Our view on war in Iraq: Surge's success holds chance to seize the moment in Ira...

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/12/our-view-on-war.html</p>
<div class="inside-copy">
<div class="inside-copy">

</p>

</p>
<h3>Our view on war in Iraq: Surge's success holds chance to seize the moment in Iraq</h3>
<h4>Instead, Democrats are lost in time, Bush lowers the bar for Baghdad.</h4>

Iraq remains a violent place, but the trends are encouraging.</p>

U.S. and Iraqi casualties are down sharply. Fewer of the most lethal Iranian-made explosive devices are being used as roadside bombs. In community after community, Sunni groups who were once in league with al-Qaeda have switched sides and are working with the U.S. forces.</p>

On the Shiite side of Iraq's sectarian chasm, something similar is happening. About 70,000 local, pro-government groups, a bit like neighborhood watch groups, have formed to expose extremist militias, according to Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations.</p>

But as much as facts have changed on the ground, little seems to have changed in Washington. There are plans to withdraw some troops next year, but there is no clear picture of the endgame in Iraq. How long will troops be needed? Exactly what do we expect success to look like? Will we leave behind a permanent presence?</p>

None of the answers are any clearer than they were when the news began improving. In fact, they seem fuzzier.</p>
</div>
<div class="entry-more">

On the Republican side, the White House has been busy making excuses for the Iraqi government's failure to move toward national reconciliation (which is the goal of the troop surge), and it has lowered the benchmarks for success to the level of irrelevance. That translates into reduced accountability, continued dependency and an open-ended commitment. Lowering the bar for the Iraqi government sends a message that Baghdad can enjoy security paid for in American lives, and reconstruction aid paid by America's taxpayers, and ignore its responsibilities.</p>

Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, seem lost in a time warp. They could try to impose new benchmarks that acknowledge the military progress. Instead, too many seem unable or unwilling to admit that President Bush's surge of 30,000 more troops has succeeded beyond their initial predictions. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who in the spring declared the war lost, said last week that "the surge hasn't accomplished its goals." Anti-war Democrats remain fixated on tying war funding to a rapid troop withdrawal. Yet pulling the troops out precipitously threatens to squander the progress of recent months toward salvaging a decent outcome to the Iraq debacle.</p>

What's needed is acknowledgment that the surge is achieving what was intended: not complete military victory but enough stability to make political compromise possible. What's missing is Iraqi will to take advantage of the success.</p>

So far, the Iraqis have missed just about every benchmark that Congress set early this year and Bush promised to enforce. Too often, they just don't seem to be making an effort. Those benchmarks included passing laws on sharing oil revenue, allowing more former Baath Party members into official jobs and holding provincial elections.</p>

To some degree, the positive "bottom up" developments mitigate that failure. The Sunnis, for instance, have abandoned their political isolation and now want to participate in the government. But the Shiites' persistent resistance to letting them in makes a case for new, meaningful benchmarks, not trivial certainties such as simply passing a budget, one of the requirements the White House has set.</p>

Beyond benchmarks, the military progress has been paralleled by a less aggressive stance by Iran, creating another opening. Iran has enormous influence in Iraq, particularly in Shiite regions. More aggressive diplomacy of the kind advocated by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group would help &mdash; even a regional conference such as the one the United States recently hosted in Annapolis, Md., to restart Middle East peace talks.</p>

If the United States has learned anything over the past few years of war, it's that apparent calm can change in an instant. (Just Wednesday, car bombs killed at least 41 people and wounded 150 at the main market in the southern Shiite city of Amarah.) The U.S. military is stretched thin and cannot maintain 160,000 troops in Iraq beyond next spring. So now, before the surge starts to unwind, is the time to refocus the war effort and begin defining the endgame, while leaving the timetable flexible.</p>

The Iraq war, which has cost so much in U.S. lives and treasure, deserves far more than muddling through with fingers crossed. It demands a credible, long-term plan that will allow the United States to get out in a way that preserves U.S. interests in the region, not a political stalemate that forces it to stay in.</p>
</div>
</div>

 

Re: Our view on war in Iraq: Surge's success holds chance to seize the moment in...

USA Today has not been friendly toward the war or the Bush administration.</p>

Interesting.</p>

</p>

 

Re: Our view on war in Iraq: Surge's success holds chance to seize the moment in...

