|
|
The Road Home
 | An NYT editiorial. Brace yourselves and take your blood pressure meds ... |
It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.
| The New York Times, an organization that believes that it is a bastion of defense for the poor, the unpowered, the infirm, and (of course) minorities, now wishes to condemn 26 million such people to hell. For hell is where Iraq would go if we withdraw. |
Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.
| So the NYT starts with multiple lies, and the first is that we invaded Iraq 'without sufficient cause.' This is the prelude to complaining about the lack of WMD, of course, and it ignores the other reasons why we invaded. Saddam had flouted sanctions, indeed was bringing sanctions to an end, he had continued to flaut the 1991 ceasefire agreement, he had dealing with international terrorists, and -- most importantly -- he had become too dangerous in a post 9/11 world. |
At first, we believed that after destroying Iraqs government, army, police and economic structures, ...
| which is what you do when you go to war |
... the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq.
| I don't know if we'll see a 'stable, unified' Iraq. That might be beyond our ability, or anyone's ability, to create. What matters here was that it had to be tried. The Iraqis, we're told, were the most secular, best educated, most adaptable of the Arab peoples to building a democratic, peaceful state. If they couldn't do it, no one could, was the arugment. So we had to try, and while one can fairly criticize the Bush administration for its mistakes and blunders, it indeed attempted a huge undertaking, one that the chickenhearts at the NYT would never try. |
When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.
While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs after elections, after a constitution, ...
| ... both of which were breakthroughs ... |
... after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bushs plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.
| The chickenhearts have no knowledge of history. How long did it take for the U.S. to become a stable democracy after our revolution? How long has it taken others? How much blood was shed before France became a stable democracy? The Iraqis have had four years now, that's all, and the chickenhearts declare them to be a lost cause. |
The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable of putting national interests ahead of sectarian score settling. The security forces Washington has trained behave more like partisan militias. Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.
| Even their own reporter in Iraq, John Burns, disagrees with that statement. |
Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nations alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.
A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months ago. Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda.
That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.
| In other words, a withdrawal would lead to a bloodbath, so we must ... withdraw. The bloodbath will be blamed on Bush as well, thus allowing the chickenhearts to have their cake and eat it. |
The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and Americas allies must try to mitigate those outcomes and they may fail.
Now seriously, does anyone think that the U.N. could mitigate these terrible outcomes, even if it wished to do so? Does anyone look on the U.N.'s role in Darfur, in Rwanda, and indeed in Iraq shortly after the major operations ended in 2003 with any sort of confidence? Any U.N. peacekeepers that would be sent to Iraq -- and name a first world nation that will contribute its soldiers -- would simply diddle the local women, steal everything that isn't nailed down, and ignore the bloodbath.
And if America cuts and runs, why should any of our allies jump in? Can anyone imagine France, or Spain, or Greece trying to stop the bloodbath? Pshaw. Won't happen. We'll get sanctamonious speeches from the Euros and that's all.
Finally, how would the administration 'mitigate these outcomes' if not do exactly what it's doing now? Does the NYT editorial staff even understand how stupid that sounds? |
But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse. The nation needs a serious discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meet some of the big challenges that will arise.
The Mechanics of Withdrawal
The United States has about 160,000 troops and millions of tons of military gear inside Iraq. Getting that force out safely will be a formidable challenge. The main road south to Kuwait is notoriously vulnerable to roadside bomb attacks. Soldiers, weapons and vehicles will need to be deployed to secure bases while airlift and sealift operations are organized. Withdrawal routes will have to be guarded. The exit must be everything the invasion was not: based on reality and backed by adequate resources.
| If only Rummie had consulted with the NYT before the invasion ... |
The United States should explore using Kurdish territory in the north of Iraq as a secure staging area. Being able to use bases and ports in Turkey would also make withdrawal faster and safer. Turkey has been an inconsistent ally in this war, but like other nations, it should realize that shouldering part of the burden of the aftermath is in its own interest.
Why would the Kurds cooperate with such a plan? They'd correctly see this as their being sold down the river. They'd know that within a few months we'd be gone and they would be alone -- again. Why would the Kurds allow us to use their territory for a withdrawal? They'd be much more likely to create as many problems as possible with a withdrawal in an effort to keep us there, and especially between them and the Turks. And the Iranians.
And why would Turkey have an interest in cooperating with us? If we're completely discredited in the Middle East -- and we would be if we followed the course urged by the NYT -- Turkey could try to step into the resulting vacuum. They could, for example, try to occupy the Kurdish north and get their hands on Mosul. Who would stop them? The EU? This might be the nudge the Turks would need to tell the EU to kiss off in their expansion plan. The Russians and Chinese wouldn't care, they'd just plan to 'develop' the new Turkish oil and gas resources. The UN? Please. |
Accomplishing all of this in less than six months is probably unrealistic.
