Troop Withdrawal
-
"I have seen war. . . .
I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. . . .
I have seen children starving.
I have seen the agony of mothers and wives.
I hate war."
--FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT
We know now that the Iraq war was a terrible mistake. It has been a military disaster, a political disaster, an economic disaster, and a moral disaster. It has created the very situation, the very danger, that it was purported to address, and has caused untold suffering in the process.
We have painted ourselves into a corner, unable to stay and unable to leave. I've been trying to think about the wisdom of troop withdrawal in a nonpartisan way, trying to really think it through, and listening to people I respect on TV and radio. Now I'm trying to cull through the issues involved:
1. We have been in Iraq for five years.
2. If we withdraw before peace is established, here are the things that might happen: continuing civil war, an Islamic state, the Afghanistanization of Iraq (in which it becomes a haven for al-Qaeda), or a civil war that draws in neighbors like Iran, Syria, and Turkey. All horrible alternatives.
3. The administration refuses to negotiate with neighbors like Iran and Syria to set up plans for withdrawal that would prevent such a "drawing-in."
4. The war has been terribly mismanaged. New leadership of the war may provide different, better results.
5. It is possible that we cannot bring peace to Iraq and that we cannot create a friendly government (and friendly society) there no matter how much blood we spill, how much money we spend, and how much time we devote to it. In the meantime, we are bleeding money into Iraq, bleeding time, attention, resources; most of all, bleeding lives.
7. It is possible that, whenever we leave, a spike of violence will ensue, or more civil war will ensue, or an influx of al-Qaeda will ensue---whether we withdrawal in one year or ten years.
8. If we stay, we may find ourselves in the exact same position five years from now. If five years have not been sufficient to turn the situation around so far, what makes us think another five years will?
This morning Diane Rehm had experts on her radio show discussing Iraq. A disabled Vietnam vet called in to talk about how he felt, lying wounded in a hospital in Japan, when he heard over the radio that the US had given up that part of Vietnam which he and his buddies had fought for. He wanted to cry to think of the lost lives, his friends blown to bits, for nothing. And then he talked about reading Robert McNamara's mea culpa a few years ago, a memoir he wrote about the period, and how he felt when he read that McNamara and his colleagues KNEW that the war could not be won but kept it on for years because they didn't want to lose face. The Vietnam vet couldn't read on, couldn't finish the book. He was so heartbroken at the thought of his friends dead and gone, all to save the pride of a handful of government officials who couldn't face their own failure.
Thinking about Iraq without reference to Bush and the anger so many of us feel toward him, it's still hard to see what the best road is. If the war can be won, without bankrupting us economically, militarily, and morally, it should be. But if it can't be won, or if the price of winning is far too steep, we should leave, and the sooner the better. The consequences of leaving are unknown, so it can be tempting to stay the course, choosing the evil we know over the evil we don't know. But the price of staying is very high, and the appeal of inertia should be resisted.
I would love to hear all of your thoughts on the direction our country should take on this.
"I have seen war. . . .
I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. . . .
I have seen children starving.
I have seen the agony of mothers and wives.
I hate war."
--FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT
We know now that the Iraq war was a terrible mistake. It has been a military disaster, a political disaster, an economic disaster, and a moral disaster. It has created the very situation, the very danger, that it was purported to address, and has caused untold suffering in the process.
We have painted ourselves into a corner, unable to stay and unable to leave. I've been trying to think about the wisdom of troop withdrawal in a nonpartisan way, trying to really think it through, and listening to people I respect on TV and radio. Now I'm trying to cull through the issues involved:
1. We have been in Iraq for five years.
2. If we withdraw before peace is established, here are the things that might happen: continuing civil war, an Islamic state, the Afghanistanization of Iraq (in which it becomes a haven for al-Qaeda), or a civil war that draws in neighbors like Iran, Syria, and Turkey. All horrible alternatives.
