« Hurricane Dean: Vast Liberal Conspiracy
TV Review: Cities of Light: The Rise And Fall Of Islamic Spain »
Guest Voice: Why I Opposed The War But Support The Surge
NOTE: The Moderate Voice runs Guest Voice posts from time to time by readers who don’t have their own websites, or people who have websites but would like to post something for TMV’s diverse and thoughtful readership. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Moderate Voice or its writers. This is by the independent blog Walking Think Tank:
Why I Opposed The War But Support The Surge
By Walking Think Tank
In the run-up to war in March 2003, I felt certain that our country was on the verge of making a tragic mistake, though I had no idea just how tragic. Not only has the human suffering inflicted upon our military and the Iraqis been horrific beyond comprehension, but this unnecessary war has been devastating to our strategic interests.
Yet as strongly as I felt that we were making a horrible mistake in invading Iraq, I feel just as strongly now that we need to give the troop surge a reasonable chance to succeed. For the damage this war has inflicted on our position in the world, stability in the Middle East and the war against Al Qaeda will be compounded many times over if we give up the fight and leave Iraq in chaos.
I am writing at this critical moment because our nation’s debate over Iraq has been distorted by politics, pride, pain, distrust and – above all – anger at the Bush administration’s handling of nearly every aspect of this war since the fall of 2002. The pain, distrust and anger are completely justified, but we can’t let them obscure the magnitude of what is at stake.
Mainly, I’m writing to talk to those who once supported the war but understandably lost faith in the mission as they saw the tragic consequences unfold and those who were right from the start that this mission never should have been undertaken. I’m writing in case there are still any open minds among you and because there are so few voices in this debate who are speaking the full truth.
President Bush and Republicans in Congress who have supported the Iraq war since before it began have lost credibility because they can’t admit what most Americans understand: They weren’t simply naïve in believing the war would be a cakewalk; they were negligent in choosing to rush our under-equipped and under-manned forces into a brutal conflict that should have been avoided.
It’s only natural for people to reject the course mapped out by those who steered us into a disaster, particularly when it is certain to involve the loss of life and limbs for the heroic members of our military of whom we have asked so much, for so long. No one can defend the way the men and women of our armed forces and their families have been treated. They are paying the price for the horrendous judgment of our Congress and our president, and it is heartbreaking.
Everyone, of course, wants so badly to bring the troops home. So it has been incredibly tempting for those Democrats in Congress who originally supported the war to break with an unpopular president, wash their hands of this conflict and call for troops to begin pulling out of Iraq immediately. And can you really imagine that anybody who rightly voted against authorizing force in Iraq would now support continuing a conflict that is causing so much misery and that the public has turned against?
Well, actually, one such profile in political courage just returned home from a trip to the Middle East. Rep. Brian Baird, a five-term Democrat from Washington state who voted against the war, came home with this message: “We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work.”
“People may be upset. I wish I didn’t have to say this. . . . I know it’s going to cost hundreds of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.”
I don’t know if the Democrats calling for a withdrawal have been blinded by their understandable hatred of this war and their justifiable distrust of this president, but they are not leveling with the public about the consequences of leaving Iraq in chaos. Baird’s fellow Democrats should listen to him, and so should the American people.
Because there are so few people speaking the whole truth, I will add my voice to Baird’s. This unnecessary conflict has been a disaster from its inception, but because the stakes are so great and we now have a strategy that has a chance to work, we must continue this hard fight.
I firmly believe this, yet I will also readily say that it no longer makes sense to speak of victory in Iraq. The high-minded mission of ending Saddam’s brutal regime and planting the seed of democracy that would take root and spread across the Middle East has backfired. Far from being an example for other countries to replicate, Iraq can only be viewed as a nightmare to be avoided at all costs.
The tyrant is gone, but there was no evidence – even with the faulty intelligence – that he posed anything close to an imminent threat. He certainly posed a potential threat in the future, but that wasn’t a sufficient strategic rationale for rushing into a war with few allies and ill-equipped forces.
The great experiment of trying to foster a new democracy
and a new future for Iraq in place of a dictatorship and
despite the age-old conflict between Sunni and Shiite was an
experiment that – if attempted at all – needed to be
conducted in a sterile environment, a germ-free laboratory.