The political decision should be made, and the target date set, now.
| Because it wouldn't be fair to al-Qaeda to keep them guessing about the target date. |
The Fight Against Terrorists
Despite President Bushs repeated claims, Al Qaeda had no significant foothold in Iraq before the invasion, which gave it new base camps, new recruits and new prestige.
| The President did not say that al Qaeda had a significant foothold in Saddam's Iraq -- this is another NYT lie. The administration noted the cooperation that was there between the Mukhabarat and al Qaeda, cooperation that was amply documented, and noted that Saddam would attempt to use such relationships and cooperation to his advantage, just as he had his relationship with Palestinian terrorist groups. Given al Qaeda's ultimate goals, such cooperation was untenable in a post 9/11 world. |
This war diverted Pentagon resources from Afghanistan, where the military had a real chance to hunt down Al Qaedas leaders.
| Nonsense. This is another liberal lie, that somehow we've failed in Afghanistan because resources weren't available. First, we haven't failed: militarily we've succeeded quite nicely, to the point that even the Taliban admits publicly that they can't stand against our forces. Second, the ultimate goal of our involvement in Afghanistan is to ensure that said country can't be used as a terrorist base against us. And on that point, we've been spectacularly successful with the force mix we've had. Afghanistan isn't a place for the 1st Armor, or the 4th Infantry, and not invading Iraq would have changed nothing in how we've conducted operations in Afghanistan. |
It alienated essential allies in the war against terrorism.
| Who were already alienated against us. Remember the list: Chirac. Schroeder. Prodi. Zapatero. These were European leaders who have been and continue to be against everything we do in the world, for the simple reason that we're not European. We're not and won't ever be like them. |
It drained the strength and readiness of American troops.
| More nonsense, but if you think it's true, support an increase in the standing military. We had a military nearly twice as large in 1990 as in 2002, and we supported it then. |
And it created a new front where the United States will have to continue to battle terrorist forces and enlist local allies who reject the idea of an Iraq hijacked by international terrorists. The military will need resources and bases to stanch this self-inflicted wound for the foreseeable future.
| One of the key ideas in the invasion of Iraq is exactly that: that we'd stay for the long-term, help the Iraqis build a stable, democratic society, and work with them to demonstrate to other Arab peoples the advantages of leaving theocratic loons and brutal thugs aside. |
The Question of Bases
The United States could strike an agreement with the Kurds to create those bases in northeastern Iraq. Or, the Pentagon could use its bases in countries like Kuwait and Qatar, and its large naval presence in the Persian Gulf, as staging points.
| Again, why would Kuwait and Qatar do that? If we withdraw from Iraq, the very next thing these two countries will do is evict us from their countries. It's not hard to understand why: they'd understand that the United States lacks the courage of its convictions, that it won't keep its word when times are difficult, and that it won't be there should the Iranians come calling (and calling they would). They'd have to scramble to make an accommodation with the Iranians, and the absolute minimum price they'd have to pay is a complete eviction of the U.S. So don't count on any of the Gulf states helping us should we stage an NYT-style withdrawal. |
There are arguments for, and against, both options. Leaving troops in Iraq might make it too easy and too tempting to get drawn back into the civil war and confirm suspicions that Washingtons real goal was to secure permanent bases in Iraq. Mounting attacks from other countries could endanger those nations governments.
| Especially since we'd never get permission from said countries. |
The White House should make this choice after consultation with Congress and the other countries in the region, whose opinions the Bush administration has essentially ignored. The bottom line: the Pentagon needs enough force to stage effective raids and airstrikes against terrorist forces in Iraq, but not enough to resume large-scale combat.
| But we wouldn't have the strength in the region to do that, as I've noted, we certainly wouldn't have the support of other countries in the region, and most importantly, we wouldn't have the will. What member of the Democratic party would support a bombing campaign against terrorist targets in Iraq? How quickly would such an attack be seized upon by the far-left loons as being part of a different, darker, sinister agenda? |
The Civil War
One of Mr. Bushs arguments against withdrawal is that it would lead to civil war. That war is raging, right now, and it may take years to burn out. Iraq may fragment into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics, and American troops are not going to stop that from happening.
| We might not. It might be better for Iraq to be three republics, not one, but that's not our decision to make: it belongs to the Iraqis, and certainly not to Joe Biden and the NYT. |
It is possible, we suppose, that announcing a firm withdrawal date might finally focus Iraqs political leaders and neighboring governments on reality. Ideally, it could spur Iraqi politicians to take the steps toward national reconciliation that they have endlessly discussed but refused to act on.
