I hate writing posts like this. Since I don’t advocate an immediate “turn tail and run” the left climbs all over me. And since I don’t say everything is going swimmingly in Iraq and that we’re on the verge of victory, the right thinks I’m a traitor.
The fact of the matter is, most commenters here and elsewhere on blogs don’t do nuance. Those few (and you know who you are) who carefully read what I write and either agree or disagree to varying degrees, I am most grateful for and therefore, I am dedicating this post to you. Your opinions are the only ones I care about anyway because most of us have made a similar journey with regards to our beliefs and insights into what is going on in Iraq.
Even those of you who started out opposed to the war and who have commented intelligently here by critiquing our strategy and tactics, have caused me to think about where I stand. And of course, those of us who supported the war, still support the mission to varying degrees, but have looked on in frustration and horror as the Bush Administration, the Pentagon, and our generals on the ground in Iraq have made mistake after mistake, blunder after blunder and brought us to where we are now – the edge of the precipice – we all have had our eyes opened and beliefs challenged by practicing a little independent thinking.
I have come to the conclusion over the last few days that, due to domestic conditions here in the US and the inability of the Iraqi government and society to deal in a timely manner with the political problems that must be solved if Iraq is to have a viable, multi-sectarian society the United States is on the verge of suffering a humiliating defeat in Iraq. A perfect storm of almost non-existent public support for our war aims coupled with US pressure on the Iraqis to shoehorn radical changes in their society, their constitution, and their politics into an unrealistic and inevitably, an impossible time frame will ultimately doom our efforts to take any military success achieved via the surge and turn it into progress on the political front.
If we had 3 or 4 years and the political will to maintain troop levels where they are now, then we would have a real chance to make the difference. But our commitment to the military aspects of the surge will be measured in months, not years. By early fall, the race for President will be in full swing and the obvious lack of political progress in Iraq will increase calls for some kind of redeployment – probably from even some Republicans. And it doesn’t appear that the insurgents nor al-Qaeda in Iraq are interested in dialing down their vicious attacks on civilians. They will continue to maximize their attacks, killing as many Iraqis per attack as possible to keep the body count high and the American press fixated on the blood. The continuing large body counts from these attacks will also give the Democrats a ready made benchmark to claim that the surge isn’t working, even if other, less publicized aspects of our strategy are showing signs of success.
This eye opening article that deals exclusively with the political situation in Iraq as it stands now not only rings true but shows how the ticking clock of American involvement may have caused us to overplay our hand in some instances while allowing some elements in Iraqi politics to exploit our vulnerability to the time factor:
U.S. military commanders say a key goal of the ongoing security offensive is to buy time for Iraq’s leaders to reach political benchmarks that can unite its fractured coalition government and persuade insurgents to stop fighting.But in pressuring the Iraqis to speed up, U.S. officials are encountering a variety of hurdles: The parliament is riven by personality and sect, and some politicians are abandoning Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government. There is deep mistrust of U.S. intentions, especially among Shiites who see American efforts to bring Sunnis into the political process as an attempt to weaken the Shiites’ grip on power.
Many Iraqi politicians view the U.S. pressure as bullying that reminds them they are under occupation. And the security offensive, bolstered by additional U.S. forces, has failed to stop the violence that is widening the sectarian divide.
One of the biggest obstacle appears to be the chicken everyone believed as long ago as the immediate aftermath of the invasion who would eventually come home to roost; the Kurds and their desire for a large degree of autonomy. The Kurds have made no secret of their desire for as much independence as they can get away with, being restrained only by the US desire not to agitate Turkish feelings about the Kurds setting up a separate state. The Kurds appear willing to bide their time until the Americans are no longer a factor in Iraq. This is evident in their opposition to the oil revenue distribution law that was passed by the cabinet back in March but is languishing in Parliament as members wrangle over many of the details:
Politicians from the semiautonomous Kurdish region say measures in the law that would take undeveloped oil fields away from regional governments and have a new national oil company oversee them are unconstitutional.“Iraq, frankly, does not have the money to invest in oil fields,” said Ashti Hawrami, the Kurdish region’s minister of natural resources. He added that the Kurds are disputing four annexes to the draft law that would dilute their ability to exploit oil in their territory. If the draft isn’t “watered down,” Kurdish regional authorities will not support it, he said.
The Kurds also don’t trust the central government to distribute oil revenue, saying it has been behind in payments in other instances. Some have suggested that a fund be set up outside Iraq to dole out that money. “We are asking for our fair share and guarantees that we will receive it,” Hawrami said.
Sunni Arabs and some secular Shiite politicians, however, stand firm that the central government must control oil production and revenue distribution. “If we want to keep the unity of Iraq, the best way is to keep the oil under the authority of the central government,” said Adnan Pachachi, a secular Sunni with the Iraqi National List party of former prime minister Ayad Allawi.
And the oil revenue law isn’t the only necessary political development that Prime Minister Maliki must address if our current strategy is to achieve the desired results:
“The Americans should take into consideration the Iraqi situation and its complications, not just their own internal politics,” said Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish legislator.Ten weeks into the security plan, even as U.S. lawmakers propose timelines for a U.S. troop withdrawal, there has been little or no progress in achieving three key political benchmarks set by the Bush administration: new laws governing the sharing of Iraq’s oil resources and allowing many former members of the banned Baath Party to return to their jobs, and amendments to Iraq’s constitution. As divisions widen, a bitter, prolonged legislative struggle is hindering prospects for political reconciliation.
“They are all up in the air,” said Ahmed Chalabi, a secular Shiite who is chairman of Iraq’s Supreme National Commission for De-Baathification. “They are certainly not going to be produced in any timetable that is acceptable within the context of the current political climate in the United States.”
Issue after issue that the Iraqis absolutely must deal with if reconciliation is to have a chance and disaster avoided is being bottled up by political forces with differing agendas and competing interests. Couple that with the mistrust, the hate, and the decades of brutality experienced by the people, and it appears to me that as bravely as our troops are performing now and will no doubt continue to perform, the fact is they are “buying time” for a government that has already decided that our commitment is coming to an end and that all those competing interests will have to make the best deals possible without the Americans.
The problem, is that it is liable to get very bloody once we depart. Michael O’Hanlon from the Brookings Institution:
[I] think [the consequences] would probably be…the civil war getting anywhere from two to ten times worse in terms of the rate of killing. I think ultimately, the Sunni Arabs would be mostly defeated, and they would essentially be ghettoized in the western part of their country without much oil, very angry at the world, and therefore even more likely to collaborate with al Qaeda. As you know, one of the hopeful things right now is that the Sunni Arabs are not collaborating as much with al Qaeda, and in some cases, fighting them out in al Anbar Province. But I think that dynamic would probably change for the worse, and you would see that region become to some extent a sanctuary for terrorism, and of course, there’d be a risk of regional war. I don’t know how to score the probabilities on that, but some risk of a greater regional war. And Iraq itself would be in mayhem probably for many years to come, looking sort of like Somalia or maybe the way Afghanistan did in the 80’s and 90’s. I think that’s the most likely outcome. You know, I’m not saying that it would destabilize the entire Persian Gulf, but there would be some chance of a regional war, and a very high chance of genocide inside Iraq.(HT: Powerline)
Is it time then for a Plan B? Can the President and the Democrats lay aside their hostility toward one another and come up with some kind of a strategy that will allow us to continue to fight al-Qaeda while trying to protect the Sunnis from the worst of what surely will be an attempt by many Shias to make Iraq a “Sunni free” country? It seems to me that only our presence in Iraq would prevent Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia and even Jordan from intervening militarily to prevent a slaughter of their co-religionists. That, of course, might draw Shia Iran into the mix and it would be a Middle East free for all.
Time enough for playing the blame game later. After all, we’re still a year and a half away from the 2008 elections – plenty of time for the Democrats to remind voters who got us involved in Iraq in the first place. For now, the imperative is preventing unmitigated disaster. It may involve giving in to the Democrats and withdrawing some of our troops and redeploying some others. Is the President a big enough man to do this? Or is he more in love with his legacy and would therefore resist changing course to reflect the reality of what is happening on the ground and in the councils of government in Iraq?
I have no confidence in either the Democrats or the Administration. Both parties have played politics with the war for so long that now that we have this disaster staring us in the face, it seems ludicrous to think that they could work together in the national interest to avoid the worst of it. And perhaps the absolute best we can hope for at this point; to take our lumps while still being able to keep Iraq from falling apart and descending into chaos while preventing the blood being shed there from spreading outward to affect the rest of the Middle East.
This will not be accomplished without compromise by both parties as well as some extremely frank talk from the President to the American people about the dire straits we find ourselves as a result of the failure of his policies. Only then – and with the help of the Democrats – will it be possible to convince enough of the American people that it is absolutely vital we maintain some kind of presence in Iraq.
So the question ultimately rests with the President and, to a lesser extent with the Democrats; will politics trump the national interest? Will this stiff-necked President who has refused to admit many mistakes in the past be capable of demonstrating such largeness of character?
