Lowering Expectations in Iraq
Earlier today, I took Frank Rich and MoDo to task for defeatism with respect to Iraq. It’s not my intent, however, to put on rose-colored glasses and ignore inconvenient facts. Apparently, defeatism is making its way into the Bush administration, as well:
The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.
The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.
It’s hard to know what to make of this; ‘a model new democracy’? How about something less than a despotic regime? That would suit me…and as for the oil…well, the oil industry will right itself soon enough, I suspect.
But that last bit is troubling: ‘a society in which the majority of the people are free from…economic challenges’ is probably a bit too much to ask, but a secure environment, its seems to me, is a prerequisite for success. We can’t stop every idiot that wants to blow himself up from doing so, but we mustn’t back out of Iraq in the current circumstances.
When a story like this appears, there is always a motive…no one talks to reporters for long think pieces like this with no agenda. What drove this piece? I can see three possibilities:
- (1) Political pressure from Republicans who face the voters in 2006 is driving a rush to withdraw troops;
- (2) Someone somewhere isn’t happy with the current course we’re on and is trying to move the debate to a more comfortable zone (in the manner of Colin Powell); or
- (3) We take the article at face value and assume that the Riches and MoDos of the world are more right than the Hitchenses.
Obviously, I don’t accept number three (though you must make up your own mind, of course), so that leaves 1 and 2, or, more likely, a combination of both.
Again, we come back to what is victory and what is defeat. When I took The History of the Vietnam War at Texas Tech University as an undergrad (an excellent course taught by a professor who was stationed in Saigon with the State Department somewhere around 1968), one fellow was adamant that we did not ‘lose’ the Vietnam War. In some ways, I was sympathetic to the young man; all this talk about winning and losing as if war were a football game is, after all, a little tiresome.
The professor’s retort stuck with me, though: “If you define victory as achieving your objectives, then surely we did not do so in Vietnam.” If we come to say the same thing about the Iraq War because we simply could not achieve our objectives, it will be a bitter pill to swallow…but if we fail to achieve our objectives to help some folks retain their seats in 2006, after all this blood and all this treasure, then there will be some very angry people.
If Iraq was worth getting into at all, and I believe it was, we have to see it through. If a Democratic Congress in 2006 is the price, then that is the price. The stakes here are far higher than a midterm election’s outcome. See it through, Mr. President; you still hold all the cards that matter, and you’ve surprised your critics many times before. Lead, and we will follow, however reluctantly.
First to comment on your post. The expectation we could eliminate the insurgency completely was made up in the minds of the liberal MSM. No one ever said we had to remove every angry muslim from iraq before we left. We said we would leave when Iraq could deal with it. That’s like saying the US is not democratic unless liberals agree with everything that happens here – another one of their silly myths.
I would appreciate a post on my latest Able Danger update
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/516
Seems there are a lot of weak knees out there from a well crafted non-denial and some honesty from Weldon.
Thanks!
Mark, i agree with 2 and a half of the points you make, as I don’t share the same level of confidence on the infallibilty of the Hitchenses of this world, nor of writers of the other side. I do however believe that there could be another possibility for the current re-rationalisation of the situation. The WH had not done sufficient homework on the post war realities, or possible realities of what would/could happen in Iraq. I’m convinced they have been taken aback by the level of violent attacks which have continued against civilians and military alike. As public opinion turns against staying in Iraq for a long time and elections get closer, realpolitiks comes into play. Which then takes us into the first 2 points you made.
algiga, indeed, it would take the most partisan of Bush supporters to argue that we have handled the occupation as well as we could or should have…and though I am an admitted partisan, I’m not that far divorced from reality. And truly, the level of violence has been a shock; it is both frustrating and disheartening…I admit that in my weaker moments, I fear that we don’t have the stomach to see this thing through…I maintain hope that we will, but I am increasingly prepared for the possiblity that we won’t.
Hi Mark—This WaPo article was the first thing I read this morning. Or rather, it was the quick summary of it in Slate’s daily mail shot “Today’s Papers.” It seemed like the Slate writer was a little too happy to hear the Bush Administration was “lowering its sights.” Same ol’ same ol’, as they say.
For what it’s worth, there is only one credited source in the whole piece; it’s all sourced anonymously, aside from a quote at the end from someone named Wayne White, described as “former head of the State Department’s Iraq intelligence team who is now at the Middle East Institute.” Well, whatever the Middle East Institute is, I bet it was Googled a few times today.
Has there ever been a White House so embattled not only in the media but also with its own State Department and Intelligence services? Not to mention the endless stream of retired Army commanders who seem to delight in taking their pensions and hitting the air via CNN with a Sharpie pen and a bad attitude.
I suspect there is a strong indication that some unpleasant compromises have been made in terms of the content of Iraqi constitution. I suspect there will be a lot of criticism of it and a great sense of let down when its details are released. Cindy Sheehan will still be drawing a lot of attention when it hits the news that ~1850 Americans have died to help create an Islamic Republic, not a functioning Western-style democracy. There’s no way to spin that as anything other than a serious setback for Neoconservatism.
As I was trying to point out in my column today, I think it’s the nature of democracies to evolve; ours certainly has. I still strongly believe that as long as a constitution that limits and divides power has been put in place and can be ratified by a democratic vote, then, despite the insurgency and all the other problems, American efforts can be called a success, WaPo and Frank Rich be damned.
The involved parties have made something where before there was nothing. It doesn’t happen every day.
The new site looks great!
This isn’t so much “defeatism” as extraordinarily short memories and shifting goal posts. Not long before the war started, I remember seeing a comment from an anonymous spokesperson for the administration who said: “If the Iraqis wind up with a government as good as, say, post-Ceausescu Romania, that will be a huge improvement over what they’ve had, not to mention better than practically any other government in that part of the world. Of course, you already know that the anti-war crowd will describe anything short of a Vermont town meeting as a defeat.”
utron, that’s that a great line…and very apropos…
[...] Mickey Kaus has some comforting thoughts for those of us (well, me) who went into a funk after that Washington Post ‘defeatism in the administration’ piece… [...]