3. The administration refuses to negotiate with neighbors like Iran and Syria to set up plans for withdrawal that would prevent such a "drawing-in."
4. The war has been terribly mismanaged. New leadership of the war may provide different, better results.
5. It is possible that we cannot bring peace to Iraq and that we cannot create a friendly government (and friendly society) there no matter how much blood we spill, how much money we spend, and how much time we devote to it. In the meantime, we are bleeding money into Iraq, bleeding time, attention, resources; most of all, bleeding lives.
7. It is possible that, whenever we leave, a spike of violence will ensue, or more civil war will ensue, or an influx of al-Qaeda will ensue---whether we withdrawal in one year or ten years.
8. If we stay, we may find ourselves in the exact same position five years from now. If five years have not been sufficient to turn the situation around so far, what makes us think another five years will?
This morning Diane Rehm had experts on her radio show discussing Iraq. A disabled Vietnam vet called in to talk about how he felt, lying wounded in a hospital in Japan, when he heard over the radio that the US had given up that part of Vietnam which he and his buddies had fought for. He wanted to cry to think of the lost lives, his friends blown to bits, for nothing. And then he talked about reading Robert McNamara's mea culpa a few years ago, a memoir he wrote about the period, and how he felt when he read that McNamara and his colleagues KNEW that the war could not be won but kept it on for years because they didn't want to lose face. The Vietnam vet couldn't read on, couldn't finish the book. He was so heartbroken at the thought of his friends dead and gone, all to save the pride of a handful of government officials who couldn't face their own failure.
Thinking about Iraq without reference to Bush and the anger so many of us feel toward him, it's still hard to see what the best road is. If the war can be won, without bankrupting us economically, militarily, and morally, it should be. But if it can't be won, or if the price of winning is far too steep, we should leave, and the sooner the better. The consequences of leaving are unknown, so it can be tempting to stay the course, choosing the evil we know over the evil we don't know. But the price of staying is very high, and the appeal of inertia should be resisted.
I would love to hear all of your thoughts on the direction our country should take on this.
posted by Anonymous at
12:11 PM
4 Comments:
FROM ED:
I like all of your points about the war, and have considered them myself. This is a hard issue, and an unusual one in the fact that I am unsure of where I stand on this. I thought it was a terrible
mistake to go in, but now that we have, our country has an bligation to fix it (as best we can), no matter the cost. The question is, are we at a point where staying is making it worse or better...I really don't know.
One thing that I haven't heard discussed, but I think is a real driving force behind the troop withdraw plan is that I believe that Bush has decided that he is just going to keep the status quo until the end of his term. I
honestly believe that he wants to leave it to his successor to figure out how to terminate the war. That way if it goes well, he can say that everything worked out fine. If it goes poorly, he will blame it on whoever is in charge at the time. I really wonder if the troop withdraw plans are a
determination by the Democrats to make Bush take full responsibility
(beginning and end) of the war.
The war in Iraq is a total unmitigated disaster that was both predictable and preventable. I have been against it from the beginning. But in the interest of bipartisanship, I will offer a possible rationale for the 2003 invasion. It could be that the neoconservatives calculated that even if the case for Saddam's WMD capability was weak or nonexistent, the UN sanctions were unlikely to continue because our allies on the UN Security Council had an economic interest in ending them. Saddam would then no longer have been contained in a box and, if left unrestrained and unmonitored, could have revived his dormant WMD programs at any time --- and probably would have done so eventually.
But if that was the rationale, 1) the neoconservatives should have been honest with the American people about it, 2) they could have waited until the threat showed actual signs of materializing, 3) they apparently had no knowledge or understanding of Iraqis' culture, economy, or religion, or of the ancient sectarian divisions among Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq and throughout the region, 4) common sense should have made it obvious that irreversible chaos would be unleashed upon Saddam's removal by an occupying force, in that environment, and 5) they should have exhausted all diplomatic options, including the completion of new UN inspections, which they clearly did not do.