He has risen to the occasion in the past. He must do so again.
UPDATE
I have posted “A Clarification or Two” to this article here.
6:56 pm
Ba-bye. I will add you to the surrender monkey column. Good luck with your blogging career.
9:21 pm
Kat:
Thanks for making me look like an effing soothesayer.
10:16 pm
Check out Scott Malensek’s Plan B:
A New Direction
RBT
10:22 pm
I have to say, with deep regret, that I am coming to see the war the same way, Rick. It is so discouraging. I keep thinking of Iraqis my husband met and enjoyed the aquaintance of during his trip into Iraq, just before the war began. Some still are in touch. Most have fled the country for Jordan or the U.S. Just a couple of weeks ago the husband wrote a letter of recommendation for one of the Iraqi engineers he was working with there and is here in Michigan now, trying to remain in the U.S.
I wish the president had been able to keep us focused on the mission and had let Rumsfeld go sooner. I wish he had listened to others, too, like McCain and Graham.
My husband is a Vietnam vet and is furious of the left’s defeatism. He is so afraid of a long term slaughter of the innocents in Iraq after we leave, if success is not achieved.
My hope is running out.
12:07 am
Rick,
Sounds like I’m one of the guys this post was aimed at. Overall I liked it and would agree that the fundamental problem we face is a time constraint. The public was simply not prepared for the level of commitment required because, for whatever reason one wants to provide, the administration and senior military leadership did not plan for the multi-year commitment of the bulk of US ground combat power. It’s really as simple as that. A quick war with a relatively painless transition was what people expected and those expectations were not met. Failure to meet the people’s expectations in a democracy is dangerous when one embarks on a war of choice, even if the war was justified. And make no mistake, it was a war of choice, no matter what one’s view of it’s necessity is or was.
I wish I could be sad about the negative political currents in the country at the moment, the mindless partisan bickering, but it’s difficult when the Iraqi people are facing oblivion and several of my friends are laying their lives on the line in what appears to be an increasingly futile attempt to keep them out of the void. So many in this country, particularly the political class, are wholly ignorant of the situation we face in Iraq, how terms like “victory” and “defeat” become increasingly muddled to border on meaninglessness. Kat seems a perfect example – one who cannot fathom the difference between surrender and disengagement. Others on the right ask “if America loses, then who wins” without realizing that not all wars have victors. The left is equally ignorant suggesting that Iraq cannot come together until the US leaves. Gen. Petraeus is perhaps one of the few who really understands the nature of the conflict:
This “war” (another term that has lost meaning) is exceedingly complex and difficult, though I, too, believe, many of our objectives could be met given time. But we don’t have time. Almost six months ago, I wrote about preparing contingencies in case our adventure in Iraq unravels. At the time, I proposed choosing a proxy to mitigate the effects of a full-blown civil war and provide a means to defend American interests in the region and argued that the US should consider and prepare for such contingencies.
More than ever, it’s time to look at contingencies again. In that regard I recently ran across this valuable piece of scholarship from the Brookings Institution. After reading it, I must reevaluate my earlier proposal to support a proxy as an Iraq contingency plan. Everyone should read the report because with each passing day the chance of meaningful success in Iraq lessens and the specter of a bloody regional ethnic and sectarian war grows. With each passing day, in my mind, it grows more important to work on preventing the worst of what can happen. Neither the Republican stay-the-course victory plan, nor the Democrat get-out-now plan address the likely future in Iraq, nor do they address how to preserve some semblance of stability and American influence in the region. We cannot afford to have this debate and pull a plan for this contingency out of our collective fourth point of contact days, weeks, or even months before it happens. We must plan for it NOW. The Brooking’s analysis is an excellent starting point and I would hope that everyone reading this will read it, or at least read the executive summary. It’s honestly worth your time.
Here are the posts/articles again that I linked to above in case the text-links don’t work:
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11013
http://www.nonpartisanpundit.com/2006/11/in_case_iraq_fa.html
http://media.brookings.edu/MediaArchive/fp/jan2007iraq_civilwar.pdf
2:12 am
“Nuts!”—Gen. Anthony C. McAuliffe, December 1944
2:42 am
Rick,
This is one of the few discussions of the situation in Iraq that gets past the meaningless talking points that both sides in Washington throw at each other, and tries to understand what is really going on in Iraq and what we could really do about it.
While I’m sure the partisans on both sides will start throwing their talking points at you, I think you should be congratulated for thinking about what is best for the country rather than what is best for your political party.
7:35 am
Very heady, realistic and reasonable analysis. I prefer to be less pessimistic, but the current morass seems beyond resolution because the major factions (here and there)are strident and uncompromising. If the President has established one thing, it’s that he’s not a Plan B thinker or leader. He’s a hedgehog, and that’s not changing. There may be more flexibility in the Dem Congress than one might believe. Biden and Clinton, for example, understand that some kind of stability is vital to avert wholesale genocide that’s likely if we leave. But it doesn’t matter- the President’s hand isn’t reaching across the aisle. As you point out, the Sunnis and Shi’ites are just as intransigent If there’s a Plan B (or C or D) to be had in Iraq, it’s unlikely to be found, given the lack of compromise there. I don’t see any of these major elements changing over the next 1.5 years. And that’s extremely discouraging for our country and for Iraq.
10:42 am
Great post Rick (and I’ve accused you of being a Bush apologist in the past. Halfway thru my 5th book on the Iraq invasion, all have a central theme….terrible invasion plans, no post-war plans at all, unless you count turning the country over to Chalabi, and leaving 30,000 troops 3 months later, sending everybody else home! The right would call me a defeatist because I realize the Iraqis can’t agree on anything, which makes our efforts futile. I call myself a realist. Your right about keeping some presence in the region. I’m thinking Kuwait and special forces, as well as keeping carriers in the Persian Gulf. Rick if you get a chance read “Assasins Gate” by George Packer. Its the best book I’ve read in years, its not a anti-war book, basically he contends that after being beaten down for 30 years by Saddam, the Iraqis were too numb to grasp the opportunity for democracy. He too agrees we need to provise some kind of security and humanitarian aid, for years. IMHO policing a sectarian war will never solve anything. I do see signs of the left and right veering towards the middle ground of a re-deployment. Thanks for being one of the few rational minds out there. Your friend at Captains Quarters is also rational, and like you, he gets ripped by the hard right. A guy just can’t win. I have doubts that Bush has the intellect to solve the crisis in Iraq.
11:08 am
To Karen:
Only a fool does the same thing over and over hoping for a different result. That pretty much sums up my feelings on those people your husband seems to prefer to trust. Incidentally, “the left” also includes a not very small number of people on the right. Your husband seems to be picking and choosing just exactly who is calling this war lost. I am sorry but I take comments like that personally.
Having said that, this war should have never allowed politics into it but it did – and rather shamelessly. Rick, you may not trust Democrats to do what is right but you would be entirely surprised. All it ever takes, whether you are Republican or Democrat, is a demonstration that you respect their opinion and they will take the time to hear you out and even work with you. It seems overly simple but it is beyond the abilities of most in Washington right now. To say nothing of some who post on this blog.(Kat)
Starting out a dialogue by referring to Dems as “defeatists” or “Defeatocrats” as some do only guarantees that working together becomes harder, if not impossible. 60 to 70% the people you know or meet are from a party you are not a member of. No matter where you go or what party you are in. Think about that. There will always be more of “them” than “us”.
By not working with “them” and treating them like fellow Americans you are only hurting yourself. They are not the enemy, they are only at worst adversaries. So don’t treat them that way. That is directed as much at myself as to anyone else.
I think that any answer to Iraq begins there.
I have nothing against Republicans. I have everything against people who play politics with peoples lives. And damn anyone who does.
11:43 am
Folks, the problem here is the concept of limited war. Now I am no expert on military tactics and strategy (I spend my time fooling around with databases, software applications, and such) but I do know a few basics and a little history. You can’t win a limited war if the enemy doesn’t observe the limits! And guess what, they never will. You might think the first Gulf War was an example of a win. It was a battle we won. The war continues. Vietnam was a limited war we lost but it turns out that it really was a battle in the Cold War that we eventually won. There are two things to remember about war. First, there is no second place prize. Second, conflicts between countries, civilizations, ethnic groups, etc. are either settled decisively or result in a stalemate that is settled later. How do you win wars? Let the experts speak:
“There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time.”
– General George Patton
“Hit hard, hit fast, hit often”
– Admiral William (Bull) Halsey
“You’ve got to kill people, and when you’ve killed enough they stop fighting.”
– General Curtis (Iron Ass) LeMay
Crush the enemy. Act quickly and decisively. Don’t stop or let them come up for air until they are dead or begging to surrender unconditionally. You have to single-mindedly focus on only one thing – victory. You have to kill one hell of a lot of folks. The most decisive victory in the last century was WWII. Close to 60 million people perished in that war! Americans may want this sugar coated but I am afraid that is just the way it is. It is ugly and not much fun. Holding hands and singing kumbaya won’t cut it. That attitude will result in national suicide.
