When It Comes To Iraq, Dems Can ‘See No Good’
So says the Washington Post editorial board:
AT SATURDAY’S New Hampshire debate, Democratic candidates were confronted with a question that they have been ducking for some time: Can they concede that the “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq has worked? All of them vehemently opposed the troop increase when President Bush proposed it a year ago; both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama introduced legislation to reverse it. Now it’s indisputable that the surge has drastically reduced violence. Attacks have fallen by more than 60 percent, al-Qaeda has been dealt a major blow, and the threat of sectarian civil war that seemed imminent a year ago has receded. The monthly total of U.S. fatalities in December was the second-lowest of the war.
A reasonable response to these facts might involve an acknowledgment of the remarkable military progress, coupled with a reminder that the final goal of the surge set out by President Bush — political accords among Iraq’s competing factions — has not been reached. (That happens to be our reaction to a campaign that we greeted with skepticism a year ago.) It also would involve a willingness by the candidates to reconsider their long-standing plans to carry out a rapid withdrawal of remaining U.S. forces in Iraq as soon as they become president — a step that would almost certainly reverse the progress that has been made.
So did any of the Democrats take the high road and acknowledge the hated President Bush had made the right move? Perish the thought:
What Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson instead offered was an exclusive focus on the Iraqi political failures — coupled with a blizzard of assertions about the war that were at best unfounded and in several cases simply false. Mr. Obama led the way, claiming that Sunni tribes in Anbar province joined forces with U.S. troops against al-Qaeda in response to the Democratic victory in the 2006 elections — a far-fetched assertion for which he offered no evidence.
Mr. Obama acknowledged some reduction of violence, but said he had predicted that adding troops would have that effect. In fact, on Jan. 8, 2007, he said that in the absence of political progress, “I don’t think 15,000 or 20,000 more troops is going to make a difference in Iraq and in Baghdad.” He also said he saw “no evidence that additional American troops would change the behavior of Iraqi sectarian politicians and make them start reining in violence by members of their religious groups.” Ms. Clinton, for her part, refused to retract a statement she made in September, when she said it would require “a suspension of disbelief” to believe that the surge was working.
Even more disturbing was the refusal of the Democrats to adjust their policies to the changed situation. Ms. Clinton said she didn’t “see any reason why [U.S. troops] should remain beyond, you know, today” and outlined a withdrawal plan premised on a defeat comparable to Vietnam (“We have to figure out what we’re going to do with the 100,000-plus American civilians who are there” and “all the Iraqis who sided with us. . . . Are we going to leave them?”). Mr. Obama stuck to his plan for “a phased redeployment”; if his scheme of a year ago had been followed, almost all American troops would be out by this March.
That’s a stunning visual from Mrs. Clinton: a Fall of Saigon scenario? Now, when the tide has turned so dramatically? Jeesh…but Obama is little better, offering a way to ‘manage defeat’ from the jaws of (at least possible, if not certain) victory.
It’s easy to get caught up in the historic nature of Obama’s sudden rise. I admit that a part of me thrills to think of the barriers he is breaking through. America has always been the land of opportunity, but often, that opportunity has not been open to all.
Nevertheless, there comes a point at which a presidential candidate must be judged by his policies. I hope that (a) if Obama makes it through to become the nominee, and (b) if Iraq stays relatively stable, or even improves, Obama will reconsider prejudging our mission to failure. We’ve made many, many mistakes in our Iraq policy, but outside of the initial decision to invade, none has more drastic consequences than premature withdrawal…
At what point do the Administration’s own defined measures of success come into play, Mark? Sure, there’s been military progress and a reduction in violence. That’s unquestionably a good thing. That was part of the goal of the surge, but only as a means to an end, which has not been reached. That’s like demanding that you praise a construction company for building half a bridge before you criticize him for not building the other half.
