anything that looks like “staying the course” is a political and emotional non-starter, so let’s think of something different, especially something that pulls out troops (not necessarily any faster than the Surge draw-down). <\/p>\n Third, such a strategy has no more “guarantee” of success (what Petraeus and Crocker have been asked for multiple times this week) than the President’s plan.<\/p>\n The last option — bring ’em all home now — is emotionally (and politically) very pleasing. It was a bad war, a badly run war, our kids are dying, let’s pull the plug and bring them home safely. The only problem is that it ignores two things.<\/p>\n First, we can’t just beam everyone up to the mothership. The logistics of pulling out over 100K US troops, plus their materiel, in an organized fashion, and safely, are tremendous — bigger, in some ways, than it was to insert them in the first place. It would almost certainly take over a year, more like two, to do so, and that assumes that conditions don’t immediately or progressively go to hell in Iraq while we’re doing so (an assumption that flies in the face of the counter-assumption in the reasoning behind leaving, i.e., the Iraq situation is falling apart, out of control, and increasingly dangerous).<\/p>\n Second — and this is the money question, the one element I’ve not heard anyone raise in the grilling of Petraeus and Crocker, nor anyone from the “bring ’em home” crowd address: What happens in Iraq next?<\/em><\/p>\n The answer is obvious, as we see a combination of post-Saigon Viet Nam and genocide Rwanda and any number of other geopolitical bloodbaths over the last fifty years. If, as is posited, the Iraqi government cannot step up to the plate yet, if the security forces are inadequate, then removing US troops will mean a massive resurgence in sectarian violence, in Iranian-sponsored violence, in terrorist attacks, and we’ll see what a real Iraqi civil war looks like. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions will die, millions more will be displaced, and — well, hell, it’s exactly the sort of situation that everyone will want the UN to step in to stop, but it probably won’t (both because the US will be out of the picture and nobody will want to bring them back in and nobody’s going to go in there without the UN).<\/p>\n Millions dead. Millions displaced. That’s the cost. And that ignores the impact on surrounding states, on petroleum supplies, etc. I don’t see any other outcome possible. That’s the cost of bringing our troops home. And it will be doubly our fault — both for starting and mismanaging the war in the first place, and then for leaving when we couldn’t figure out how to “win” it and it became politically expedient to do so.<\/p>\n I keep seeing Saigon. And damn Bush for finally raising a few weeks ago the Viet Nam analogy after years of denying it, because now that, too, becomes politically deadly to agree with.<\/p>\n I do not know the right answer. I do not know how to get the Iraqi politicians to play nice, or their security forces to stand up or their police to not be riddled with corruption and death squads. I don’t want any more US troops to die. (I don’t want to give Bush any satisfaction, or chance to blame the failure in Iraq on anyone else, but that must be a secondary issue.) But I also don’t want to see millions more dead and Iraq in turmoil, especially since it’s our fault<\/em>. Or, hell, it’s Bush’s fault, but he did it as the leader of our country, which means we all have a moral responsibility <\/em>to try and do something about it other than call him an incompetent idiot. And, yes, the Bushies have used the “you break it, you buy it” metaphor, too, which may make it poison but doesn’t make it any less real.<\/p>\n Will keeping troops in forestall an eventual collapse and chaos and civil war \/ genocide in Iraq? I don’t know. But pulling them out almost certainly will, and until we can figure out what to do about it, pulling out now is as irresponsible as the way the rest of the war has been managed. These things don’t have quick answers. In fact, thinking they do (or pretending they do) is how Bush got us into this mess in the first place.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I’ve been pondering this for a number of days. Let me step back a moment. One of the biggest problems in the debate over Iraq, and what the US should…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[10,9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11367","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-geopolitical-brouhaha","category-politics-law"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":3895,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2003\/03\/17\/synchronicity_3.html","url_meta":{"origin":11367,"position":0},"title":"Synchronicity","author":"***Dave","date":"Mon 17-Mar-03 10:14am","format":false,"excerpt":"Something else that 17-18 March is an anniversary of. I don't think it's intentional that war is about to break out in Iraq, on the fifteenth anniversary of this event....","rel":"","context":"In "Geopolitical Brouhaha"","block_context":{"text":"Geopolitical Brouhaha","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/geopolitical-brouhaha"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":9372,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2006\/07\/19\/the_real_world.html","url_meta":{"origin":11367,"position":1},"title":"The real world is a messy place","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 19-Jul-06 11:06pm","format":false,"excerpt":"Everyone wants there to be white hats and black hats.\u00a0 The white hats are the good guys -- which includes us (whomever we consider us to be) plus the folks...","rel":"","context":"In "Geopolitical Brouhaha"","block_context":{"text":"Geopolitical Brouhaha","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/geopolitical-brouhaha"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":131669,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2016\/09\/28\/trump-and-iraq-two-and-a-half-lies.html","url_meta":{"origin":11367,"position":2},"title":"Trump and Iraq: Two and a Half Lies","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 28-Sep-16 10:56pm","format":false,"excerpt":"1. Trump denies he was pro-war before it started. The only real evidence refuting this is a Howard Stern article where Trump gives a half-hearted \"I guess so\" sort of answer as to whether we should invade Iraq. It's about as wishy-washy as anything I've ever heard from Trump's lips,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/57d1b75b170000ac34c788cd5B15D.pngimgmax%3D660.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/57d1b75b170000ac34c788cd5B15D.pngimgmax%3D660.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/57d1b75b170000ac34c788cd5B15D.pngimgmax%3D660.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":5050,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2003\/11\/11\/that_politics_t.html","url_meta":{"origin":11367,"position":3},"title":"That politics thang","author":"***Dave","date":"Tue 11-Nov-03 7:51am","format":false,"excerpt":"I've been quiet, mostly, on political issues of late (church politics aside). And on geopolitical issues, too, since they've been coopted (by all sides) into the let-me-just-gouge-my-eyes-out-now 2004 Presidential Campaign....","rel":"","context":"In "Blogging & Internet"","block_context":{"text":"Blogging & Internet","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":6001,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2004\/06\/09\/october_surpris.html","url_meta":{"origin":11367,"position":4},"title":"October Surprise","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 9-Jun-04 10:34am","format":false,"excerpt":"So, if Osama Bin Laden really is captured in October, or if terrorists really pull off an attack on US soil at that time, or (sufficiently accepted) WMDs really are...","rel":"","context":"In "Politics & Law"","block_context":{"text":"Politics & Law","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/politics-law"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":403,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2003\/04\/18\/the_ties_that_b.html","url_meta":{"origin":11367,"position":5},"title":"The ties that bind","author":"***Dave","date":"Fri 18-Apr-03 2:25pm","format":false,"excerpt":"Driving home from work yesterday, NPR trumpeted a headline -- \"Multimillion dollar contract in Iraq awarded to an engineering firm with ties to the Bush administration!\" What vile, new perfidy...","rel":"","context":"In "Big Business"","block_context":{"text":"Big Business","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/big-business"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11367","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11367"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11367\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11367"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11367"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11367"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n