Ok, so is there an alternative that will result in the survival of western civilization? Maybe. But my guess is it will probably cost more at least in dollars than an offensive strategy. And it will still require maximum strength of will.
Once we leave Iraq (also Afghanistan because it will become a bridge too far) you will probably see all of the Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan, and possibly Indonesia and Thailand become part of a growing Caliphate. How long this will take I am not sure but it will probably be a lot quicker than anyone can imagine. What follows that will be the subjugation of certain parts of the old Soviet Union, India, and large parts of Europe. non-Muslim Chinese, Hindus in India, and non-Muslim Russians will resist.
The best way to leave Iraq and Afghanistan is a tactical retreat. A tactical retreat requires at a minimum 1) a defensible position to retreat to and 2) an ability to punish the enemy severely to dissuade him from any ideas of taking advantage of this maneuver. This all means of course that we will be writing off the eastern hemisphere except for possibly places like Australia and New Zealand. Punishing the enemy severely is important lest they get the foolish idea they could knock us off first and mop up places like Europe and the old Soviet republics later.
Now if we aren’t going to prosecute a truly aggressive offensive plan of battle we need to think about defense. There are enough natural resources in this half of the planet that it might be possible to create a fortress western hemisphere. Our biggest advantage is technology. The enemy spends a lot of time memorizing their holy book not Feynman’s Lectures on Physics. They will unfortunately have some access to advanced weapons and folks with advanced weapons expertise in the places they will subjugate. Many of those folks will try to flee here from parts of the old Soviet Union, Europe, and Asia. We will need to facilitate that. We will also have to get serious about border defense and immigration. We will need to be very tough on immigration not just for the U.S. but the entire western hemisphere. We will also probably have to “invite†some people here in the west to move to the east. We will have to target large portions of the east with thousands of ICBMs and later with more advanced weapons systems just like we did with the Soviets and make it very, very, very, clear that any hostile moves will result in annihilation. Yes, among the enemy many are fanatics but if they are convinced that there is a good chance we will survive and they will not their dream of Islam becoming the only religion on earth will be thwarted. That will make them more cautious. With any luck after a few generations they may implode like the Soviets did.
The problem is that an effective defense requires as much will as an effective offense.
G.M
12:23 pm
As a Nation we are suffering major problems of understanding what it is we are seeing and why it is the way it is. The entire political class, be it D or R, has done a very, very poor job of trying to actually get across what Iraq is. Via a poor education system, a poor media system and a bankrupt political system, we went through the entire Cold War actually believing that the culmination of the Nation State era was upon us and that modern history would end. Francis Fukayama said as much and that put a stamp of validation upon the Right and Left so that they would not actually have to address the world as it stands.
Then the cold hard grip of the pre-20th century suddenly fastened a hand on our ankle and started dragging us off of that high pedestal. The political class, Left and Right, have so calcified in their outlook that they cannot deal with the problem they created in the 20th century that now seeks to drag us back to the 14th if not the 7th. Iraq is an outgrowth of misguided views and ideology about what it means to actually stand for liberty and freedom… that has been missing from the US for long decades since WWII. The hard lesson of history is that liberty must be continually defended if you want to keep it. The game playing on the political sides started to divide this Nation long before 9/11 and that polarization along multiple lines has reduced the commonality of the US to almost nothing.
That work as so eroded the Nation that the idea of having a Nation is at jeopardy. One of the quips I have been using for awhile is: the trend lines in Iraq are good and have been for awhile, those in the US not so good and have been for decades. Look at how many that are eligible actually vote. While we hear so many saying that this is a ‘vital democracy’ I have yet to see the signs of that vitality and, instead, see stagnation as ‘sides’ are everywhere. We grew up thinking the world was just one thing, even when the one ‘side’ tried to impute it was rich/poor and the other tried to put forth class struggle: both divided the commonality of Nation held in common between the people of the Nation. And we threw that exact, same outlook, to the outside world. We put forth a the idea that very simple paradigms could explain a complex world… simple to the point of simplistic. The news has arrived: there is no such thing as ‘international law’ and ‘free trade does not make people free’.
We saw the effects of 19 well off individuals adhering to a ruthless ideology to remove the Nation State as an idea and put Empire in its place, break all bounds of civilized behavior to prove their point. International law does not exist, only Treaties do. Treaties between Nations. Free trade with cheap goods on a global basis let these well off individuals form a hideous group that is well armed and attacking democracy. Unaccountable trade has put the Nation and, indeed, all Nations at risk.
Thanks to all the hard work by the Left and Right, the R’s and D’s, the bipolar everything, we are not prepared to deal with a world that has multiple, simple driving forces and that then form emergent complexity. Terrorism is not rooted in poverty, save that of the soul and the spirit. Nation is not formed by Armed Forces, but by communities striving to work together. In Iraq these two things are necessary to understand what we are seeing: the culmination of decades of poor thought out and purported ideas that stretch back even beyond the Cold War. I still have yet to hear anyone from the Left side of things address the fact that Iraq has been so terrorized by Ba’athism that there are no communities there when the US finally toppled that pestilent dictator. That dictator had erased class, erased religion and erased community in his bid to make the people of his Nation his plaything and slaves. When we see the largest, trustworthy unit of government to be the family in many parts of Iraq, and sometimes the tribe if people are lucky, then you get a feel for what is missing in that Nation and must be rebuilt… all of that lovely divisiveness that we have here, in the US, was used by a despotic tyrant to divide and play his people off against each other and so sew suspicions that they will take a generation to ease and maybe two or three to finally lay to rest. Where are all the fine and high-minded individuals on the Left who so want global communion? We gots a small project for you in Iraq: prove you can build something there and help heal those wounds and you might get a fair hearing after you get your hands dirty.
On the Right I have yet to hear any assessment on the underlying foundation of terrorism and Nation States seeking true terror weapons: unregulated trade. All of that lovely trade has put tons of weapons and equipment into the hands of ideologues that seek death and terror to make people submit to their will. Somehow all that lovely and so very magical trade hasn’t gotten many people all too free and has gotten thousands, if not tens of thousands plain old dead. The freedom of the grave.
Suddenly the Rights of Man as Individual to make community and be free is supported by no one.
The Left calls that ‘Imperialism’ now… or exploitation. Helping people to make a better life? Nah, too hard, and there are folks with guns out there. Run away!
The Right won’t push that as it just might require actually limiting trade and facing off against those individuals, groups and Nations that oppose us. That is ‘making a better life by denying barbarians of the means to kill’ sort of deal. You know, helping folks to make a better life by making sure you aren’t selling enemies of freedom the means to destroy it? Might actually COST something and put some PROFIT at peril. Can’t do that! Better to stick with this idea of letting Free Trade… arm our killers cheaply.
Thank you to the ‘two sides’ of that horrid equation. You have just shown that you have stepped away for the basis of Nation and the ability to have common freedom within a Nation and hold the world accountable for the actions taken towards us and our friends and allies.
Thank you for inspiring barbarians who seek to bring down Nations with illegitimate war and cause terror forevermore on their path to raw power. They can’t get that before they step over your bodies… either in submission or as corpses, either are acceptable to them.
You won’t have any rights, save those you are granted, but we have been heading that way with Big Government for decades now. We did agree to restrict government to the very few things that were necessary, but each ‘side’ found more and more of life that just has to be done by government… don’t worry, the terrorists will give you perfect government. Because tyranny is perfectable. Democracy isn’t as it always changes view and outlook, and seeks to bring accomodation to people to have freedom together.
Because we refuse to recognize the simple drivers of ethnicity, religion, tribe, education and history underlying the Middle East, we fail there. And have been failing for some time. We could have done that with a good President who did not seek to isolate America and purport that free trade was more important than liberty. That price was dear to pay when it mattered… when the Nation could have made a difference and spoken up for the Rights of Peoples to have Nation and determine their own course. That was a very popular outlook throughout the 19th century: fight enemies, use trade as inducement and cudgel, and help those that had fallen under tyrannical wrath to have shelter and community.
We stopped doing that.
In 1917.
To keep trade going with the Ottoman Empire and not put industry at peril nor fight a hard war to support our Allies.
Care to tell me how that policy turned out?
And that entire ‘international institutions’ idea?
Made the world free, did it?
It has had 90 years to prove out… successful on a global scale, isn’t it? The Middle East the jewel of democracy and freedom… it should be… if those things worked.
Why people believe in either of those things… international institutions helping to keep order and free trade freeing people is beyond me. The surest route to curing a headache is to stop pounding your head against the wall. I suggest that we stop doing so and realize the folly of our ways. While we still have time to do so.
“When marching through hell, don’t STOP.” – Winston Churchill
“We did not start this fight. But we sure, as hell, will END IT.” – The American Battlecry heard through the decades.
2:20 pm
Many of the comments on this blog and others like it are the clearest evidence to date of the long-term effects of fluoride in our national water supply…
3:29 pm
When has Bush ever done anything that would suggest he’d work with the Congress to fix the mess he made?