Fargus, you know as well as I do that the government in Iraq has wasted enormous amounts of precious time. I agree that there are two parts of the equation: military security and political progress. The second has been quite lacking. It seems that there is always a holiday whenever progress gets near. So, yes, in 2008, the primary focus in Iraq must be to pressure the government into lasting actions that will bring reconciliation, such as the incredibly overdue oil-revenue-sharing plan.
It’s a long way from there, though, to defining our mission as how quickly and orderly we can withdraw our troops. As Winston Churchill remarked after the amazing rescue of the troops at Dunkirk: “no war was every won by a retreat” (or something to that effect, I can’t remember the exact quote)…
Fargus is right, but he doesn’t go nearly far enough. Here’s a quote from the editorial:
“the final goal of the surge set out by President Bush — political accords among Iraq’s competing factions — has not been reached.”
Forgive me for being daft, but I’m going to go out on a limb here and say if you haven’t acheived your goal it makes little to no sense to call your policy a “success”. Why the Washington Post believes that the Democratic candidates have to agree with the President’s constant goalpost-moving is beyond me.
You know what? I’ll go a step further. Since the goal of the surge was to create military security as a means of getting the political process moving, AND we actually created a fair amount of that security, it is especially damning for everyone involved that the political process hasn’t gone anywhere. This is simple “if A, then B”. We got A and no B, so the surge has failed. Ipso facto, QED, et cetera.
Is it too much to ask Republicans to pick a set of performance metrics and actually stick with them for more than ten minutes?
See, Mark, this isn’t even really a war anymore. We’re not fighting anyone specific. It’s an occupation. Success doesn’t come with a rout of our enemies; rather, success has been defined by the point when we’re successfully able to let somebody else worry about it. Calling this a “war” and talking in terms of “winning” and “losing” seems to fundamentally obscure the point.
Note: When I say “we’re not fighting anyone specific,” I was being quite imprecise. Apologies. Of course we’re fighting specific people, but their defeat, while it would undoubtedly facilitate our ultimate goals in Iraq, is not itself the end goal. That’s what I meant.
[snark alert]
Sure, when the dems can pick a set of performance metrics and actually stick to theirs. There’s a whole slew of unmet promises from Pelosi/Reid and company. Yet, we expect, no, demand, that Iraq’s parliamentary govt accomplish the political goals forthwith. Excuse me if I don’t hold my breath.
Has Maliki proved to be a disappointment? Without a doubt. But then again, maybe our expectations, once again, were unrealistic. The fact that Iraq is improving from the bottom up, instead of from the top down as proscribed is better than nada.
In fact the bottom-up outcome may be better by an order of magnitude than the immaculate Western Plan. How? As the change percolates upward, there is a crystallization of democratic impulses and tendencies that can’t be achieved in a top-down framework. Change a top-down government and risks are high that there’ll be a reset of the democratic growth & development. If you think about it, it is exactly how these United States of America came into being.
Besides, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth by our intrepid democrats will be moot as there will be a tipping point where the 1/2 original goals will have been met and the rest being tackled. IOW, does it really matter if the cup of democracy is filled from above or from below?
The real test will be at Iraq’s next round of elections, where the people will decide if they want more of the same dithering politics or change spurred by the gains of a strengthen base of local politics? Al Quaida is on the run, insurgents are supporting a losing cause, refugees are returning home & disparate people are relearning to co-exist. That is a good thing. Pulling out prematurely only ensures that the seeds of democracy go to waste.
However, I’m convinced that regardless of who wins the WH, we are not going to pull out. Congress will see to it, led by stalwarts such as Levin, Murtha as well as the majority of lip-serving anti-war politicians. They’re not really against the war, they’re upset that it didn’t happen on “their” watch.
Ryan and Fargus, it isn’t a matter of saying “100% success” or we withdraw the troops. The question is much more subtle than that. The real heart of the matter is what is the best way forward from here. Unilateral withdrawal at this moment makes no sense. Things have improved. That might no be enough if we were still seing the wholesale bloodshed of 9 months ago. At the current level of violence, however, the occupation is sustainable.