But we set out to perform it without the manpower to
maintain order, much less to seal the borders and prevent
the inflow of Al Qaeda fighters and weapons from Iran and
Syria.
And because those who arrogantly rushed to war cared little
for international support, instead of isolating our enemy,
they succeeded only in isolating America. Yes, America’s
security can not be held hostage to world opinion, but the
fact that the world was against us wasn’t just a political
concern, it was a strategic concern.
When General Norman Schwarzkopf prepared to go to war
against Iraq in 1991, there was one principle on which he
would not budge – he insisted the first troops to enter
Kuwait City be Arab troops, not Americans. He wanted to
make sure the forces would be welcomed as liberators.
“Virtually any offensive would be acceptable, as long as two
conditions were met: first, Arab forces in significant numbers
had to fight by our side; second, we had to win,” Schwarzkopf
wrote in his autobiography. “The war would then be
remembered as western and Arab nations against Saddam
Hussein. From there, it was only a short step to what became
an inviolable principle of our planning: in any ground war
against Iraq, I told my staff, Arab forces must be the ones to
liberate Kuwait City.”
By isolating ourselves from world opinion and by making the
war in Iraq America’s war, we handed our enemy a key
moral victory in the battle of ideas – the battle of individual
liberty against Islamic extremism. And we emboldened all
who wanted to see what began as a noble mission turn into a
humanitarian catastrophe. Instead of turning Iraq into a
force for stability and progress in the Middle East, we have
turned it into a force for instability and a text-book case of
how vicious extremists can hijack a country.
And by pinning our military down in Iraq for coming on five
years, we have emboldened Iran to defiantly pursue its
nuclear ambitions and we’ve been powerless to stop a
resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
So this is the disaster we have wrought. And those calling for
withdrawal rightly note that America’s image in the world
has been debased by this ill-advised war and its tragic
consequences. But do they really believe that we will
improve America’s standing in the world by abandoning Iraq
to what will likely be a bloodbath of epic proportions?
Democrats such as Sen. Barack Obama have acknowledged
such a threat: “There’s no doubt there are risks of increased
bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there.”
But he said that preventing a potential genocide isn’t a good
enough reason to keep our troops there.
“If that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on
the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you
would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where
millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic
strife,” Obama said.
But there are a few critical differences. For one thing, we
bear responsibility for precipitating the civil war in Iraq. And
if we abandon Iraq to the likely chaos that will ensue, it
would be a far more serious strategic disaster than our
decision to go to war in the first place.
America’s greatest interest in the region – and in the war of
ideas – is to stand with the Islamic moderates who renounce
suicide bombings, who respect human liberty and who are
striving to build a better future for their people. This is
exactly whom we would be deserting if we leave Iraq. Nor
would we only be abandoning Iraqi moderates; we would be
dealing a blow to those in the West Bank, Lebanon, Iran and
across the region. For the Bush administration was wrong
about nearly everything, but they were right about the fact
that what happens in Iraq will leave an indelible imprint on
the entire region.
It is no coincidence that important steps toward peace in the
Middle East followed the first Gulf War, when Arab nations
joined with the U.S. in standing up for the rule of law. And if
this war with Iraq ends in a triumph of intolerance and
hatred and an explosion of brutality, then we can expect the
consequences to resound throughout the Middle East and set
back any hope of progress in the region for a generation or
more.
If we leave the Iraqi people at the mercy of death squads, Al
Qaeda-affiliated nihilists and Iranian-sponsored militias,
then we would be turning our back on what may be the last
hope for a Middle East where human rights, freedom and a
moderate form of Islam stand a chance against the most
vicious form of religious extremism. And we would risk the
most dire consequences by leaving the region – with its vast
oil wealth and nuclear ambitions – in the grip of the those
whose fondest desire is to erase individual liberty – and the
state of Israel – from the globe.
It is mind-boggling to me that those who consider
themselves a friend of Islamic moderates and of Israel would
advocate such a disastrous course – no matter how much
they hate and regret the war in Iraq. The only explanation is
that the country has not had an honest discussion about what
is at stake.
Even those calling for our troops to start coming home now
are beginning to acknowledge that the new strategy being
carried out by Gen. David Petraeus is working . Let’s be clear
what that means. It means that we are finally winning the
battle against those who believe that blowing up dozens of
families going to the mosque or marketplace is their highest
possible calling. These people are against everything we
stand for, and if we give up this fight, they will be free to
unleash their terror on the innocent and defenseless.
Yet despite the military progress, war opponents say we
should still begin to pull out troops because there has been no
progress toward political reconciliation between Iraq’s
Sunnis and Shiites. “I do not think the Iraqis are ready to do
what they have to do for themselves yet,” Sen. Hillary
Clinton said. “I think it is unacceptable for our troops to be
caught in the crossfire of a sectarian civil war while the Iraqi
government is on vacation.”
Her logic sounds so reasonable, until you consider what she
leaves out: The consequences of leaving Iraq to devolve into
chaos would be devastating to our strategic interests, to the
region and to hopes for peace in the world.
It is understandable that Americans are impatient for Iraqis
to reach a political compromise, but this is the unfortunate
result of a war that has inflamed sectarian tensions and left
the country in a state of upheaval. And it is impossible to
know for sure whether political reconciliation can be achieved
and whether it can create the foundation for a stable Iraq,
but the only hope of political progress is to establish a degree
of security that encourages Iraqis to take a chance for the
sake of a better future. This is the rationale behind the
addition of 30,000 troops this spring. General Petraeus has
led ably. He has earned our trust. And there is still reason to
hope that security will continue to improve and political
progress will follow.
The Pentagon has said we do not have the forces to continue
the troop surge beyond next spring. They are not talking
about maintaining this strategy indefinitely. But we need to
give it a reasonable chance to work. Despite the great cost
that entails, the cost of retreat is much greater.
Some in Congress have stopped short of calling for
withdrawal from Iraq, but have talked of strategic
redeployment that takes our troops out of harm’s way.
Supporters of this approach suggest that our forces would be
within striking distance if things were to spiral out of control
in Iraq. This makes no sense. Now is not the time to give
breathing room to an enemy we have on the defensive. If we
want to look out for the interests of our troops, we can’t take
them away from a battlefield where they are succeeding and
then ask them to return to a battlefield where they will face a
strengthened enemy.
Our troops and their families have already given so much. It
is tragic that we have to ask them to give even more, but the
only way to truly honor their sacrifice is to do everything we
can to make sure that it helps produce a safer world.
We have one last possible chance to avoid a much greater
catastrophe in Iraq and the broader Middle East, but that
chance will be lost if we back away from our current
strategy. If we want to look out for the interest of our troops,
we should do everything we can to make sure this strategy
works, or else they – and quite possibly their families on the
homefront – will have to face this enemy again and again.
Cross posted on Walking Think Tank
11 Responses to “Guest Voice: Why I Opposed The War But Support The Surge”
What your impassioned plea misses is a realistic estimate of our chances to improve things in Iraq. We have had more than 4 years to make an improvement and so far it could be argued we have made things worse. Why do you expect it to be different. Patreaus is not G-d. Do you really expect him to overcome the incompetence of the entire Bush administration?
Please tell me how many more “Friedman Units” you will need before you too give up hope. If things are not better a year, 1000 soldiers and 30,000 Iraq lives and $125 billion from now, is that enough? How about 10 years with 10,000 more soldiers and 500,000 Iraqi deaths and $1.5 trillion?
The surge has had positive effects AT THE MARGIN but it probably cannot be sustained for more than a 6 more months. What happens then? Same old, same old? If we stay, the results are, and will continue, to be horrific. If we leave, the same will be true.
The entire Bush Administration has proven to be criminally incompetent. Changing a few players like Gates and Patreaus cannot overcome all the mistakes that preceded them. Iraq is a failed state and it will take generations to improve. In another 2 or 3 years we will have 5 million Iraqi refugees including most of the medical and educated population along with much of the middle class.