For what it’s worth, I think the Dems would work with him to come up with some kind of compromise that would be face-saving for both parties and workable in the future. Bush really is a giant douche, though; I couldn’t see him moving an inch even though the fate of Iraq hangs in the balance.
6:06 pm
Some of us have been saying for four years that Iraq cannot be saved until the president learns to accept the reality on the ground and not believe in rosy predictions.
Some of us have been saying for three years the Army needs to be bigger, the National Guard is carrying too much of the load, that fancy new weapons are eating up funds best soent on pay, material, and force protection.
Some of us have been saying for two years new leadership from the finally departed Rumsfeld to many current generals needed to be put into place.
Some of us have been saying for a year time would run out and that the stubborn head of our country would never admit his mistakes or undertake any substantial, plausible move to fix things in Iraq. Just enough troops to lose as even the Natial Review has pointed out.
Some of us have been saying since the surge was proposed that there weren’t enough troops to sustain it, that Bush would not send enough troops to be effective, and that preparing for the collapse damn well better get underway because a rout will be the most horrible thing anyone has seen since the fall of Saigon.
We are vets. We take no joy in this current state if affairs.
But we sure as hell told you so.
6:50 pm
“I think the Dems would work with him to come up with some kind of compromise that would be face-saving for both parties and workable in the future”
Umm, the same Dems that didn’t think it was important to meet with Petraeus? The same Dems that elected to Senate Majority Leader a guy that called your President a “loser”. With an audience of children.
The Dems aren’t traitors to the country but they are traitors to their ideals. That’s how Reid can vote for outlawing partial birth abortion and then complain when the bill he voted for passed judicial muster. That’s how the left wing of the Dem party can complain about the moral imperative to intervine in Rawanda but find no validity in the moral underpinnings of the Iraq war. That’s how NOW can kow tow to a President that played his mistress to the media as a stalker. The Dems won’t touch the war with a ten foot pole except to rubber stamp the administration’s request while working to undermine it, or de-fund the whole thing. And that’s fair – the war is Bush’s and if there are good ideas out there I don’t think it’s the Democratic Party that will be developing them anyway.
7:30 pm
Between this post and the one taking Mr. Muir to task for being politically incorrect, I’d say you’ve either been brainwashed by your radical leftist brother Terry, or he’s got the goods on you and threatens to spill them if you don’t tow the Marxist line.
7:42 pm
ajacksonian – Once we leave Iraq (also Afghanistan because it will become a bridge too far) you will probably see all of the Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan, and possibly Indonesia and Thailand become part of a growing Caliphate. How long this will take I am not sure but it will probably be a lot quicker than anyone can imagine. What follows that will be the subjugation of certain parts of the old Soviet Union, India, and large parts of Europe.
This argument has never made sense to me. It’s the Communist domino theory refactored as the Islamic Theocracy domino theory. When we left Vietnam, a few dominos fell, but not a chain.
The prime worry is Pakistan. They are seriously nuclear armed and a move to a theocracy there would be extremely dangerous. (Iran is also a threat, which will probably be imminent in a few years.)
Strong economic, cultural, educational (etc) ties with non-theocratic moslem-majority countries are very important IMO.
9:18 pm
Took some guts to write this piece, Rick – I give you credit for that. I’m one of those that cringed when we invaded Iraq – I was not totally against it but very fearful of the risks of basically doing it “alone” compared to the Gulf War.
And of course, I was traumatized by what ended up happening along the way (after the initial swift victory over Saddam’s armies).
Something changed for me though. And that was simply the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarrah. That event, that act of incitement, to me…was the turning point of this whole conflict/War and when it became obvious that Al Qaeda had done the bombing – my thought pattern changed completely and ever since that moment in time I have been steadfast in that we have to stay and win. Al Qaeda became the enemy (my public enemy #1 since then) at that point.
It’s my belief that there has been too much hate, anger and mistrust flung around the halls of Congress and D.C. in general for either side to bend on this War. The Democrats truly have put the 2008 Election on this War ending – soon!
To me, we cannot leave until Al Qaeda is gone – until they have either retreated to elsewhere or every last one is a burning ember. General Petraeus states now that Al Qaeda is “Public Enemy #1” and Harry Reid and the gang feel we are in the middle of Sunni and Shia Civil War – those two views are at opposite ends of the spectrum and a “compromise” seems unachievable.
If we leave, Al Qaeda owns Iraq – and the only thing that will displace AQ at that time from Iraq (with us gone) will be a full-fledged invasion by Iran and I don’t think anyone wishes to see those consequences.
Again Rick, thanks for tackling a tough viewpoint, I applaud you.
11:36 pm
This is, frankly, my first time reading your blog.
I’m going through what you have apparently already gone through in your own mind.
What is the right thing to do for the Iraqi people and our soldiers who are dying and getting maimed every day?
Compromise between the president and congress is the answer for us, but what is the answer for Iraq?
It was never really a “country” until someone drew arbitrary lines to make it one country, but so much tribalism makes being an “Iraqi” second to being a member of a tribe or sect.
When the scales begin to fall off the eyes, it hurts, doesn’t it?
I still support our president and I support our troops and their mission, but if congress is going to play football with them I want them out of the game.
As you can probably tell, I am arguing this with myself even as I type these words.
Thanks for this thoughtful post.
3:20 am
Rick:
I’ve written critically about you at my meager blog several times, and have left a feew critical comments here before.
You have always been incredibly frustrating because, while you are clearly a bright, articulate and thoughtful guy, when pressed about issues or criticized, you seem to go instantly into Right-Winger defense mode.
Having said that, I give you conditional loud applause for this piece. It truly discusses the problem, and gives some reasoned responses that are well thought-out.
However, there are a few things I want to point out, so please bear with me, as I really would like a civilised conversation.
Rick, many of us on the left have been saying this for 3 years or more. While I’m glad you finally admit it, you really ought to have conceded this sooner. I say this not to quibble or assign blame, but to point out that had more folks on your side conceded this sooner, we might have begun a pan-partisan discussion or process that much sooner, and thus spared many Americans and Iraqis from death.
Rick, there have been more than 3 years since “Mission Accomplished” on the carrier deck, and virtually no meaningful progress has been made. There is no reason to believe that 3 or 4 more years, with the same troop commitment as we now have, will result in anything better than the status quo we now have.
He has risen to the occasion in the past. He must do so again.
Respectfully again, Rick, exactly when has he, other than with Harriet Miers?
History seems to say that your boy is going to ride this to the end, and polls, Democrats, Republicans, and anyone else be damned. This man has no sense of reality, and not even the noblesse oblige that his Dad has. He is never going to change course.
And the current bill, proposed by the Democratic congress, was, until November last was completely shut out of any dialog about Iraq, clearly does not mandate immediate or even total withdrawal. It clearly states that troops should stay to accomplish certain goals, including aiding the transition to full Iraqi governing power.
The way the bill is being spun by virtually all on your side ot the “aisle” and by Pres. Bush is dishonest. And he has decided to veto it, even though it gives him every $ he was asking for, as well as greatly increased funding for VA after care, PTSD treatment, and other benefits for the returning troops. This is not the response of a rational man.
Last, this all could have been avoided if we had simply not invaded Iraq. Many of us on the left believed this before the invasion, and nothing has changed to indicate we were wrong.
Thanks,
Steve
SteveAudio.blogspot.com
8:14 am
SteveAudio,
I wonder. Isn’t “conditional loud applause” actually more like a subtle disagreement?
9:21 am
Rick,
Welcome to the cheap seats. Not that you agree with me entirely obviously (What to do about things over there is a very complex and probably unanswerable question with any degree of certainty) but at least we are both seeing the same reality.
10:05 am
Jeanette, right on.
I support OUR President unlike so many who call him an idiot, fool, moroon, ect., ect., ect, while all the while our enemy sits back and laughs at us.
I do not feel like the people in Iraq are willing to take on this fight and our men have taken the brunt for too long and I also want them home.
My only problem is WHY IN THE HELL DO WE HAVE TO ANNOUNCE THE TIMELINE SO THE TERRORISTS WILL GET THE HEADS UP? I just don’t understand the logic in that. Why give them any advantage? I guess it may be cuz if we started withdrawing quietly the msm who hates Bush as much as the dems do, would not keep it quiet even it would make it safer for everyone involved.
Its fools like harry reid and the msm who have helped embolden our ememies and kill more troops.
I’m just a dumb blonde broad but its time for our military to come home cuz, like Viet Nam, the people are turning against this war and if they say they support the troops but not the cause, well, that is a LIE and the troops would be better served back home.
I just pray the dems can handle what they have done here.
10:15 am
[...] More here at Moran’s Right-Wing Nuthouse. [...]
12:34 pm
Very good post, Rick. Thank you.
12:46 pm
Maybe this has all been part of a diabolically clever policy. The present state of the world would not tolerate a Hiroshima, so we did this and the message to dictators all over the world is now this:Our military will wipe out yours in three days and then we’ll send in Paul Bremer.