But it is foolish to count on that, as some Democratic proponents of withdrawal have done. The administration should use whatever leverage it gains from withdrawing to press its allies and Iraqs neighbors to help achieve a negotiated solution.
| What leverage would that be? The Iraqi politicans would realize very quickly that they've been hung out to dry, and they'd even more quickly cut deals to protect their lives and their standing. The various tribes and clans would do the same. Outsiders such as Iran and Syria would jump in, knowing that there would be no American will to stop them. What 'negotiated solution' would we see? None. What we'd see instead would be the emergence of a new strongman, a new brutal thug, very likely an Iranian-backed, Shi'a thug (e.g., Mooki), at which point the blood would really begin to flow. |
Iraqs leaders knowing that they can no longer rely on the Americans to guarantee their survival might be more open to compromise, perhaps to a Bosnian-style partition, with economic resources fairly shared but with millions of Iraqis forced to relocate. That would be better than the slow-motion ethnic and religious cleansing that has contributed to driving one in seven Iraqis from their homes.
| See above. The Iraqi pols would first ennsure their own survival, then that of their tribes and clans. |
The United States military cannot solve the problem.
| No one said they could. They are and remain, however, absolutely required in any feasible solution to the problem. |
Congress and the White House must lead an international attempt at a negotiated outcome. To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war.
| For which he was correct, and let's be clear, he would be correct today. The U.N. will do nothing whatsoever to solve the problems of Iraq, for the simplest of reasons: it is not in the interests of the Russians and Chinese to help solve those problems. The NYT has a foolish and (as typical for the left) saintly belief in the U.N. That's the one organization in the world that could make things worse for the Iraqis. |
The Human Crisis
There are already nearly two million Iraqi refugees, mostly in Syria and Jordan, and nearly two million more Iraqis who have been displaced within their country. Without the active cooperation of all six countries bordering Iraq Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria and the help of other nations, this disaster could get worse. Beyond the suffering, massive flows of refugees some with ethnic and political resentments could spread Iraqs conflict far beyond Iraqs borders.
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia must share the burden of hosting refugees. Jordan and Syria, now nearly overwhelmed with refugees, need more international help. That, of course, means money. The nations of Europe and Asia have a stake and should contribute. The United States will have to pay a large share of the costs, but should also lead international efforts, perhaps a donors conference, to raise money for the refugee crisis.
Once again, the saintly belief in international action. A donors' conference? Show me a country that would give a farthing to the Iraqis right now. Explain the stake to the European left, most of whom would delight in watching Iraq burn. The Chinese would contribute only in return for a lock on Iraqi oil production. Good for the Chinese, I suppose, but how does that help the Iraqis?
Why should Kuwait help in hosting refugees? They have their own memories of Iraqis and those memories aren't fond ones. And the Saoodis would help only if the Iraqis would wash clothes and repair the streets. |
Washington also has to mend fences with allies. There are new governments in Britain, France and Germany that did not participate in the fight over starting this war and are eager to get beyond it. But that will still require a measure of humility and a commitment to multilateral action that this administration has never shown. And, however angry they were with President Bush for creating this mess, those nations should see that they cannot walk away from the consequences. To put it baldly, terrorism and oil make it impossible to ignore.
Terrorism is why we went there in the first place.
Notice the slap against Blair. Gordon Brown has no interest in Iraq and will seek to get his country out of there at the first opportunity. He's not going to help us with 'international will.' Sarkozy is a good man but he can't take on any major action with regard to Iraq, or he'll find his popularity gone. If the United States commits to 'multilateral action', what exactly would the French put up, other than words? |
The United States has the greatest responsibilities, including the admission of many more refugees for permanent resettlement. The most compelling obligation is to the tens of thousands of Iraqis of courage and good will translators, embassy employees, reconstruction workers whose lives will be in danger because they believed the promises and cooperated with the Americans.
| Yeah, suckers! It won't be necessary for us to admit a couple million Iraqis if we instead see this through and help those Iraqis build the country they want to have. |
The Neighbors
One of the trickiest tasks will be avoiding excessive meddling in Iraq by its neighbors Americas friends as well as its adversaries.
Just as Iran should come under international pressure to allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis. Turkey must be kept from sending troops into Kurdish territories.
| Once again: just how do we do that if we've thrown away all our credibility? If we withdraw from Iraq, pressure will be such that we'll have to withdraw from the entire region. Not a single friend there will trust us any longer, and each and every enemy will be emboldened. |
For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must drop his resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria.
| Just what exactly do we 'talk' about with a murderous thug and the Mad Mullahs? What pressure would we exert? Negotiating implies our having some leverage. Again, we wouldn't have any, so what would there be to 'talk' about, other than our humiliation and surrender in the region? |
Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility to help. Civil war in Iraq is a threat to everyone, especially if it spills across Iraqs borders.
| 'Threat to everyone'? More likely an opportunity to many. |
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.
| You've already admitted that it could -- that is, would -- be worse if we withdrew. The President has been clear about the consequences of withdraw because, well, the consequences are clear. We'd be humiliated. