Are We Finally Approaching the Corner in Iraq?
There is a vaguely palpable feeling of progress in Iraq at long last.
I am thinking of this in terms of a corner being approached, but not yet turned, as the new “surge� troops pour into Baghdad, sectarian violence ebbs, there is a downtick in suicide bombings, and a semblance of comity over a new national oil revenue distribution law.
Putting aside for the moment the fact that this is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time and that there still is carnage, only less so, there is another feeling as well:
That years have been wasted, not to mention all of the blood shed, to get to a point that could have be reached months after the March 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation had their planning and execution not been so utterly botched.
This feeling came welling up for the umpteenth time when I read that the political goals that the Bush administration issued six months ago for the Iraqi government to meet by this month will take much longer to achieve.
These goals include:
* Reversal of the de-Baathification laws that are widely blamed for driving Sunnis from government and exacerbating the civil war.
* Holding local elections.
* Reforming Iraq’s Constitution.
* Finalizing the aforementioned oil law.
This is no small matter considering that U.S. commanders in Iraq now make no bones that a military solution will have little impact without a political settlement.
The Bush administration’s stated (if off-the-record) reason for the failure to meet the deadline is that it will take some time before the military buildup intended to stabilize Baghdad is fully in place, and it’s likely that its objectives won’t be realized until year’s end.
But that assessment is (pardon the term) dead wrong.
The real reason goes by a name:
George Bush Dick Cheney Donald Rumsfeld.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
12 Responses to “Are We Finally Approaching the Corner in Iraq?”
A fair post overall. I think it represents a good argument for why timetables don’t work in a situation like Iraq, or most situations for that matter. The US certainly can and has pressured various groups to compromise and it should continue to do that, but inflexible timelines are counterproductive.
As a side comment, one thing that really bothers me is the media’s use of body counts as a measure of a conflicts success or failure. Out of all the metrics available to ascertain the progress of a conflict, a body count is probably the worst. Both conservatives and liberals inappropriately use them. Liberals point to casualties as proof we are loosing, which conservatives use a down-tick in causality trends as proof we are winning, which, ironically, validates the liberal use of casualty numbers.
Success should be judged primarily by strategic objectives, not dead people.
Entropy:
You are entitled to your view. Mine is that dead people matter more than strategic objectives.
If that is your calculus then no fight that might produce casualties is worth it.
And I don’t mean to suggest that casualties are unimportant. When a strategic objective is met at too great a cost in lives then what you have is a pyrrhic victory.
Entropy:
No, my point is slightly more nuanced and I certainly don’t claim to have the franchise on what constitutes just and unjust war.
But as I am dog tired of saying, Iraq is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unlike yourself, I have a very hard time rationalizing the deaths of 3,200 Americans and many thousands of Iraqis in light of this circumstance just as I have a hard time rationalizing the deaths of all the people I knew who never made it home from Vietnam or made it stateside but died prematurely as a result of its lingering consequences on their bodies and minds.
The positive side is that this is one of the few times that the president has set actual goals for his war.
Unfortunately, these are all goals that only the Iraqis can meet. We can only stand by, exert a little pressure and hope that Maliki wants the same thing we do.
And 2 of the goals, de-de-Baathification and constitutional reform, are meant to fix the mistakes of our original policies.
Shaun,
Did you see Pamela Hess (UPI) on CSPAN Sunday morning? She has an outlook (honorable, practical, and dare I say patriotic, IMHO) similar to yours.
stevesh:
I did not,see Ms. Hess, but thank you for the kind words. I really want this to work out even if I want the war’s architects to rot in historian’s Hell.
Here’s an analysis, no doubt subject to accusations of liberal bias but with at least the appearance of sound logic, of what are the objectives of the surge and the likely outcome:
Iraq as a Cauldron of State Terrorism
IMHO its probably too early to be touting any long term success /turn around scenario for the surge. We are getting lower numbers from Baghad – for now. But we have seen this before, several times as a matter of fact. It has to hold for a few more months before we realy have something good to talk about.
Put simply
Will the insurgents adopt around the new arrangement? They have each time before after about two months or so. Fingers crossed, but they have proven inventive in the past.
Violence around Baghdad is on the rise. And, most of the those Iraqi casualty figures are simply never reported at all.
And, as the articel points out, of the underlying politcal issues, we have some movement on the government. Not a singel one of those bullet poitns has been addressed. Unless you count an oil law that simply says benefits to be divided later as ‘met.’
That said, the Maliki govt is at least meandering along on a somewhat ‘better’ course so far. But, the road ahead is dangerous and frought with detours and pitfalls.
Well, we can hope I suppose..
Shaun,
Ok, I get your point now. I am reserving my judgment on whether the sacrifice is worth it for when the war is over. If the US withdraws next year having achieved none of its objectives, then it will most certainly have not been worth it. This is obviously a subjective judgment.
And please don’t ascribe too many motives to me, such as rationalize deaths. I served in the military for 15 years and only recently left the service. One of my friends died in Afghanistan and I’ve deployed there a myself (though not to Iraq). I know and understand what’s at stake. And the conflict today is fundamentally different than Vietnam. Our forces today are all volunteers and they also know what’s at stake. They want to “win” which means achieving our strategic objectives – anything less and their brothers and sisters have died in vain.
I wasn’t a big supporter of this war before it got started, but now that we’re in I, and most others in the military, want it to be a success. I wasn’t a big fan of the surge before it was announced, but now that’s it policy I intend to do all I can to ensure it succeeds and so far things look good, though it is far to early to make any judgments.
And that brings me to Pam Hess’s comments on CSPAN. The video has been making the rounds this week, but mostly on conservative blogs. In my view it’s a must-watch. She rambles a bit, but her passion is obvious. I’ve thought for quite a while that she’s probably the best journalist in Iraq with the possible exception of bloggers like Mike Yon and Michael Totten. Here’s the edited version of the CSPAN broadcast – about 9 minutes of Hess talking about Iraq. If you have the time, watch the entire hour – you can find it on the CSPAN website, though unfortunately it’s in realplayer, which sucks. Anyway, the 9 minute version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4ghwZjyxMI
The big change had nothing to do with the surge, we finally got serious about Sadr and his Mahdi army. It was long overdue , the question still remains that it might be too late. Reconciliation will be very difficult with all of the deaths and the desire for revenge. The attacks on Shiite religious processions that were protected by Sadr is another problem, many Shiites will want him back if they think the government and the US can’t defend them. The jury is still out on this but at least Gates has shown a willingness to take on the Shiite coalition and is willing to stop all sectarian violence, regardless of who is doing it.