Military Victory No Longer Possible in Iraq
I don’t really care what Henry Kissinger has to say these days, but perhaps his recent comments in Tokyo deserve some consideration.
Although he remains “basically sympathetic to President Bush” with respect to Iraq — which is already enough to question his sanity and credibility — he does not think that “military victory” (defined as “total control over the whole territory, imposed on the entire population”) is possible. (Was it ever?) He does not support a quick U.S. withdrawal, which he claims would lead to chaos, but, overall, his recommendations for what to do now are much closer to the James Baker’s Iraq Study Group than to Bush and the neocons:
Kissinger said the best way forward is to reconcile the differences between Iraq’s warring sects with help from other countries. He applauded efforts to host an international conference bringing together the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran, Washington’s longtime rival in the region.
“That is the sort of framework out of which it is conceivable that an agreement should emerge,” Kissinger said. “One needs to be prepared to negotiate with adversaries.”
Kissinger said that fighting in Iraq is likely to continue for years, and that America’s national interest requires an end to partisan bickering at home over war policy.
“The role of America in the world cannot be defined by our internal partisan quarrels,” he said. “All the leaders, both Republican and Democratic, have to remember that it will go on for several more years and find some basis for common action.”
There are huge problems here, however.
1) Is it even possible for the U.S., the current occupier of Iraq, “to reconcile the differences between Iraq’s warring sects”. Is it possible to reconcile them at all?
2) The fighting in Iraq may “continue for years,” but what role should the U.S. play in that fighting? Should it remain a foreign occupier waging an unwinnable war against sectarian insurgents in the middle of a civil war, or should it back away and leave only a strategic anti-terrorism force in the country, with supporting resources nearby? Kissinger claims that withdrawal would lead to chaos, but what if the U.S. presence is actually making the situation worse? I worry, too, about what will happen to Iraq once the U.S. leaves — which is inevitable, sooner or later. The slaughter of innocents witnessed so far could be but a preview of much more widespread genocide to come. But, again, the U.S. need not withdraw entirely. It could remain in some capacity to target terrorists/insurgents and otherwise to step in where necessary. If at all possible, such a peacekeeping force (insofar as there is any peace to be kept) could be international, drawn particularly from Iraq’s neighbours, none of whom (including Iran) have an interest in seeing Iraq descend into chaos. Above all, the U.S. must no longer be, and be seen to be, the occupier of a sovereign Iraq.
3) What Kissinger (like Joe Lieberman and others who righteously claims to be above the fray) calls “partisan bickering” may also be seen as the argumentative presentation of alternative views on the Iraq War. Negotiation and compromise are in many cases preferable to entrenched partisanship, but what if one of the two sides is unwilling to negotiate, let alone to compromise. This has been the case not with the Democrats, whom Kissinger clearly dislikes, but with Bush and the proponents of the war. Bush has never shown even the slightest interest, whatever the occasional (or rather, rare) display of outreach in his rhetoric, in working to find common cause with his critics (or with anyone outside his bubble) on Iraq or, for that matter, on anything else. For him, negotiation means agreeing to what he wants and compromise means going ahead with what he wants. Is that what Kissinger means by rising above “internal partisan quarrels”?
Regardless, even if he is genuine in his advocacy of non-partisanship, he should direct his attention, and advice, at Bush and the Republicans. For they, it seems to me, have rejected “common action” all along. And let us remember that the Democrats — many of them — were once far more supportive of the war, and of Bush, than they are now. If they are now highly critical of the war, it is in large part because of how they have been pushed aside by Bush, and because of how negotiation and compromise have consistently been rejected, not just because of how the war has been so grossly mismanaged, not to mention the flagrant lies and deceptions along the way.
Still, it would make sense for Bush to do now what he should have been doing for some time, that is, engaging in diplomacy with Iraq’s neighbours, as well as through the U.N., as well as talking and negotiating with “adversaries”. That would be the sensible thing to do.
Which means it likely won’t be done.
13 Responses to “Military Victory No Longer Possible in Iraq”
Military Victory? Way to late an opinion that is. What you are seeing is the water being tested by irrelevent republicans first before the rest follow in distancing themselves from Bush in order to save their party. Might work, but I doubt it.
Well in my mind I think the terms are mixed up. A military victory was acheived in short order back in 2003. Iraq’s army was destroyed, its leaders fled to hiding and American military was free to roam and do whatever it wanted to do with Iraq. What is not attainable, and still isn’t, is Peace. The one does not always follow the other. Especially if you remove all instruments of law and order, then are unable to provide the basics of living to 26 million people.
Now the chaos is such that we can’t even begin to get the infrastructure fixed because the insurgents know that with running water and electricity the people will be less likely to side with violence.
Exactly Sam. And this is what people who don’t think that the Shiite militias hiding has any long-term positive impact are missing. Because while these Shiite militias who used to make particular neighborhoods less safe are in hiding, hopefully that will make it easier for us to rebuild the infrastructure in those areas, and bring more jobs and economic prosperity to those communities. Because THAT is what will help bring about the political solution that everyone, both Democrats and Republicans, think is necessary for there to be any hope in Iraq.
But NO ONE, not even the administration, thinks a military victory is possible The administration though thinks, correctly I believe, that a political solution can’t happen until you fix the security situation, enough that you can fix some of the infrastructure and bring more economic prosperity to those areas.