And perhaps the biggest irony is that Iran --- which proably would have been next on the administration's list for forced democratization (as if such a thing were feasible) --- has grown more powerful and influential since the war began. The leaders of that country, unlike Saddam, have actually proven to be interested in spreading Islamist terrorism as an instrument of policy.
So what to do now? From 2003 to 2005, I took the "we must stay and fix what we broke, to prevent things from getting worse" approach. In 2006, when the civil war began to rage out of control, I thought we should get out as soon as possible and let the chips fall where they may. When the "surge" (which has not yet been fully implemented) began this year, my feeling was that a regional war was inevitable but a stabilization of the security situation in Baghdad (thereby propping up the lame Iraqi government) would at least delay it --- although most military experts were saying that more than 100,000 additional troops would be required to pull that off. In February and March, security seemed to improve and sectarian killings decreased, but that was only because the Shia leader al-Sadr had called upon his militia to cool it for awhile. But now he is back, and as a result, April was a very violent month. The Sunnis in the Anbar province have started to grow weary of the presence of al-Qaeda outsiders, which is a good thing, but Iraqi Sunnis and Shias are back to trying to kill each other --- as well as U.S. troops. Even if we killed al-Sadr and other top militants, there is no shortage of armed militia members who are opposed not only to American influence but also to a unity government where power and wealth are shared.
If a regional war involving Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia and Syria, the Shia Iran, and Israel is inevitable --- which I think it is --- perhaps it would be best to get it over with sooner rather than later, when Iran will have a nuclear weapon. In any case, the Middle East will be a bloody mess for a long time, and there is very little we can do about it now as events have already spun out of our control. As for the Iraqi government, its leaders are getting weaker by the day (as the infiltration of sectarian interests into the branches of government has not diminished), and I think it will collapse fairly soon whether we stay or go.
Thus, either a timed pullout (as the Congressional leadership is recommending) or an immediate pullout might be our only option as a way to cut our losses and get our troops (including those stationed on the waters of the Gulf) out of the way of the impending storm. The regional war will not be something we can contain or win.
Sorry to sound so negative and verbose.
I also meant to comment on Ed's point about politics. I believe that the president feels he has nothing to lose by trying to achieve success (i.e., a secure, secular Iraqi government) between now and the end of his term. He has to know that a positive outcome is extremely unlikely under the current plan, even as more U.S. troops die. But the alternative is to admit that he was wrong, then pull the troops out and let the chaos unfold on his watch, and he won't do that.
You are right that Bush wants to divert the blame to his successor, or to the Democrats in Congress if they are successful in their application of political pressure on him. His rhetoric is setting the stage for that now.
The Democrats are trying to pull the rug out from under Bush, but subtly, as opposed to cutting off all funding, ending the war tomorrow, and consequently being portrayed as weak or defeatist.
I hate to show my partisan colors here, but I can't help but be relieved that Sen. Kerry did not win the presidency in 2004. Had he won, he would not have been able to reverse the tide of sectarian violence, and he would thus be widely blamed for the failed mission. I hate to see bad things happen to nice people.
Bob, excellent comment. Thank you. Two things to comment back on: The fact that al-Sadr's voluntary pull-back was responsible for the early "success" of the troop surge, and now that he's stopped pulling back, things are as bloody as ever. The administration likes to talk of things "working" but do we have any control or effect at all? Maybe early on we did . . . well, I know we did. But unfortunately the administration blew the early stage of the war, and that opportunity is long gone.
The other thing I'd comment on is your analysis of a possible hidden Republican rationale for the war and how they should have explained that to the American people honestly. The problem is (1) many politicians, and honestly this seems more true of Republicans than Democrats to me, do not believe that the public can follow and grasp complicated reasoning; and (2) they rightly figured that the American people would not support the war under the true rationale. They knew the only way to get the people to support the war at all was to scare the bejesus out of them: "If we don't do this, in 10 months Saddam Hussein will have weapons of mass destruction and will use them against the United States."
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home