The situation we face in Iraq is similar to a business quandry that I encountered many times in my career. It’s called “throwing good money after bad”. Sometimes you have to look an a business venture or product and say even though we thought it held promise, it is a failure. Putting more money, time and personnel at the problem is NOT going to change the fundementals.
Your essay represents hope over the hard lessons of experience. I suspect like a lot of humane, decent people that you will never be able to come to a decision that says”enough is enough”. There will always be a glimmer of light and hope around the next bend or “friedman unit”.
Iraq is dead, long live Iraq. Whatever salvation awaits the Iraqis it will come at their own hands. Our hands are full of blood that will never come clean and thus even our attempts at help will be bloody and incompetent.
I appreciate the sentiments you express.
But what, exactly, do you mean by giving the strategy “a reasonable chance to work”?
What I’d suggest is this: even if the Democrats succeed in doing something in September (and I’m not even clear on what they can do) to stop the war, the war isn’t going to stop in September. George W. Bush is still the President, still in charge of the military. Still in a postion to delay or disregard any Congressional action.
Does anyone really think it’s going to be over in September?
Because I don’t.
I’ve also read that the Pentagon is going to have to significantly reduce the number of soldiers in Iraq in the Spring. If so, I believe that and only that will end the “surge”.
So–I think–as a practical matter, you’re going to have the troops you want there until Spring.
That’s why I hope that you (or better, the President) has some practical understanding of what’s needed for the strategy to have “a reasonable chance to work”.
Like it or not, we’re going to see if it works.
I was horrified that invading Iraq was even considered. Yet, once ihe war began, I hoped we would succeed
I had grave doubts about the surge, but I hope against hope that it will succeed. I recognize, though, that it’s just hope, not a probability.
IMO, this article also reflects hope, pure and simple, not a realistic assessment of the chances for success.
Things are changing in Iraq, but we have no idea how those changes will play out in Iraq’s future.
By all accounts, Iraq is depending on a system of tribal allieances to govern, since the central governement can’t. We are arming the Sunnis, while Iran arms the Shia. No one knows where all those missing weapons ended up. No one knows how those weapons will be used tomorrow.
While it’s a good thing the Sunnis are turning their weapons on AQ, no one can guarantee they won’t turn those same weapons on other parties the minute it becomes expedient to do so. It’s quite possible US supplied arms will be killing US soldiers one day.
A Sunni-Shia civil war is ever a real possibility, as well.
Providing services or engaging in develpment is symied by sabotage the lack of security, and sky-high levels of corruption..
As for the strategic importance of Iraq to the US (its oil), it seems to me that the first thing Iraq would do if it ever became a fucnioning nation again, would be to invite the US to leave. We really have to get it into our heads that neither the Sunni nor the Shia want us on their land. They tolerate us only to the extent that they can use our presence for their own ends, as a last resort. Our presence is an insult to their dignity and a symbol of subjugation.
When looked at as a whole, Irqq ia a kaleidoscope of misery and despair, with violence as the only means of redress.
I can’t blame anyone for turning to hope as the basis of an opinion; it’s the only thing left. What we have to decide is how much more sacrifice is justified to shore up that hope.
It occurs to me that we have created, by our own actions, what we feared the most- an anarchic state with an empowered Iran as a neighbor. Now we are looking at arming neighboring countries as well as the insurgents who formerly fought against us. Is there any doubt that this will later backfire on us as Doma points out? The surge is a short-term bandaid on a fatal wound. Too many factors are not under our control, it is too little too late.
I hope you are prepared to leave our troops in Iraq for no less than another 5 years and more probably 10 to 15 years (or, if you wish, 10 to 30 more Friedman units.) Frankly, I don’t think any of the gung ho war supporters are prepared or even willing to go to that length to win in Iraq.
That is true. It’s been long known the surge could only be sustained, in terms of manpower, for a year. We currently have around 45 total Brigade Combat Teams in the active duty Army. Of those, 20 are currently in Iraq. Several more are in Afghanistan and a handful of others are in places like Korea. The current rotation is 15 months deployed and 12 months at home. Looking at the numbers and doing the math, it should be apparent it will be impossible to keep 20 BCT’s in Iraq past next spring. And frankly, we never intended to do so. The idea of the troop increase was to tamp down violence to a more manageable level – a level that a more sustainable force level could support. It remains to be seen whether violence can be reduced enough by next spring to allow a smaller, “maintenance” force to carry the plan forward.
