Compromise on Iraq

While people are dying in the streets, politicians seem more concerned with thwarting each other’s agenda than solving the problem. I believe that both sides really do love America, care about helping Iraqis, and want to make things better. But as we know in sports, sometimes your personal vendetta for your opponent trumps your ability to help your team win. Maybe there is a way that both sides can get some of what they want, but of course that is no guarantee of “victory” in Iraq. And this week, Bush has again downgraded his definition of victory by saying that Iraq should have a reasonable level of violence where people can go about their everyday lives. I guess by that definition, we should send a surge to Oakland and Detroit to help those poor people.

The Dems were voted into power mainly to end the war, or at least do something about it. But it’s easier said than done, especially when the Commander in Chief acts as a roadblock. Why is it so much easier to start a war than end one? During Vietnam the Congress, White House, business community, and majority of America all felt that the war was un-winnable and we should eventually pull out. Fortunately losing Vietnam wasn’t super-critical to US national interests at the time. Outcry was fairly mainstream by 1969 and we didn’t exit until 1973 (and still we kept a robust military presence in the area with bases in Thailand and Philippines). In fact, the war escalated before it drew down, with tens of thousands of more lives lost while Washington was figuring out how to excise itself from the quagmire. Now considering that all of America is not on the same page regarding Iraq, we can’t expect a swift pullout either, so the Dems need to get real. The British are preparing to leave south Iraq because public disapproval for the war is even stronger in the UK, Blair is a lame duck, and their region is Pleasantville compared to Baghdad. No matter what President Hillary or Obama have planned for 2008, there is no way we can totally divorce ourselves from Iraq like Vietnam. There is too much vested interest in the region with oil, Iran, Al Qaeda, and Israeli considerations, plus we have so many permanent bases in the Persian Gulf anyway. But it would be preferable for our forces to move out of the civil war crossfire into safer deployments in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Iraqi Kurdistan. Though we’ve also seen that Jihadi suicide attacks on the government and Western establishments also take place in peaceful nations like Saudi or Jordan.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9955595

I actually agree with the GOP that the political “exercises” of the Dems passing non-binding resolutions and an Iraq funding bill that they know will get vetoed is stupid. Just to “get on the record” that they oppose the war is ludicrous and unhelpful. Everyone knows they want the war to end; why waste thousands of dollars and man-hours to “put it in writing” when they know they can’t block a veto or convince the White House to compromise? For the Congressional Dems to cheer as the vote count was being read was shameful, especially since many of them fell in line and supported Bush’s call to arms in 2003. They have nothing to celebrate if people are still dying every day. That’s like Bush patting himself on the back for reducing the deficit from $1.0 to $0.9 trillion; it’s just a Band-Aid on a much larger problem. The antiwar Americans won’t forgive the Dems for their past cowardice, no matter how many Iraq withdrawal funding bills get passed and vetoed. Engineers don’t design an oil rig they know won’t survive a storm. Doctors probably won’t operate on a patient that they know they can’t save. So why push a bill they know won’t ever see the light of day? Maybe instead they could have crafted a smarter bill and negotiated better with the GOP to put something more passable on Bush’s desk? As expected, all that blather about bipartisanship and cooperation back in December was just a bunch of hot air.

But so much of Capitol Hill faire is pomp and circumstance I guess. It’s so foolish for Reid and Pelosi to proudly claim that they’ll keep sending Iraq pullout bills to Bush’s desk if he keeps vetoing them. Do they think they’re meeting their obligations to the voters? Talk about wasted energy, and all the while the troops might actually run out of funding by July if they don’t broker a viable deal. We want real results, not political grandstanding. I disagree with Bush that the Dems are doing all this hoopla just to make a political statement before 2008 though (even Hillary isn’t that shallow and conniving). I know the Congress really wants to see the war end, but they have to put their egos in check and know their limitations. The president and the Pentagon run the war. During Vietnam it was President Nixon who authorized the troop withdrawals, not Congress. All Congress did was cut off funding to the South Vietnamese government after they proved their incompetence for the last time in 1975. With their defenses falling like a house of cards, Congress decided to cease support because any fresh material would probably be seized and used by the invading communists. If they really want to end the war by the end of the year, then impeach the Commander in Chief and implement a new strategy. But enough with the non-binding resolution and vetoed bills crap.

On the other side, Bush and company have to tone down their assumptions and rhetoric on Iraq. Once that happens, then hopefully we can tone down our involvement in Iraq. The definition of victory has been downgraded so many times from defeating Saddam to establishing a free, democratic Iraq, to defeating the insurgency, to leaving Iraq as a stable nation that can defend itself from terrorists and Iran, to making the surge works so violence doesn’t impede the majority of Iraqis from carrying on their daily lives. What a mouthful. Whatever the meager Washington-contrived definition of success may be these days, there’s no guarantee we can achieve it. That being said, it’s also very apparent that if we pack up and exit tomorrow, we’d usher in one of the worst humanitarian crises of history. But of course Iraq already is of the worst humanitarian crises of history, but our departure would sadly make it worse. That doesn’t mean we need to be waist deep in the muck and do the dirty work for the dysfunctional Iraqi government indefinitely to keep that flimsy regime on life support. Plus there’s no real military solution for us to stop the carnage, and we don’t exactly hold the moral high ground to scold the murderous Iraqi factions to play nice.

We can have a presence in Iraq that helps keep the peace without kicking down doors, building blast walls, and torturing people all the time. We can vacate the Sunni triangle and hole ourselves up in more peaceful and friendly Kurdistan, draw down our troop numbers, and have rapid response teams deployed to help Iraqi forces in hot spots when critically needed. That way we’re not “surrendering” and still kicking insurgent butt to please the right, yet we’re “withdrawing” from the civil war and keeping our people safer to please the left. Also, if we can run a huge audit on the reconstruction effort to make sure that competent, honest people are in charge, projects actually get completed, money is spent wisely and efficiently, more jobs are created, daily life improves for the masses, and Iraqi security forces are hired, trained, screened, equipped, and paid properly, then we’d be 1,000% better off than today. But one suicide bomb in a market or mosque could mess it all up. And again, such progress would require a handful of miracles, and seems to be a long shot from one of the most corrupt presidencies in US history. Can’t really blame Iran or Al Qaeda for a totally FUBAR reconstruction.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9923902

Bush, McCain, and other clueless fear-mongers often cite the tired adage that if we don’t confront the terrorists in Iraq, they will “follow us home” the day after we pull out. Not only is this sleazy, it’s also inaccurate according to most of the military intelligence community. It didn’t happen in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Cuba, or Lebanon. Al Qaeda in Iraq are less than 5% of all fighters, and their actual impact on Iraqi affairs is indeterminate. Probably our presence in Iraq is recruiting more young people to Osama’s cause than his actual agents. The Shia and Al Qaeda hate each other. Even some Sunni clerics and civic leaders are fed up with the Qaeda degenerates (whom they accurately accuse of disrupting their communities) and started to fight back. No one in Washington seems to endorse the rival theory that it is our presence in Iraq, not our withdrawal, that will fuel Jihadi terrorism abroad. Just because we haven’t been hit since 9/11 doesn’t mean we’re safer because of Iraq. That’s like saying a hamburger each day is good for my health because I haven’t had a heart attack yet. A bombing could be coming tomorrow for all we know. The longer we are there, the more force we apply, and the more disrespect we show for Muslim/Arab society, the more they want to strike back at us where it hurts the most. And let us not forget that we’re policing a domestic civil war and not containing worldwide Islamic revolution. It’s an occupation, not an epic battle between good and evil for the future of the American Way. We made the same mistake mischaracterizing Vietnam. Then and now, everyone else sees it as a partisan civil conflict to free a resource-rich former colony of foreign occupation, yet we narrowly see it as a noble and just “crusade” to safeguard Western Civilization and stop the spread of a hostile ideology that scares us.

