July 12, 2007
Running out of time in Iraq
President Bush is now engaged in a two-fronts war over Iraq. There is the battle in Iraq itself, and then there is the political battle back in Washington. To win the struggle in Washington, he needs to convince American politicians and the public that there is hope in Iraq. And that - in a modest and halting way - is what the interim report issued today does. It claims that progress has been made and pleads for more time.
The trouble is, how much time is enough? In a dangerous moment of candour earlier this week, General David Petraeus - the US commander in Iraq - told the BBC that typical counter-insurgenices can take decades to succeed. He cited the British experience in Northern Ireland, which actually took more than 30 years - and ended with a political settlement.
The trouble is that Iraq is considerably more daunting than Northern Ireland. The Americans have lost 3,600 troops, which is far more men than Britain ever lost in Ulster. Nor does there seem to be any prospect of reaching a political deal with the hard core of the insurgency - al-Qaeda.
Given this rate of losses, it is all but impossible to believe that the US will find the patience and long-term committment that the British were forced to display in Northern Ireland. On the other hand, there is not yet a veto-proof majority in Congress to force President Bush to start withdrawing troops.
Still, the mood among the hard-core supporters of the war is rattled and almost hysterical - which suggests the way they feel the wind is blowing. Take a look at this editorial from the neoconservative Weekly Standard, which ends with a rather butch martial metaphor:
"Here’s what I gather is a basic lesson of tactics: When you find yourself in an ambush, attack into the ambush. Don’t twist and turn in the kill zone, looking for a way to retreat. Especially when the ambush is not a powerful one, and the Democrats’ position (to mix military metaphors) is way overextended."
If President Bush takes the Standard’s advice -and he has little reason not to, since he is fighting for his legacy, rather than for re-election - than he may yet stave off large-scale withdrawals. That would leave the next president to preside over America’s retreat from Iraq.
I think the fundamental issue here for Americans, and has been since WWI, is how to reconcile our democratic polity with our foreign policy prerogatives. This problem most recently manifested in Vietnam and has now resurged in Iraq; democratic polities are not prepared to tolerate bloody wars that have next to nothing to do with there domestic security.
Strategically speaking, this is a disadvantage for American policy in Iraq. If America can stabilize Iraq, it would be an enormous victory that all should welcome. But that would take time, maybe even decades, as Gideon mentioned General Petraeus saying. Are American prepared to tolerate this war for a decade? I don’t believe so, and my sentiment might be echoed in Senator Reids somber comments on the war: “6 months, $60 billion, 600 lives.”
One republican congressman today quoted Sun Tzu on the house floor, saying “you must break the will of your enemy.” In this sense, the insurgency is winning, because there is no doubt that the will of Americans to fight this war is waning. This is refelected in the %80 disaproval of GW, the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, as well as the much higher contributions democratic campaigns have solicited from the public.
My point is, the domestic opposition to the war is hurting America’s chance of succeeding. But should our democratic system be compromised for the purpose of succeeding in Iraq? I am certainly not one to believe so.
It is one thing to talk about George Bush’s legacy, and another to talk about America’s. If George holds his legacy to be more important than America’s, which I think he does, he is working against America and Americans.
Kian
p.s. Gideon, I don’t believe you have it correct in saying that the “hard core” of the insurgency is al-Qaeda. From my understanding, it is the indigenous sunni insugency that is the “hard core” of the insurgency. In fact, the sunni tribes, as well as the shias, denounce al-Qaeda’s presence in Iraq and actively fight against them. I would be greatful if you provided a source confirming what you said. Thanks so much. I really enjoy your blog.
Posted by: kian, US - Obama for President! | July 12th, 2007 at 11:11 pm | Report this comment“THE WORLD OWES THE USA A GREAT DEAL FOR ITS ROLE ON THE WORLD STAGE DURING THE LAST CENTURY: COMPREHENSIVELY, & BROADLY ASSISTING WITH IRAQ WOULD BE ONE WAY OF ATTEMPTING PAY BACK”
The misnamed ‘war in Iraq’ ended 4 years ago, with the end of the successful invasion!