The war is one of a few things on which I disagree with Ron Paul. In general, I strongly support the Libertarian premise that our military should be almost entirely stationed within our borders.</p>

But over the course of decades of Wilsonian Diplomacy, we've created a lot of problems in a lot of nations all over the world that we cannot just ignore. We installed dictators in South America (Banana Dictatorships) and propped up despots in various places, including the Middle East. When Marcos was overthrown in the Phillipines, we took him in (and all the cash he stole from his people). We likewise propped up the Shah of Iran until he was overthrown and then took him in.</p>

Over the course of the Cold War, we propped up governments and NGOs that were friendly to us and that opposed the USSR. In fact, we supported Osama Bin Laden and his compatriots in their insurgency against the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by the USSR.</p>

That was the status quo, our foreign policy. It is no wonder the Peoples of those nations grew up hating us. To just withdraw our troops from the world all at once and without undoing the wrongs we've done doesn't seem viable to me. For example, we propped up Saddam Hussein during the 1980s (in the war against Iran), and he and his sons would have surely ruled over the people of Iraq in a most brutal manner had we not intervened.</p>

What Iraq represents to me is the first step in leaving the world a better place and undoing the wrongs we've done. We took out Saddam and his sons, and at that point I was personally satisfied to bring our troops home. I even voted for the only candidate in the race, Michael Badnarik (LP) who would have done so (Kerry wouldn't have, and obviously Bush wouldn't have and didn't). Some call the war "unjust" while I think the real injustice would have been to have left Saddam and his sons in power after the evils they'd already demonstrated. The blood of Iraqi citizens would always be on our hands, because we supported Saddam to the point he couldn't easily be deposed, and between the US and our allies even sold him the weapons he used to commit mass murder and genocide.</p>

I'm pragmatic enough that once the decision is made by our leaders to occupy and rebuild a nation like Iraq (or Kosovo), that we have to stand by the decision and back it to our fullest. From where I sit, griping about each and every negative thing about what's gone on in Iraq has only prolonged and worsened the situation - the only people that benefited were partisans who gained politically. If we all just got behind the effort and resolve ourselves to completing what we started, it'd be over sooner and I think that's what most people really want, deep down.</p>

The pragmatism in me says to look at history and learn what we can from past efforts. We occupied Japan for over a decade, and similarly Germany. To expect to rebuild Iraq in any shorter time is absurd. I'm ashamed of the impatience on our part that we expect good things to happen overnight or withing 2-5 years. After 10 years, I'd start to question our efforts, but at that point, we'd have paid out in blood and treasure for our past mistakes and have given it every opportunity we gave to places like Japan and Germany and Kosovo.</p>

Those who whine about things for partisan gain compare Iraq with Vietnam because it raises some stigma about failure and it being a quagmire and all that. The Bush administration studied FDR and Truman and how they rebuilt Japan and Germany when we occupied those countries. Yet it's our own Civil War that I see as resembling the situation in Iraq.</p>

The Civil War did not go well for the North for most of the time. The South was actually winning until they went on the offensive and invaded the North. Gettysburg is one of the most famous and bloodiest battles of the war - it was fought in Pennsylvania, fairly deep in the North. The "liberal" Northeast press bitterly reported all the failures and harped against the president. Lincoln fired several generals along the way who were charged with prosecuting the war, until he found the one who could win it. Once the war was won, the question was whether to occupy the South or to bring the troops home. Once the occupation was decided upon and enacted, there was a great insurgency in the form of the KKK, lynchings, and so on (these resemble the current militias and killings in Iraq, IMO). The occupation featured something resembling De-Baathification (which resembles De-Nazification of the occupation of Germany period) - it's even written into the 14th amendment that no former Southern political or military leader could ever hold a similar position again.</p>

The Reconstruction of the South featured military occupation by the US military for decades. During that time, there was the insurgency, but there was also the flourishing of the actual people who were occupied. Black men and women became doctors and lawyers and judges and senators, and so on. Things turned for the bad when the occupation ended, though, and we've suffered for more than a century because of it (separate but equal, Negro Leagues, etc.).</p>

So there's the very long view of things if you accept the Civil War comparison. There is a very big difference, though. Iraq is not the USA nor part of it as the South was. The concept that Iraq must develop a strong central government that can create a rule of law and otherwise work for the general welfare of its people is key to our being able to remove our troops without the negative effects we had in the post Civil War era here.</p>

In a roundabout way, I get to the answer to your question. We are certain to be there for at least 10 years (from the start), and it could go much longer.</p>

 

Re: Our view on war in Iraq: Surge's success holds chance to seize the moment in...

Kosovo is a good example of the USA coming to the aid of a lot of people and saving lives. As the only superpower in the world (China is rising, maybe they're a superpower by now), there's not really anyone else to turn to. I suppose you could build coalitions of smaller military nations each putting up a couple thousand troops, but that's really hard to organize and then manage. So the world looks to us for that kind of help.</p>

The question of building bases overseas and manning them with military personnel is interesting. If we're invited, it seems OK. But if it's Saddam doing the inviting, then it's not really OK with the people. The people also change their minds over time. So I am not all that sure. The benefit of overseas bases, aside from being a buffer to prevent some conflicts is that it gives our servicemen (and women) the opportunity to see the world in exchange for their service.</p>

While we saved tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives (Muslim lives, I add) through our intervention in Kosovo, my only criticism is one of priorities. At the same time, there was a horrible genocide going on in Rwanda and given the choice of saving millions or saving thousands, you think you should save the millions.</p>

</p>