Think about it.
1:03 pm
Rick, I read your comment last night and closed down my computer in disgust. Compromise to the “surrender group” (democrats) for the good of the country
Did Lincoln compromise blunder after blunder Rick? He found his general and the rest is history. Will this happen in Iraq? I pray so. Bush hate should never prevail. Starting from the State Dept., CIA, Justice Dept.,etc. some of the high ranking officals including the outside saboteurs (we all know them including Powell, the main stream media) made it hard for Bush to have support to win the war. Rick, I pray we don’t surrender and that all Bush’s political enemies within give him the time and maybe his last chance. Let the historians write about it. It’s not easy to beat the enemies within- hate is evil and will compromise our future security.
1:51 pm
And if the politics of that time decided the Cambodians should die, in their millions, well die they would. And die they did. Deep in my heart I think that remaining in the Middle East—because America must remain there—as a loser is not a very intelligent thing to do. But decisions are made by elected politicians. No one has mentioned the price we will pay for oil. Hostages we become, to the whims of fanatics. No one mentions Israel by itself. There is no closing of this chapter as like the end of a long running musical – and starting anew. We will be forced to hear the same music forever. In short we will learn about Churchill’s victory at all costs. and we will ask ourselves in 10 years why we could not summon the strength.
1:56 pm
It’s what I said when I called in to our local talk radio show here in the People’s Republic of Illinois a few weeks after 9/11: There is a very real war against radical Islamism that must be fought, that it will take many years if not decades to fight, far better it be fought on foreign soil than here in America, and we can only lose this war if the American people fail in their will and resolve to see this thing through.
At that time I had no idea that liberal Democrats and the radical left in this country could engage in the divisiveness and lies that is has. Neither did I think the liberal media would play such an active role in biasing the American people against the war not only in its incessant yammerings about American body counts (often repeating the deaths several days until a new batch occur) but also in what it DID NOT report, the tens of thousands of positive things that were happening all over Iraq and to a lesser degree in the Anbar Province.
For whatever reason, the Bush Administration failed to protect itself from the mendaciousness of Joe Wilson (not even citing the SSCI report in their defense!) who was the one who got the “Bush lied” meme going in the early stages of the Iraq War. Also President Bush and his administration curiously failed to make the case that Operation Iraqi Freedom was a sensational success in deposing Saddam’s regime in a mere 21 days and now we were entering a phase of combat that was opening another front on the general war on terror. Recently translated Iraqi documents prove there was some operational coordination or acknowledgement between al Qaeda that was in Iraq before the war and Saddam’s regime, but clearly the Iraqi theater – and to some degree the the Afghani theater – of operations acted as flypaper attracting the truly fanatical Islamofascists to the sandbox whereupon many tens of thousands of them were sent on their way to their 72 virgins.
But if what you say is true, Rick, then we may as well get ready to assume our new role as dhimmies in an ever-growing global Islamic caliphate. We see it already happening in the emerging Eurabia and don’t think for a minute it can’t happen here. What we will be forced to do if we “lose” (i.e. quit like we did in Vietnam) in Iraq and “redeploy”, is defend ourselves somewhere else or possibly in American streets. I hope I’m wrong, but this is one enemy which seems perfectly willing and capable of following our troops home to America. And we already have a pretty good idea that the liberals in this country will be perfectly content to let the rest of us defend them from their Islamic overlords if that day comes.
Despite the fact there is no age limit or physical to pass to be the human shield that peaceniks have so much regard for and blather about, I’m still not seeing these do-nothing-but-complain pacifists volunteering to be the next defensive vanguard for the American people. In light of this reality, I’ll take my chances with the U.S. Army and Marines who volunteered to fight on the frontiers of freedom in the enemy’s strongholds. I’m just beginning to believe Jeffrey R. Snyder was right, we are a nation of cowards and shirkers (http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/books/jfpp6.txt) that when the going gets tough … we quit in the face of a determined enemy. Well, we can add another 3,400 names to some Memorial Wall as lives thrown away because the cost became too great and the American people quit. The America I knew growing up in the post-World War II 1950s is all but dead. And given the entitlement mentality of so many Americans and the creation of a society which virtually celebrates moral decline, maybe its for the best. Thank goodness the Second Amendment still survives. What was that we used to joke about? One for all and all for one and every man for himself?
If we do cut-and-run, the liberals OWN this defeat just as they owned the post-Vietnam slaughter of innocents, though they are still in denial about that, too.
2:02 pm
I do enjoy all this moonbat-in-average-Joe’s-clothing charade. Oh wait, you called your self “right wing”... you surely must be.
Glad to see you know so much more about the situation than General Petraeus, who has suggested more troops, not less.
Glad to see you trust the Democrats to do the right thing. Those same Democrats who want to “disengage”, and who have declared the war lost.
It’s fine that you Democrats have these 1/4-baked, treasonous opinions. The curse of a free society, I suppose.
But don’t be a douche and call yourself “right wing”. Who do you think is falling for that nonsense? You’re as right wing as Barack Obama.
2:35 pm
I hate writing posts like this. Since I don’t advocate an immediate “turn tail and run†the left climbs all over me. And since I don’t say everything is going swimmingly in Iraq and that we’re on the verge of victory, the right thinks I’m a traitor.
No truer words spoken, judging by some of the comments here. Welcome to the Unhappy Middle, Rick.
It’s our political divisions and inability to find common ground that make decisive action on just about any issue impossible these days. We spend vast amounts of energy fighting each other instead of facing the real threats.
2:39 pm
[...] In three years we could have leveled the place. Sad. Posted on April 29th, 2007 in Politics, Interesting by Bill (No Ratings Yet) Loading … TROUBLING THOUGHTS ON IRAQ, from Rick Moran. Sadly, I agree that our domestic political situation will make constructive action difficult. As I’ve said before, it was obvious in the 1990s that we had a dysfunctional political class, but it’s become much more obvious in the current decade. (Via TMV). And yes, time’s the enemy now. Pentagon planners talk about the “three year rule” for domestic support in a war, and it’s been four — five if you count Afghanistan. [...]
3:05 pm
Good post Rick, and I’m sorry about the rants from the wingnuts.
But hey, lie down with (and actively encourage) fleas, and you’ll have that.
Whatever you do, don’t delete any of these comments. They will be historically priceless one day in educating our country.
3:11 pm
I just pray the dems can handle what they have done here.
You better pray as hard as you can because you’re not much of a thinker are you?. Six years of a Republican administration backed up by a Republican dominated congress that gave the Republican President literally everything he wanted and yet the mess we’re in is the fault of the Democrats.
That’s a profound success story, an incredible triumph of spin over substance. Obviously there’s a significant constituency in this country willing to bypass reason completely and rely on a single emotional response to every problem, blame the enemy (Democrats). The enemy abroad the enemy at home, anyone who dares to question their leadership is the enemy. How patriotic, a deformed and perverted caricature of patriotism turned against fellow citizens for political advantage.
Wars are a great way to consolidate power, the best possible excuse to cast aside any pretense of sharing leadership, any pretense of accountability, and every annoying little vestige of democracy. The Republican leadership started an unnecessary war and they have no idea how to end it. They only have one strategy. Blame Democrats.
3:12 pm
“Recently translated Iraqi documents prove there was some operational coordination or acknowledgement between al Qaeda that was in Iraq before the war and Saddam’s regime”
I’d be interested to see these documents. Are they posted online anywhere?
3:19 pm
You may have thought Iraq a bad idea, why not “cut a deal” with peaceful kite-flyer Saddam and show everyone who “congenial” i.e. weak America is. Or you might have wanted SOMEONE’S butt to get kicked after Afghanistan just to make the point: don’t pick fights with America.
Regardless, we are now fighting: Al Qaeda and Iran’s Qods Force in Iraq. That’s who is killing innocents, and our guys.
If we leave, Al Qaeda and Iran win. We lose. Already every nation in and around the Gulf has decided we will not stop Iran’s nukes and has started their own nuclear program. This includes: Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi, Oman, UAE, YEMEN! and outside the region Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia.
We leave Iraq, Al Qaeda runs the Sunni areas and Iran the Shia. Wow nothing bad will happen there now will it.
Dems to a man (except for Hillary) reject the War on Terror, that terrorism is a threat, that we could get nuked (watch Obama’s deer in the headlights reminiscent of Dukakis look), that we can and should respond with military force to mass casualty terrorism, that we face dangers.
Globalization has brought cheap stuff from China to Wal Mart and terrorism from Pakistan to say, Manhattan. Or Arlington VA. Or Shanks Field PA. Dems have bet the farm that somehow surrendering to Al Qaeda and Iran will magically make angry and genocidal Muslims around the world who want a universal Caliphate and destruction of the US happy. And make them refrain from mass casualty terrorism.