Now, of course, the occupation is a means to an end and not an end in itself. I agree with you wholeheartedly that we have not seen the political movement necessary to make Iraq a truly functioning state. Ask yourself, though, what is likely to result in that movement – continued calm partially enforced through the occupation, or a withdrawal that leaves a power vacuum.
Can you honestly, in your heart of hearts, say you prefer the latter?…
“Continued calm” meaning, of course, still considerable violence, just less than before.
I ask you, Mark, what if that political reconciliation never comes? Do we just stay forever? What if they never hammer out an oil-sharing agreement? Do we just say, “Oh well, we’re just going to sit around and hemorrhage one troop a day and $200 billion a year (this’ll go up, of course, due to inflation) for the next hundred years, I guess.”? We’ve given them all the “space” they need, and nothing has happened. What is there to indicate that something will happen if we just pour out more of the same stuff that hasn’t worked?
I’ve long ago given up arguing with goal post movers like Fargus. I’m with Mark on this one. I would not find Obama an acceptable president if he doesn’t change his view on Iraq. I think many Americans are with me and if he doesn’t change it will cause him to lose the general election.
Ha!!!!!
Dan, are you serious? Like, seriously serious? You think I’m moving the goalposts? By sticking to the original goals set out by your beloved Bush Administration?
Wow. You know, there’s a lot of commenters here I disagree with, but at least they’re by and large rational about their disagreements, rather than simply displaying naked projection.
But see here, all this talk about moving goalposts is silly, Fargus. I know what you’re getting at, that if Bush can’t find success, he’ll redefine it. But at the same time, there has to be some flexibility in both goals and tactics in something as important as a war. The allies had to move back the invasion of Europe for almost two years, much to the chagrin of Stalin, who was taking it on the chin on the Eastern Front in 1942 and 1943. Now, I know we’re not dealing with ‘The Good War’ here, but there is as much wrong with stubbornly clinging to goals that have become passed by with events as there is in ‘redefining success’.
The surge is one of the most remarkably successful turnarounds in my lifetime. It was never going to create political reconciliation, but it was intended to allow space for that reconciliation to take place in. I’ll reiterate once again how disappointed I am that the Iraqi government has not done much, much more, but the window has not closed – unless we close it artificially…
Well, see, this is the problem I have with doling things out in bite-size segments. We’ve been “just [giving] it another six months” for years now. Unpalatable as I find his remarks, I at least give McCain credit for saying straight out that he wants to have American troops in Iraq for the next 100 years.
Punditish, ditto and indeed!
Could you back up that statement about Obama and Clinton re: violence, Punditish? Or am I supposed to take it as gospel?
The Washington Post editorial quoted above said that Obama remarked in January, 2007, as the surge was being debated, that:
I realize that you can parse that in different ways, but he seems to be saying he doesn’t see why additional troops would reduce the level of violence…
Mark, I’d call that a lack of imagination for a wannabe CINC. I wonder as to what foreign policy & DOD wonks are advising Obama… Ummm, not really. Better yet, I’d like to hear Obama explain just how he knew our going into Iraq was a mistake — which would be counter to the democratic tide at the time. Just saying so without citing the thot processes to arrive at that conclusion sounds more like Monday morning quarterbacking than a considered opposition. Oh well, maybe the Clinton machine will draw it out of him as they pick at the chinks in his underbelly.
Ah, the inevitable attacks on his having been right all along. Evidently it’s better in Andy’s world to have been wrong than to have been right without prescient knowledge of the future.
Ok Fargus, when was the earliest timeframe that Obama publicly came out against the war? Summer 2004? That would be Monday morning quarterbacking, because the tide was beginning turn against the war.
If he was against it in Feb/Mar of 2003, on what basis did he decide to go against the grain? He certainly wasn’t basing it on advice from wonks. Yet he advocates an unilateral attack on Sudan over Dafur?
On the other hand, Feingold had valid reasons for being against it, even if many at the time didn’t agree.
Just being a contrarian is not an indication of prescience — even a watch is right once in a while.