The subsequent disastrous ‘occupation of Iraq’ needs to be ‘done right’- not irresponsibly abandoned. After WW II, the Allied occupation of defeated Germany & Japan lasted much longer than Iraq’s occupation has so far.
The main differences between, for example, Japan’s 1945-‘52 occupation & Iraq 2003-‘07 is that the occupiers of Japan went in knowing they needed to establish a functional democratic governance model, & they believed that establishing democracy… involved facilitating positive change IN ALL AREAS OF JAPANESE LIFE + were prepared to provide for many years- the huge levels of resources required for this:
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/eacp/japanworks/japan/japanworkbook/modernhist/occupation.html
In Iraq, unfortunately, it appears that occupation decision-makers believed- or hoped- that a human-rights-based democratic-governance-model would just fall into place on its own… without realistic levels of resources- or detailed planning- provided by the occupiers & without years of occupier-enforced positive changes in all areas of Iraqi life.
Worse, there was no overt recognition that successful democratization would necessitate a prolonged, extensive occupier presence.
Why prolonged & extensive? Because setting loose the freedoms of any people- inclined to democracy or not- who have for decades been subjugated to the whims & abuses of a barbaric dictator & his accomplices can only result in an unprincipled, often greedy grab for power by some of those previously subjugated.
To avoid this & the chaos resulting, the INSTITUTION OF A TEMPORARY NATIONAL CONSTITUTION with a boilerplate set of secular laws; articulated human-rights; & national-cohesion-mandating clauses was necessary + needed to be held-in-place (for years) while Iraqi society became acclimatized to their new democratic environment & the country as a whole developed “democratic inertia”.
Part of the reason this didn’t occur is that it would have mandated adequate- IE: massive- levels of troops/reconstruction experts-> numbers large enough to maintain peace while facilitating the establishment of new, fully-enfranchised civic, provincial & national governments & their infrastructures; as well as conducting a national census & setting up functional delivery structures for vital social services basics such as health, education, sewers, electricity & water delivery.
Resources needed for the above are far above what the USA, UK & allies could comfortably commit to- after the refusal of major military powers such as France, Russia & Germany to take part.
Now, in 2007, the melt-down of an inadequately resourced, insufficiently planned occupation of Iraq is in full swing- with far reaching egregious results… potentially effecting not only the innocent citizenry of Iraq & countries of its region, but also- disastrously- the wider world.
What is needed?? An acknowledgment by the developed world (esp the G8, EU & Nato) that:
- the unconscionable problems in Iraq are of direct concern to all & are of such a serious nature that coordinated, expensive intervention is warranted;
- ‘fixing Iraq’ requires fixing Iraq’s region’s most destructive & urgent problems- no matter what the cost
in ego’s or $$;
- countries neighboring Iraq need to be brought into strategic cooperation with its occupiers.
To achieve strategic cooperation, the occupiers’ ‘deputizing’ Iran &/or Syria is unrealistic & likely unworkable.
But, neutralizing these pivotal, influential countries’ decades-old enmity & hostility towards the USA/allies is vital.
How? Led by the UK, the developed world ought to:
- offer Iran the 2012 Olympics, with guaranties of significant logistical & financial support. Other states in the region could participate, with a regional Olympic games an objective;
- offer both Iran (& N Korea) the rights to be exclusive locations for the International Thermonuclear Energy Research project (ITER, http://www.iter.org , in planning stages, recently awarded to Cadarache, France).
Doing this would in effect call-their-bluff about needing secretive nuclear technology development programmes. The ITER project is ‘international’ by its design & nature, thereby enabling competent oversight-> precluding misuse of the project’s resources.
- Additionally, offer to pay for & partner-in-the-building-of significant infrastructure for (N Korea, & possibly) Iran, of a type that will instill national-prestige, as well as facilitating an improved connectedness- both physical & psychological- to the outside world.
Japan’s new Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, advocates more assertiveness and a greater global role for his country. These objectives could be amply accomplished, productively, by Japan supporting strategies like ITER & the 2012 Olympics, & participating in the paying for & construction of a Japanese-type high-speed “bullet” train to connect troubled N Korea with S Korea, + to China.