We simply don’t have the stomach, politically for relatively light casualties. We lost 5,000 men in the first few hours of Normandy. Over 50,000 in the campaign there. So we will retreat, surrender, appease, cower, grovel. Until we wake up and find several cities gone (because weakness invites aggression). Then we will wage a war of annihilation ala the Pacific 1941-45. Only much uglier.
In a sane world with a functioning political class we’d stay in Iraq for decades. At least as long as South Korea, Japan, and Germany. Manage the killing to an acceptable level. Deter Iran from adventures, and defeat Al Qaeda which has proclaimed themselves on the cusp of victory over the US.
But instead Dems wish partisan advantage over patriotism. And preach appeasement lunacy against an enemy who cannot be appeased or negotiated with.
3:31 pm
Mr. Moran, I just don’t get you cowards. The plan for victory against the Islamic terror gangs in Iraq was laid out quite clearly by General Patraeus. The plan is very specific and easy to understand. The key problem that General Patraeus faces is the fact that his doctrine needs a troop strength to civilian ratio of 1-50 in order to be most effective. That means 500,000 troops. The general laid out the this ratio in his counter insurgency manual which is available on line. This was the ratio that was followed in Kosovo.
If the American government was serious about achieving victory in Iraq then they would stop this nonsense and call up the reserves, mobilize all the national guard units, shift units from other overseas bases like Japan, Korea, Italy, and Germany, and do whatever else is required to bring the troop levels of all the armed forces up to the level needed to sustain 500,000 troops in Iraq. Personally, I am all for mandatory military service for all us citizens upon reaching the age of 19.
The second thing that has to happen is to close the “occupation administration” in Iraq and give General Patraeus full authority over the reconstruction so that the military/political/civil administration authorities are speaking with one voice. General Eisenhower made this ability to speak with one voice a condition of his accepting the role of supreme commander in Europe during WWII.
The third thing that has to happen is to force Syria and Iran to stop arming our enemies, and to stop sending their agents into Iraq to carry out armed operations against our troops, even if this means going to war with them. We are already at war with them since they are murdering our troops. Just make the war official. I can guarantee you that the cowards in Syria and Iran will back down if faced with a WWII style war.
This is the plan that leads to victory.
I am so sick of hearing “there is no plan”. The truth of the matter is that the cowards in the US government and the media don’t have the stomach to face up to what will be required to ensure victory.
What is so difficult to understand about this? Following the Democrats’ desire to surrender will just ensure that we fight a WWII style war which will engulf the entire region in a few years. Following the current plan might work but it will take a long time and victory is not ensured, and the troop strength to civilian ratio is currently far too low according to the doctrine of the General currently leading the effort in Iraq. So, stop all this waffling and give the General what he needs to win the war.
3:59 pm
[...] Really, why are we there? If we achieve all Bush wants in Iraq, eradicating al Qaeda there, neutering Shiites, over-empowering the minority Sunnis, will that be an Iraqi achievement? Or ours? At what point will the Iraqi government be legitimate? How many times will United States forces stand up as successive Iraqi governments fall down? [...]
4:35 pm
Disappointing. Where exactly would you withdraw our troops from and where would you redeploy them to, that would act to further our interests in any but the short term? Until you can answer that question, suggesting either as some answer is just more pablum.
The fact is that the surge is just starting and only half deployed and should have, per McCain, started much earlier. And democracy is messy and can be dismaying in its progress on real issues. As a whole we are seeing progress on both fronts. Quickly enough? Never so, but it’s too early to declare defeat and assume we could contain the aftermath.
If you are one of those that believe we could, remember we’re dealing with a diplomatic/military/intelligence culture that has never succeeded in doing so. And I don’t just mean here in the U.S.
4:36 pm
Recently translated Iraqi documents can be found here.
Does hyperlink work here? If not, copy and paste: http://iraqdocs.blogspot.com/
I understand this is but a small fraction of those captured Iraqi documents. The Bush Administration once again has been curiously remiss in mining this treasure trove of information, naively believing that the political leftists will one day become magically enlightened and realize that they too have a personal stake in a very real War on Radical Islam.
4:46 pm
Shahid:
I rarely agree with Andrew Sullivan but this sounds about right:
The answer, it seems to me, will be gradual US withdrawal and redeployment to Kurdistan, and a soft, informal partition that gives each ethnic and religious group enough autonomy to have something to fight for.
If this war ends with a messy soft-partition, but in which various groups of Iraqi Muslims start to take on the war against al Qaeda for their own sake, it could still end up as a relative success. We will have precipitated a situation in which the real war here – within Islam, between mainstream Islam and al Qaeda – will finally be joined.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/04/the_exit_and_an.html
That “soft partition” is part of the changes in the Constitution that were promised at the time of the vote but has not been forthcoming. And I would also advocate keeping a substantial troop presence in Anbar (the tribes grudgingly acknowledge that we are standing between them and the Shias).
Redeploying to the Turkish border has already been done. We should up that committment substantially to prevent the PPK from infiltrating into Turkey and blowing things up. Otherwise, Turkey will eventually invade and take care of the problem themselves.
4:53 pm
Let’s get this straight. You don’t like the Bush administration’s policy. You don’t want a surge. You want a permanent occupation.
In a sane world with a functioning political class we’d stay in Iraq for decades. At least as long as South Korea, Japan, and Germany. Manage the killing to an acceptable level. Deter Iran from adventures, and defeat Al Qaeda which has proclaimed themselves on the cusp of victory over the US.
But you can’t admit it’s Bush policy you disagree with so who gets the blame?
But instead Dems wish partisan advantage over patriotism. And preach appeasement lunacy against an enemy who cannot be appeased or negotiated with.
You don’t have a logically consistent understanding of the situation in your own country. Why on earth would you be credible authority on international issues?
5:00 pm
To what occasion, other than a presidential campaign, has Bush risen?
5:07 pm
BTW, it’s 1938 all over again and the real insanity is about to begin. Instead of Nazism we are now faced with Islamofascism, yet nearly half of America is in denial, preferring instead to believe America’s military might is provoking Muslim jihadists and insurgents into violence. Though nothing is ever a perfect metaphor or analogy, this would be like blaming law enforcement for the rising gang violence here in America. What are we supposed to do in the face of such great evil, try to reason with it, hope it goes away or embrace the notion our leaving Iraq would be interpreted as a gesture of peace and everyone picks up their AK-47 and go home? John Wixted has some interesting views about the lamestream media’s inability to break free of its own biased narrative in accurately reporting the violence in Iraq. It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the axiom “united we stand, divided we fall” has a lot of truth in it, and though wounded by its own scandals and even more transparent bias, the liberal national media plays a very large role in sapping the morale of the America people. It’s very self-evident that a constant dose of bad news – even though there is a lot of good news to report which goes unreported except on milbogs and conservative blogs – does have a very negative impact on the American people.
It’s gutcheck time and it looks like the appeasement crowd is winning as we see the white of the eyes of the enemy … and America blinks. Indeed, I hope all the posts here are saved for our posterity and historians down the road … if there is any posterity worth saving. I sincerely hope I’m proven wrong, but once America goes on defense and unilaterally withdraws on a very well publicized timetable from Iraq (and ultimately Afghanistan), I truly believe we will all find out just how much worse things can get. But the anti-war radicals can always solace themselves by hating Bush or blaming America even more.
5:44 pm
“I have no confidence in either the Democrats or the Administration. Both parties have played politics with the war for so long that now that we have this disaster staring us in the face, it seems ludicrous to think that they could work together in the national interest to avoid the worst of it.”
Mr. Moran, this appears to be several levels of disingenuousness. The Republicans owned both the WH and Congress for 46 months while the war raged on. The Democrats have controlled Congress—by a thread—for all of 3 months. To pretend they share an equal responsibility to fix this debacle is both parts unfair and ludicrous. This is a Republican-initiated, mitigated, and promulgated disaster, and Democrats ought be under no obligation to continuously feed the President solutions that he
vetos out of hand.
6:03 pm
[...] Rick Moran has been greeted officially by the left’s version of Xertes, in Juan Cole, thus he has become an Artisan? [...]
6:29 pm
[...] This is your captain speaking, and I would like to take a moment to welcome Rick Moran aboard the Defeatocrat cruise ship for his maiden voyage. Since Rick is new, I will repost the itinerary for his first morning with the Defeatocrats. The ship will board in Berkeley on May Day. [...]
7:46 pm
When it comes to domestic support for the war, or the lack thereof, I don’t think what matters most is the suicide bombings and how many Iraqis are dying. It’s how many Americans are dying. Suppose that right now, everything about Iraq were the same, except that the number of US casualties every month was 20 instead of 90. Support for the war would be a lot higher. If the surge is ever accompanied by a steep, sustained decline in the US casualty rate, I think you will see a significant change in US public opinion. In the short term, US troops are still getting killed at the pre-surge rate or higher, because the new strategy involves taking troops off the large, heavily protected bases, and placing them in more vulnerable positions out in the neighborhoods. But that could change, if the greater vulnerability of US forces is eventually more than offset by the greater attrition of enemy forces.