So why not hand over the reins again and again to those who were wrong?
Got it.
Quite honestly, I have a hard time buying any assertion that the surge is “working”. That’s akin to saying that if my car breaks down tomorrow, I can simply invite 5 of my biggest friends over and have them push me around in my car wherever I want to go. See? My car is “working”!!
The fact that a momentary reduction in violence has the neoliberals crowing pretty much says all you need to know about what an abomination this entire Iraq adventure has been. To say nothing of the shamelessness with which they plead, “come on, give us credit for the surge! It’s working!!” Now, after scaring us with “mushroom clouds”, they threaten us with “power vacuums”. Well, here’s my question: if they were so wrong about every aspect of the invasion in the first place, then where exactly does their credibility come from now?
And when they say it’s working on that basis, they completely obscure the fact that the defined terms for the success of the surge, at its outset, by its proponents and authors, was that there be steps toward political reconciliation, which there haven’t been.
Though this comment thread seems to be playing out, I will throw in my 2 cents.
It takes around 20 years of formal education to become a doctor, lawyer, or engineer. It also takes many years of applying this knowledge to become an expert in your chosen field.
Iraq has been a democratic nation for 3 years, tops. Sadaam and his brutal regime suppressed education and independent actions throughout his country for over 2 decades.
Am I to believe that the liberals on this site that they believe after 3 years as a functioning democracy that they believe Iraq should be able to function on its own?
Get realistic. This war was waged with a minimum loss of life by a volunteer force. These service members knew what they were getting into and many are proud of their accomplishments. A democracy in the Middle East will serve as an example to people throughout the world.
For all you liberals that have nothing to spew but criticism, here are a couple of suggestions: plant a tree to help global warming, attend a city council meeting and ask them to reduce property taxes for the elderly, donate some time at a hospice or hospital to bring some comfort to someone in need, and if you are European decent go thank a veteran for their service and 50 year occupation of Europe because if they had not served you might not be here today and give us your thoughtful insight.
So what’s the time limit on it, then, ol’ buddy ol’ pal? Do we give it another year? Five? 100? Maybe 100 years, but doled out in six-month “let’s give it a little more time” packages?
Mark,
What our military success has meant is close to the military
success of partitioning Bosnia and Kosovo to bring those countries
together. Oh, so there are no Serbs left in Kosovo? Well, there
are no Shiites left in most Sunni areas, and no Sunnis left in most
Shiite areas, and the Kurds in the north can go back to pissing off
the Turks, razzing them across the border. But in any case, the
monthly death rate outside of Baghdad is still running higher than
the first months of 2006, depending on where you look. This is
of course a difficult issue – IraqBodyCount lists 560 total violent deaths
for November, while iCasualties has 900-980. The violence hasn’t
been stead – it was down in a bit in Nov 2006 even as the surge
was starting to be mentioned, came back down in Feb 2007 before
the first surge troops hit Iraq and then went back up again.
So we’ve possibly bought a bit of time where we can bugger our way
out of Iraq without helicopters landing on the Embassy. We could stay,
but for what? To make Iraqis get along? Yes, there is a finite chance
that we could hit on a magic combination that would make things
better, benignly I’d rate it about 10%, and a very large chance that
by hanging around we’d only find ourselves back in the crosshairs,
because the people doing the killing there are still killing, but don’t
have so many targets.
But no, they didn’t vote on oil, they didn’t settle their constitutional
issues, they couldn’t bring themselves to not take another very long
vacation, and we’re spending some $10 billion/month or more for the
honor. Why don’t we spend $1 billiion a month on poor slums in Lebanon
to counter Hezbollah and $2 billion a month on poor slums in Egypt
to counter their radical mullahs, and another $2 billion/month on
Palestinian slums (I should say “Palestine) to try to bring them education
and jobs, and the rest to Iraq, and send our troops home, and then we
can say we’ve done our bit for the Moslem world and probably get much
more good will than we’re going to get by pretending we have any idea
what direction we want things to go there.