As well, a pan-Korean peninsula high-speed rail link could only contribute to + make more permanent the existent but very limited trade & industry connections between these two culturally similar states.
If accepted, overtures like the 2012 Olympics, ITER & infrastructure, would enable global stages where these egotistically defensive country’s (& many Islamic nations) could show their positive potential & achievements & would effectively require them to “fit” & “work with” the world community.
Most importantly, offering the ITER project & the 2012 Olympics + committing to pay-for & partner in building infrastructure would go a long way to eliminating these countries’ (+ Islam nations/people’s) perceptions of threat from the developed world-> removing their motivations for nuclear weapons & long-range missile programmes &/or counterproductively interfering in Iraq (or Lebanon/etc).
Roderick V. Louis,
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | July 13th, 2007 at 4:12 am | Report this comment(near) Vancouver, BC,
Canada,
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
I sympathise with some views re the occupation of Iraq and the incompetent/misguided planning done by Rumsfeld and Co.
btw - what you are saying seems to say that Blair/Bush should not have been to Iraq for another reason: the fact that even the superpower couldn’t occupy such a large & populous country without the backing not just diplomatic but military and logistical of Fr, Ger and Rus… Not sure that is factually correct, but interesting point.
Now as for some of the suggestions you make further down, it is totally ridiculous!!!
How could a country with a wrenched economy (if you exclude Oil) and poor infrastructure even organise succesful olympic games with 4 yrs to go??? Rich London will struggle as it is and you seem to expect Iran, with essentially no olympic standard sports infrastructure to succeed??? Now, of course Iran should be allowed to bid and win the organisation of the games at some stage but we are some way off. What do you also do of the Olympic ideals??? Would Jewish athletes (from Israel or elsewhere) be welcomed to compete in Teheran? What about women? Somehow, I find it hard to believe that a country like Iran is ready to seen female swimmers or runners competing in the Olympic.
As for ITER, this is an even worse suggestion! France and Japan were the front runner for the site initially. Of course, politics played a part, but this is cutting edge technology - so much so, that this is fundamental research in a field that has not been mastered. And both countries had plenty of local as well as international grey cells to conduct this research. Both Japan and France have large numbers of nuclear reactors, with some of the best safety records - bar some recent incidents in Japan. Both countries public opinion is also generally in favour of nuclear energy. In the end, politics decided where to build the site, but before that, it was a fairly cold, rational assessment of where was the best place on Earth to succeed with this research. Let us say now, that if this project succeed (maybe 10 yrs, but more like 25, 50 or not at all), both the global warming crowd and oil producing countries will become irrelevant. So again, what sense is there for a country whose only power resides in the fact it has oil want to help find the energy source that will replace oil???
I dont disagree with the argument of trying to involve countries in international cooperation, projects etc.. Of course, that is for the good. But they are projects you simply can’t and shouldn’t do that way. And also, do you really think North Korea’s ruler (and the army) will be keen to have a train line that would undermine their power???
Posted by: a | July 13th, 2007 at 10:48 am | Report this commentWe will never completely understand America’s role in Iraq, past or present, unless and until this administration (or more likely, a future one) comes clean and tells us what the role of oil was in the decision to invade. Was the purpose of the invasion to try to break the cartel by selling Iraq’s oil more cheaply? Or, to the contrary, was it to stop Saddam from doing exactly that? Was it to push out the European oil companies, which were close to making deals with Saddam, so that US oil companies could get in on the action with a friendlier Iraqi government? Was it to deny oil to potential rival powers such as China? Was it all of the above? “None of the above” would be highly unlikely to qualify as a truthful answer.
Also, why is it so vital to stay in Iraq until America wins a “victory”? Does victory mean lucrative oil revenue sharing contracts for US companies? Is this what some 4,000 American and British soldiers and perhaps 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died for, while 4 million internal and external Iraqi refugees are living broken lives of fear and despair? Most likely, we will only be able to find out the answers to these questions through impeachment proceedings, war crimes trials, or both.
Roger Algase, New York NY
Posted by: Roger Algase | July 14th, 2007 at 3:34 am | Report this comment