8:14 pm
“we are a nation of cowards and shirkers”
Sounds like someone is part of the “Hate America First Crowd”.
8:30 pm
Halfway into changing course and you want to abandon the surge. It’s like sometimes I wish I had been in the WTC that day so I would not have lived to see they day when many Americans give up so easily to find secure places to where we wouldn’t take up the fight against those waging a war brought upon us by those living in the Middle Ages.
In Indonesia, Morocco, Turkey, Lebanon, Iran, Somalia, the Sudan, Ethopia, Rwanda to name a few, the people there fight everyday against what we are fighting in Iraq but they havn’t the luxury to walk away like spineless American cowards.
What a coward and a loser you are Moran; it’s one thing for a leftist to abandon the cause since they love tyranny but from a freedom fighter?
I mean really now is the road to peace really the road to Damasus or Tehran because you don’t see instasuccess splashed all over your TV screen?
Coward and a loser for blowing holes in the very ship upon which you are riding.
9:41 pm
Prescisely wrong. Time is our biggest ally.
Every day, the ISF get a little stronger, the insurgents geta little weaker, the government becomes a little more legitimate. The tide has turned in Anbar.
I remember being told in 2004 Iraqis wouldn’t vote or wanted a theocracy. In 2005 we learned they couldn’t form a government or agree on a constitution. The Anbari tribes were never going to join the police.
If Rick Moran really thinks the Kurds are just waiting for us to leave so they can declare their Kurdish state, he just doesn’t understand the region’s political situation very well. Everyone, especially the Kurds, knows that would mean invasion from Turkey. The Kurds want a PERMANENT American presence.
9:46 pm
He has risen to the occasion in the past. He must do so again.
Really? Name once.
9:49 pm
You wrote:
“It may involve giving in to the Democrats and withdrawing some of our troops and redeploying some others.”
The problem with this plan isn’t that it involves the President “giving in to the Democrats” or giving up his Clintonian Legacy™, it’s that it’s strategically self-defeating and would put us right back where we were last fall, when my unit left Iraq and everyone was saying the error was we hadn’t had enough troops there and weren’t maintaining a presence in areas to prevent terrorists and insurgents from moving right back in after we cleared them out.
That criticism had merit – and I assume it was what you meant by mistakes and errors that put us where we were then.
The President was, IMNSHO, “big enough” to admit they were on the wrong course, changed the team, followed the (then) advice of critics of how the war was being conducted, and sent more troops to rectify those problems.
Not meaning to be one of those critics of everything you post, but it seems to me that whipsawing back to that would give the Iraqis an even greater sense of our unreliability, and removing troops in the middle of what is supposed to be a “surge” to secure Baghdad and Anbar would only give everyone the sense that we aren’t going to be there.
To put it mildly, things have certainly not gone swimmingly. That much of what you say is spot-on. But leaving us thinner on the ground, and withdrawing back to base camps with sweeps against al-Qaeda and pockets of resistance, and giving notice that we intend to leave as soon as practically feasible – well, been there, done that, that was the much-criticized Rumsfeld Strategy.
Now, again IMNSHO, the best thing to do would be to at least give the “surge” a year to play itself out. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work – but it is the alternative policy on the table with a chance of success. In inacting it, the President did aknowledge that the strategy his team had been following before wasn’t working. What didn’t happen (*ahem*) was critics meeting, even grudgingly, halfway across the asile in the spirit of American interest (“bipartisan compromise” be damned – I don’t care if the parties get along if it doesn’t help the country. I care about the country). The timeline here at home has been almost completely dictated by the political calendar – hardly an inspiring period of selfless public service and displays of “profiles in courage”.
(Minor aside: as for the Kurds and their reticence on the oil $ distro scheme, well I think they do have reason for concern that if it gets centralized, ultimately that will mean the money won’t get to Kurdistan. But that very point, rather than contradicting your larger point about the difficulty of generating trust and compromise in Iraq, only highlights it even more. However, if I had to pick between which were more uncompromisingly sectarian, politicians in Iraq or in the American Congress, I’d be hard-pressed to chose between them).
10:58 pm
craigie Said:
9:46 pm
He has risen to the occasion in the past. He must do so again.
Really? Name once.
How about when the Taliban of Afghanistan were told to hand over al-Qeda or be destroyed? Let’s see, where are the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan now? Dead or living in caves.
11:02 pm
Moran on Iraq…
Rick Moran is looking at Iraq. Armed Liberal agrees – and disagrees….
11:15 pm
Fight4theRight: “If we leave, Al Qaeda owns Iraq”
That’s simply not true. Al Qaeda is hated by most Iraqis, even the Sunnis.
11:33 pm
Changing His Mind:...
After much painful consideration, Rick Moran now feels it’s time to get out of Iraq. I have come to the conclusion over the last few days that, due to domestic conditions here in the US and the inability of the…...
12:08 am
Let’s try to get something about troops straight, their job is to smash things and kill. You don’t use them for something else.
Sometimes you can talk people out of starting to kill each other, once they get started, especially Arabs, you aren’t going to talk them out of it. Killing them out of it is real difficult, they get P-Oed about it, one for interfering, two for killing their 4th cousin 2x removed. You can wait until they get too tired to continue or there’s the military option, you have 2 successful examples, Germany and Japan, that’s a lot of killing and smashing, want to go there?
You want another way, good, poop in one hand and wish in the other and see what you’ve got. The C-I-C has been playing the wish game for 4 years, you’d like to continue? Some people told the whole bunch of you over 4 years ago not to do this, why not to do it and you beat the war drums and plugged your ears. Go ahead and depress yourselves, read the stuff from 4+ years ago – they look pretty smart now – their careers were wrecked and they were vilified, but now…
As for you “traitor Democrats” ranters, do you really suppose that the fighters who live there can’t see the evidence of their own eyes? That they have to watch CNN to find out how it’s going? They can do pretty much what they want to whenever they want to and you think they need Harry Reid to tell them so? Pathetic.
Why don’t you tell me how well it would have worked for England to have thrown their troops into our Civil War? Nuts, that’d be asking you to think.
12:33 am
Welcome! to reality.
Your next mission is to read Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness”, noting the parallels between the “civilizing mission” of the British and the idea of “spreading Democracy”.
Utopianism is always flawed. The above comments are the wrath of the True Believers. Fare thee well, and have fun with the freepers.
1:07 am
“You don’t have a logically consistent…”
Look, baby steps. Baby steps. Rick is still in the throes of Kool-Aide withdrawal. At least give him a little time to let his head clear. He’s in for a very rough ride. The next month will be filled with screams of “traitor!” in the Fluffersphere. As his meme-structures collapse, he will need all the support he can get.
3:07 am
this post is obviously Bill Clinton’s fault.
4:41 am
“If the American government was serious about achieving victory in Iraq then they would stop this nonsense and call up the reserves, mobilize all the national guard units, shift units from other overseas bases like Japan, Korea, Italy, and Germany, and do whatever else is required to bring the troop levels of all the armed forces up to the level needed to sustain 500,000 troops in Iraq. Personally, I am all for mandatory military service for all us citizens upon reaching the age of 19.
The second thing that has to happen is to close the “occupation administration†in Iraq and give General Patraeus full authority over the reconstruction so that the military/political/civil administration authorities are speaking with one voice. General Eisenhower made this ability to speak with one voice a condition of his accepting the role of supreme commander in Europe during WWII.
The third thing that has to happen is to force Syria and Iran to stop arming our enemies, and to stop sending their agents into Iraq to carry out armed operations against our troops, even if this means going to war with them. We are already at war with them since they are murdering our troops. Just make the war official. I can guarantee you that the cowards in Syria and Iran will back down if faced with a WWII style war.
This is the plan that leads to victory.”
Nice plan. Pull all your strategic forces out of the world, ensuring a free hand to anyone who wants one, impose the draft, sieze formal control of Iraq and make it a colony (in essense), and start two more wars with Muslim nations that you cannot in any meaningful sense win without killing vast swathes of the populations.
Genius. That’ll work.
shakes head
5:45 am
[...] The next comes from Rick Moran. [...]
8:24 am
[...] Et Tu, Rick? Filed under: Democratic Idiocy, Defending America, Republicans, Terrorism, Blogging — Sisyphus @ 7:24 am Rick Moran has gone granola: Time enough for playing the blame game later. After all, we’re still a year and a half away from the 2008 elections – plenty of time for the Democrats to remind voters who got us involved in Iraq in the first place. For now, the imperative is preventing unmitigated disaster. It may involve giving in to the Democrats and withdrawing some of our troops and redeploying some others. Is the President a big enough man to do this? Or is he more in love with his legacy and would therefore resist changing course to reflect the reality of what is happening on the ground and in the councils of government in Iraq? [...]
8:29 am
Bad news for Democrat defeatists. From the NYT:
Anbar Province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat.
