A Few Clarifying Remarks

In rereading my last blog, it occurred to me that I may have given the impression that, with a proper military approach, we can "win" in Iraq. Since that is definitely not my position, some clarification is required.

Ultimately, I do not think a U.S. military counter-insurgency effort will be successful. However, a counter-insurgency effort is preferable to an immediate withdrawal or a military policy that treats Iraqis as terrorists. In other words, counter-insurgency should be part of our withdrawal strategy, not an attempt to win some sort of American "victory."

I cringe whenever the President uses the term "victory" and am reasonably sure that each time he does so, he creates another thousand or so insurgents. Iraq, in the same vein of bringing democracy to them, is not ours to "win" or to "lose." Whether we realize it or not, for better or for worse, the future of Iraq is now in the hands of Iraqis and its immediate neighbors.

While there are cases in our history wherein we have successfully fought insurgents, none seem to me to be compatible with the Iraqi situation (the Phillipines, the American Western Frontier might be examples). Our successes were achieved in a different era; both involved violence on a level that would probably be unsupportable in today's world of "real time" reporting.

In an unpublished essay writen for the local paper, I recently suggested that it may well be that it is "impossible" for Bush to get from "here to there." This is a very foreign concept for most of Washington, whether Democratic or Republican. The idea persists that "we" are in control (or should be) of events in Iraq. On the Bush side (what little is left there) is the idea that our "victory" depends on the resources the American people are willing to commit...i.e. if we continue our support of the war and we are, if necessary, willing to escalate our commitment in terms of forces and money, we can achieve "victory." I doubt it.

Insurgencies almost always succeed when fought from the "outside." As an example, we have only to look to our own history and the American Revolution. There is something in the human psyche that tells us to "beware of Greeks bearing gifts" (i.e. the story of the Trojan horse). We can saturate Iraq with a half million troops, all on their best behavior, and rebuild their infrastructure, their hospitals, their schools, etc. and one relatively small incident such as an American soldier murdering an Iraq, can destroy all of our good intentions. In sum, insurgencies are best fought from within by native populations and are, almost by definition, "civil wars."

So, no matter what "we" do in Iraq, I seriously doubt that it will in the long run have much to do with its future.

I cannot forgive the President for the error of the initial invasion, nor do I agree with his "global strategy." However, I can also understand why an immediate withdrawal of our forces would be harmful to our global position, the world economy, the future of our own military, the Iraqi people who have bought into our presence, etc., etc. So, I believe I would support a phased withdrawal based on a specific timetable and one in which we do everything possible to support Iraqi democratic processes up to the moment the last soldier leaves. This would include a rationally explained temporary "surge" in forces for the sake of restoring some semblance of security. But, my support is also contingent on a broader shift in U.S. foreign policy that rejects "preemptive war" and "regime change." I would concede that under certain dire circumstances (e.g. a North Korea or Iran with a sizable nuclear arsenal) both of these "tools" may well need to be utilized, but neither should be part of public policy. In fact, I believe that, in a sense, rejection of these policies by the American voter was one reason for the results of our last election. Bush sort of lost the Presidency by proxy.

Nevertheless he is President and will be until the next election. He is also Commander-in-Chief. If he choses to continue to pursue a misguided foreign policy, contrary to the will of the people, Congress has but two choices in response: cut-off funding for these policies and/or impeachment. There is a third choice that isn't discussed much...the power of Joint Resolutions. In other words, if the situation continues to worsen, Congress may "resolve" anything it wishes. The resolutions would not be legally binding on the President, but would be a powerful political incentive to change course.

The most powerful incentive for change is, of course, the 2008 elections. Bush isn't running, but the American voter should simply make it clear now that if there is no significant improvement in Iraq within the next two years and we are not in a serious withdrawal posture, Republicans will be held accountable at the polls...both in Congress and in regard to the Presidency.

Republicans of all stripes should understand this...the political wisdom of yesterday was "Democrats Get Us Into Wars and Republicans Get Us Out." It was Eisenhower's pledge to end Korea that led to a Republican victory. Nixon campaigned on disengagement from Vietnam.

Aside from a few die-hards (perhaps Barney and Laura...and Cheney), whether you are Republican or Democrat, Iraq is today perceived by the vast majority as a "failed policy." Neither Party, nor the country at large should look forward to having to debate this policy going into the 2008 election. It may have already cost McCain the nomination of the Republican Party. By this "error" (and it really doesen't matter much politically whether it was due to false intelligence, neo-cons, or whatever) the President's "legacy" is probably already fixed as one of failure. And, to continue the pursuit of a failed policy for the sake of this legacy is a disservice to the country.

We have sent the world a post 9/11 "message." If attacked directly, we are apt to strike back by doing wild and crazy things. The 2008 elections (if not sooner) should be marked by a return to national sanity and the end of the post 9/11 era. That is not to say we should forget the lessons of 9/11. There is still much improvement to be done in homeland security and there are genuine debates ahead regarding 9/11 lessons and the right of privacy, to say nothing of the rights of the accused, but internationally it is time to stop scaring the hell out of the rest of the world and strutting around as if we control it.

Power and those who seek power will always use illegitimate methods, to one degree or another, to either retain power or to gain it. The apparent "weapon of choice" for those in power is threat and coercion. "My way or the highway." The weapon of choice for those out of power, but seeking it, is deceit and manipulation. I have come to think that this isn't "Republican" or "Democrat" as much as it is simply human nature...as sad as that may be. Both at home and abroad, the President has played the "in your face" card since 9/11. The failure in Iraq and its revealed incompetence has essentially negated this approach. Had we restrained ourselves to Afghanistan and finding Bin Laden, while slowly but surely improving our global military posture, he may have been successful in continuing to play this card. Instead, he "overreached." Typical of Texans, but I won't get into that. We now risk being seen internationally as a "Paper Tiger." Global ambitions such as the President pursues do not practically match up with the difficulty to find 20,000 extra troops for a temporary surge in Iraq.

So, in a sense, we are now in the position (despite being the sole remaining Super Power) internationally of being "out of power." Yes...we are still a force to be reckoned with...because of our shear size and economic strength, but there is a distinct difference between reckoning with the United States and listening to us seriously. I would suggest that it is increasingly obvious to the international community that we are not willing to "put our money where our mouth is." Thus, it it is time to turn to the tools of the "weak" or those out of power, but seeking it...deceit and manipulation, or in other words, international diplomacy.