Speaking of which, the surge isn’t just about manpower – it is a completely different strategy. JdLedell says:
It’s different now because our complete strategy is different. It’s really our third one and unlike Casey’s and Abizaid’s, is actually a coherent one designed for this type of conflict. Unfortunately, I think it’s three years too late. We’ve found the right General and the right strategy, but at the wrong time.
In short, I believe Iraq is headed for partition. The Iraqi’s will do this themselves in a very bloody way if we are not there. Were I in charge, I would ease this transition toward a soft partition of the country. But that’s just me.
Biden/Entropy in ’08!
Sounds a lot better than most of the other choices.
Soft partition doesn’t sound better when you consider how the neighboring powers will likely react. Soft partition means that the Kurds get the north and tensions flare even more than they currently are between PKK and Turkey. The Shia get the southern oilfields and become West Iran. The Sunnis get hammered and are left without oil resources, so Saudi Arabia and Syria step in.
Hmm, doesn’t sound so good anymore, does it?
“Soft partition doesn’t sound better when you consider how the neighboring powers will likely react”
Yes, especially since we’re selling arms to some of those neighbors
I see it more like Entropy. The current strategy for Iraq came too late,
Now, one part of our regional stragegy (selling arms to counter Iran) may very well work against another part, should those arms be used inside Iraq.
Locally or regionally, when you sell or give arms to someone, there is no guarantee how those arms will be used in the future.
A partition, soft or hard, begins to look better with every passing day. But the Iraqis have to come to that conclusion. We can’t impose it. While we wait for developments, anything can happen.
Well, speaking for myself, the adjective “soft” is, in part, to acknowledge that a central government is still the goal, but arguably, more time can be bought for this endeavour by allowing the three major factions to “have a place to call home” and hopefully, begin some sort of “local” government process which might help re-launch an effective police force. Said differently, maybe this helps construct a “time-out” period between factions and improves the day-to-day security.
Longer term, yes, some sort of functioning national government will ultimately be needed to foster a national identity and hash out the sectarian beefs.
C Stanley,
The Kurds already have the north and have had a quasi-independent proto-state for over a decade now. As for Iraq’s neighbors, and their intervention, that will happen in any event and is, in fact, already happening. Should we withdraw those intervening powers would be drawn into a bloody civil war which would risk a wider regional war. And let’s face facts: At some point we WILL withdraw. Iraq will end up as a de-facto partitioned state once we do as the various factions cleanse their areas. Better, I think, to follow the Yugoslavia model and ease Iraq’s breakup both to prevent a wider war, but also to ease the inevitable cost in lives.
Partition is, I believe, the natural result for a “nation” created by colonial powers without much regard to the history of the region. Iraq in this regard is a lot like Yugoslavia and we all saw what happened there. No one mourns the end of the Yugoslav “nation,” why should we mourn the loss of the equally untenable “state” of Iraq?
In short, I see partition as an inevitable end – the result of historic cultural, religious and ethnic forces that were somewhat bottled up before OIF, but are now free and rampaging. Perhaps a united multi-ethnic state was possible had we not screwed the pooch from ’03-06, but ISTM that goal is unachievable, at least for a generation or more. Even so, in the entire history of the “nation” of Iraq, the central government, particularly the Baathists, spent all their time battling domestic insurgencies of one stripe or another. The Kurds, for example, were in revolt during the entirety of Saddam’s reign and the Shi’a for the majority it. Many of the most violent neighborhoods are those where Saddam and others forcibly changed the long-standing sectarian mix in an attempt to pacify those areas. Kirkuk was seeded with Sunni’s. “Sadr City” – formerly “Saddam City” is a walled neighborhood ringed by forts specifically designed to control the Shi’as when they revolted (What is now the Green Zone was the biggest of these). Saddam drained the swamps of the marsh Arabs and many were forced into the Saddam city slums or abroad.
Anyway, that’s the gist – this comment is too long already.