“Many people are challenging the insurgents,†said the governor of Anbar, Maamoon S. Rahid, though he quickly added, “We know we haven’t eliminated the threat 100 percent.â€
Many Sunni tribal leaders, once openly hostile to the American presence, have formed a united front with American and Iraqi government forces against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. With the tribal leaders’ encouragement, thousands of local residents have joined the police force. About 10,000 police officers are now in Anbar, up from several thousand a year ago. During the same period, the police force here in Ramadi, the provincial capital, has grown from fewer than 200 to about 4,500, American military officials say.
I guess the editors at the NYT are reich-wing “kool-aid” drinkers too. When I visited the milblogs over the last three years, what they were saying as boots-on-the-ground has rarely matched up with journalist-in-the-Hiltonâ„¢ ... until now.
Hugh Hewitt’s interview of Max Boot who recently returned from Iraq is interesting as well as relevant to this discussion. What follows is Mr. Hewitt’s analysis of the interview:
If you scroll through the interviews I have conducted this week, you will see that Democrats in the Senate and the House are willfully, even perversely, ignorant of —or willfully blind to—the stakes and the conditions in Iraq. They seem to believe that this is a winning political strategy. I don’t think so, not even in the short term and certainly not in the long term. Munich was very popular for a short time —from the signing of the agreement on September 29, 1938 until the invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, or until Hitler’s nature become unmistakable even to the most appeasement-oriented Chamberlain supporter. The consequences of the left’s surrender sickness will be obvious sooner or later. It is only the costs that are obscure at this point.
Seventy years down the road, the actions of the Democrats these past few weeks will seem even more craven and inexplicable than those of Baldwin and Chamberlain in the ‘30s, for in that long ago age of appeasement, those men at least had the excuse that Great Britain was exhausted, broke, and unable to risk a confrontation with the growing evil for fear of a military defeat.
8:58 am
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. – John F. Kennedy
I Support Democracy In Iraq
or if you are interested in a more animated version:
I Support Democracy In Iraq – The Animation
11:11 am
“Prescisely wrong. Time is our biggest ally.”
Except that things are getting worse, and more Iraqis hate our guts. But from Bush’s point of view (f*ck it up, dump it in 2009), you’re absolutely correct.
11:35 am
M. Simon,
You meant:
?
I Support Democracy In Iraq
Do you support Hamas as well?
3:13 pm
Let’s see, a guy who’s been consistantly and mind boggingly wrong on every aspect of the Iraq debate interviews an author who has been consistantly and mind boggingly wrong on every aspect of the Iraq debate.
I’ll pass.
8:45 pm
This is a depressing post. I doubt anyone will read down this far through the usual fare, but I’ll go ahead and comment anyways since it won’t do anyone any harm.
For some reason, people just cannot open their historical apperture up widely enough. The issue facing our foreign policy in the aftermath of Soviet collapse, itself a placeholder for the collapse first of Ottoman empire and then the various British and French administrations, is how to coax a part of the world with its own forms of resistance to what passes for the post-WWII mostly economic, but at least also superficially, political order.
The precedents were: colonialism, imperialism, military administration, support/bribery for anti-Soviets or pro-Soviets, then support for dictators against less desirable dictators (Iran-Iraq), then leaving Afghanistan. All of these have horrible fallout, whether entirely figments of imagination or ones with clear economic and military consequences.
Let’s leave aside the other considerations, just for the sake of brevity.
Then came Afghanistan following 9/11, the routing of the Taliban, and the relatively peaceful if incomplete establishment of the Karzai government, with the consent of the loya jirga, and the support of the Europeans, more or less. This was very encouraging, that the “graveyard of empires” should be so amenable to a light invasion, should enjoy substantial cooperation from in-country opponents of the current government, and should transition out of criminality into a more traditional, and traditionally and appropriately introverted, relationship with the world system.
But look at Afghanistan now: the Taliban rehabilitate in Pakistan, which we cannot invade for fear of empowering radicals who clearly wield great authority and popularity in the country; opium production continues, partly coerced by the Taliban but also partly for basic economic reasons and lack of incentive not to produce this crop; Karzai’s government relies completely on NATO and international support. The Taliban have now won concessions of sovereignty from the Pakistan government in Waziristan and in Bajaur province; they have control over others, though less officially. Southern regions of Afghanistan still succor the Taliban, and sympathize with them on the basis of religious belief and tribal bonds. Bush just had to send 12,000 more troops there to contain the “spring offensive.” Afghanistan is clearly as close to collapse as Iraq is.
But in all this there is little attention to the traditional, historical character of these countries, and of the religion that goes with them – knowledge of which can provide the only basis for guaging our successes there.
“Don’t invade Iraq because the Arabs can’t get along” is not a reason not to invade. This is the source of our problem with them: their traditional culture. Our modern culture – even the conservative variety detested with such ferocity by so many – is incomparably liberal in comparison to life in any of these countries. Yet these countries cannot be simply indulged in their folkways while they also have oil to purchase advanced weaponry; while they remain the incubators of a mature virulent jihadi resurgence that has actually been everpresent in Islamic civilizations and in its current form arose with the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire towards the end of the 19th century and joined global intellectual commerce (almost invisibly) via the ingresses and egresses provided by the British emprie.
The point is this is much, much larger than the political affiliations dominant in the United States in the period of the 43rd Presidency, and yet the centripital force to regard it as such is so strong that almost no other context is actually ever considered.
Afghanistan is Afghanistan; Iraq is Iraq. The USA is the USA. There will be an Afghanistan after our forces leave, as there will be an Iraq. There will be a USA after Bush leaves office.
Clear your minds and begin again.
10:24 am
ibeecurious Said:
10:58 pm
How about when the Taliban of Afghanistan were told to hand over al-Qeda or be destroyed? Let’s see, where are the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan now? Dead or living in caves.——-
If that is the case, why is NATO currently having to assault Southern Afghanistan to take a Taliban Stronghold? Honestly, if you are unfamiliar with Afghanistani events, I understand, but to diminish the terror of the revitalized Taliban for personal political hackery is ridiculous.
11:06 am
Welcome to the world, where reality smacks into the face of your True Believer denial.
It’s interesting how you still lash out at those entrenched in reality, attacking them, calling them names and so forth. The hardest person to be honest with, is yourself, and that’s evidenced by this rant.
4:46 pm
I don’t entirely agree with you, Rick, but I applaud you for taking a step forward out of the dead-end.
The surge isn’t the first positive blip we’ve seen in this war. We are not on the verge of winning. We must now think about good vs. bad ways to draw down forces in Iraq. The Army wants it, the public want it, everyone wants it.
Compromise from the White House may lead to a more permissive ability for a limited mission to keep an eye on Al-Quieda. A lack of compromise will only lead to further deterioration.
4:49 pm
Great post Rick.
I was against the war in Iraq, even though I thought Saddam was a time bomb waiting to tick off. I was against it because I have lived and traveled extensively in the Middle East and I thought that a bloody civil war/insurgency was inevitable. For all the reasons that are now known, except for one: when a population as hot-headed as an Arab one has been brutally repressed for decades, hot-headedness will prevail. And I had no confidence that ANYONE in the Bush admin really understood this. Perhaps, if I felt that they really did understand the cultural and historical reality there, I would’ve been willing to consider the idea that an invasion made practical sense.
There was a window of opportunity to take Saddam out in 92, when we had the ground forces available as well as a real coalition to help pull off a real Marshal Plan. But that opportunity was squandered, for reasons I will never fully understand. My best guess is that it had a whole lot to do with the Saudis. Who were then, and are now, terrified of the idea of a Shiite majority democracy in Iraq–or anywhere else in the ME. This is an angle which deserves more investigation, imo.
That said, while I think that withdrawal is the only viable option left to us now (for all the reasons you have mentioned) I must admit, that as a bleeding heart leftist, I am uncomfortable with the idea that we went in there, smashed up the place, and bailed when the going got tough.
But, short of reinstituting a draft and raising taxes to pay for it–which would be the only moral way to continue this war, I don’t see how our meager presence there will do anything other than to prolong the suffering and carnage for our overstretched troops (and Iraqi civilians), while doing very little to improve the lives of the Iraqis.
The whole thing is beyond tragic. And in situations like this, pleading ignorance is no excuse. Our leaders could’ve and should’ve known and done better. And I bitterly regret that they did not, because all of us—the US & the Iraqis will be paying for this disaster for a very long time, I am afraid. All good options have been off the table for some time.
2:53 am
[...] Discouraging commentary about Iraq from the MSM or from the Blogospheric left is unsurprising. When someone calling themselves Right Wing Nuthouse puts up a post entitled Time is Now the Biggest Enemy in Iraq it’s a different kettle of fish. The propritor, Rick Moran, opens with: I hate writing posts like this. Since I don’t advocate an immediate “turn tail and run” the left climbs all over me. And since I don’t say everything is going swimmingly in Iraq and that we’re on the verge of victory, the right thinks I’m a traitor. [...]
7:37 pm
Sorry, but colleague, [b]you are sure?[/b]
prof.Preobrajensky.
Good luck!