WA- Most of the Republicans that are distancing themselves are now out of office, or running in very close districts. The ones who are in office from safe districts are standing tight with Bush. Unfortunately his base still supports him and his war policy.
Yeah guys but…..George W Bush did not hesitate to use the so called, “quick victory”, as a political achievement standing on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. Really now, does that depict a man that actually knew what he was doing? Especially after thumbing his nose at the world and deprecating the French?
Looks like he better get a “permission slip” from the UN next time. I’d certainly feel safer. At least listen to SOMEBODY besides his own echo. I honestly believe the man is off his nut and it scares me. 2009 will not be here fast enough for me.
Bush is a product of the people he’s surrounded by. I have a little more confidence now that he’s surrounding himself with better people, like Petraeus and Gates. And as long as he lets Petraeus do what Petraeus believes is necessary, then I have more confidence in the plan in general. I just hope Cheney is keeping his meddling fingers away from it.
George W. Bush is no more than minor king since last election. King of the rednecks IMO. I will feel much better when Bush starts obeying Congress instead of trying to hold out like some silly, sulking adolescent.
White Agent Says:
I will feel much better when (the President) starts obeying Congress
–
If you really believe that statement, that the Presidency is subordinate to the Congress, I truly hope that you are not an American.
If you are an American, please stop voting until you comprehend how the three branch system works.
Bookman
Yes, i slightly edited his text, for the purpose of pointing up how silly his statement was.
The world is filled with Monday morning quarterbacks and one needs to look no further than Congress to find an entire battalion’s worth.
What were these MMQ’s saying and voting for 3 years ago? The US Armed Forces have never been trained and configured to perform as policemen. The objective of “nation rebuilding” in Iraq is not something that has been closeted for the last 3-4 years and now just leaking out.
Bush violated a basic tenet of the Cap Weinberger armed conflict theory…albeit made more famous as the Powell Doctrine…… and the price of that poor executive decision is now being paid. Bush now deserves to be relieved as CinC, but the Constitution will see to that shortly in its perpetual wisdom.
Congress had its first chance to exert its Constitutional powers a long time ago…….but blew it. And if HRC, Edwards, Kerry, Reid are so much smarter, why didn’t they vote no back then? The big picture objective/strategy has NOT changed. The Constitution still gives them the power to control the purse…….so let them do that if that is their will.
But for all you who would have the President take orders from Congress now, read the War Powers Act and cite the language under which this will be authorized.
You don’t violate 230 years of Constitutional integrity to serve an immediate day’s desire.
Besides, in my opinion, it would amount to the blind leading the blind anyway.
Casual-
They are co-equal branches and are supposed to work together- or provides checks for each other. That didn’t happen for 6 years, when the executive was allowed to run amok. In doing so the WH lost credibility because the media version of events differed so drastically from the adminstration’s.
I’m not doubting that Democrats in Congress should have looked harder at the power to use force that was given to the president, but the evidence was cherry-picked, and there was enormous pressure to vote for it or face political oblivion. It would have been said that the Democrats were still unable to face a growing terrorist threat after our country had undergone attack. And you really can’t blame Congress for poor planning in the Pentagon by Rumsfeld, Gingrich and Franks.
Bush believes in the unitary executive, which basically negates the power of the other branches. His statements and Cheney’s on the war continuosly seek to ignore or block Congressional intervention , which as Sen Hagel said recently is unconstitutional and could result in his impeachment.
I’m not here to defend Bush and Cheney, kritter. They have squandered a great opportunity to advance the tenets of Republican government domestically with a myopic focus on installing a new government in Iraq. Worse yet, the execution thereof was/is abysmal. Worse even yet, was their inability…and yes, apparent lack of desire, to communicate with the constituents they serve. At least when Reagan took on Congress, he invariably knew to, and knew how to, line up the American people.
They are, indeed, curiously insular personalities given the overt political definition of their positions. Happy to see them exit, but certainly hope Petraeus can somehow manage to get Iraq back into a position where it doesn’t simply become the new headquarters office for worldwide terrorism incorporated once the next POTUS pulls the plug.
Sure, the co-equal, check and balance architecture is a beautiful feature of our government’s construct. I have no issue with the Congress, as an institution, attempting to flex its authorized muscle. But, the personalities within this Congress seem to be more focused on merely putting Bush in his place than convincing me they have a better forward-looking strategy.
To have not stood up for their convictions or duty obligations earlier on……..taken the political heat, questioned the data, questioned the strategy……i.e., acted like the leaders they now claim they are….doesn’t get them an automatic nod from me now to take over as political caucus commanders in chief either.
Bush is obviously going to go down swinging and I don’t think impeachment proceedings are going to have any chance of amounting to anything but, as Bush’s speech writer coined, political theater. It’s a sad chapter for us.
We need to get to a cleaner slate, a more unified view of what we do or don’t do on the world stage and it will be on our shoulders to find the right executive to get us started on that. I’d really like to see a candidate discuss what they actually would do internationally beyond “pull out of Iraq and talk to people”.
Bookman. You do not know what you are talking about. However you will soon learn.
[...] From the Moderate Voice. Folks, take some time to read this site. You will find a wide variety of opinions. – Military Victory No Longer Possible in Iraq 1) Is it even possible for the U.S., the current occupier of Iraq, “to reconcile the differences between Iraq’s warring sectsâ€?. Is it possible to reconcile them at all? [...]