Many Iraqis seem more preoccupied with their internal power struggle, political Islam, and ethnic cleansing than destroying America and the West, whether our troops are there or not. Certainly some elements in Iraq are plotting to attack America, but people have crazy ideas all the time yet may not be able to act on them. Malicious intent doesn’t necessarily constitute a real threat, and very few of them have the connections, resources, and know-how to even attempt an attack on us. Sure we should take strong measures to protect our nation and don’t want to ignore festering problems, but this Jihadi recruitment danger might actually be worse in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and even Muslim communities in Western Europe. Following Bush’s rhetoric, should we stay on the offensive and invade Pakistan before the killers make it to our backyard? While some US soldiers are happy to sacrifice their lives to protect Americans at home, I don’t believe they are actually accomplishing that, nor is it morally justifiable. Even if the military believes they are trading their blood for ours against the terrorist killers, many US citizens at home (who fund the war effort) disagree with that strategy and prefer a saner alternative where no one has to kill and die.

So where does that leave us? Congress and the Dems need to realize that they do not and should not manage the war effort. The White House and the GOP need to realize that they are presiding over a misguided strategy that requires a different approach. Maybe the two sides can actually sit down and iron out the details where both sides get what they want. No one wants another shameful defeat and “surrender” like Vietnam. But we have to decide what level of defeat we are willing to accept, because this isn’t exactly turning out like Gulf War I. At this point, Bush and others have acknowledged many mistakes and most Dems regret voting for the war. A good reality check to start. Instead of using Iraq to tear down each other before the 2008 election, maybe the two parties can compromise for the good of humanity (call me a naïve idealist!). Bush’s crew can sit down and brainstorm what level of American sacrifice would be “too much” and necessitate a pullout from Iraq. Maybe we’re already there in many people’s minds. For all the unacceptable criteria, if 50% of them are actually met, then it’s time to leave no questions asked. Hopefully it will never come to that.

Congressmen on both sides are calling for benchmarks for progress, with or without consequences. To me, a benchmark/deadline without consequence for failure is meaningless, but then again I have a job in the real world (a.k.a. not Washington). Bush squandered his “blank check” open-ended war management privileges with incompetence, so now he needs to answer to Congress and the public. That doesn’t mean that Congress dictates terms and micromanages the war, but they are allowed to take actions if Bush, the military, and the Iraqi government don’t deliver what they say they will. These punitive actions must be decided on prior to the actual benchmark failing, so there is no hysteria and squabbling at the last minute. We cut off resources to the Maliki regime, withdraw 50% of troops to Kuwait, seize oil reserves, whatever. But in no way should our responses serve to escalate the war, which just complicates an already convoluted debacle. That was Nixon’s mistake with Cambodia and Bush’s mistake with this surge. Our goal is to get out, not get stuck in deeper. Therefore it makes no sense to surge up troops in order to leave. Because if we escalate, our enemies will too, and the killing and destruction will increase until one side quits, and I guarantee it won’t be the insurgency.

So as I said previously, maybe a good first start is a strategic redeployment of US forces within Iraq to the safer, pro-US Kurdish zone, and let the bureaucrats, diplomats, and police work out a political solution in Baghdad. In Kurdistan we’d also be closer to Iran as deterrent to any shenanigans Tehran might or might not be doing. The terrorists won’t follow our troops north because the well-armed Kurds won’t permit the entry of dangerous outsiders. So maybe Arab Iraq goes to crap after we leave, but it’s 99% there anyway. We won’t be able to save every soft target citizen from suicide bombers and death squads, even with China’s entire People’s Liberation Army occupying Baghdad. As Bush said, the current reality is that both sides have to accept a certain loss of Iraqi life. It’s terrible, but it’s going to happen whether we follow the Dem or the GOP plans. Instead, we train the Iraqi forces up north (where they can’t be tainted by militias and politicians), and then send them to the fight when they are ready. We keep a low profile and give air support, intel, and special forces assistance when necessary, and we can accomplish all of this with minimal losses, expenditures, and less than 30,000 troops probably (the National Guard, Reserve, and soldiers on their 4^th tour definitely deserve to come home immediately). Maybe we could be more like a “secret police” than occupying army. So if the Dems compromise to stay in Iraq in a reduced role, and the GOP compromises to scale back instead of surge up, then maybe we’ll get somewhere. With the bunch of jokers we have running things in DC, I wouldn’t put my money on it though.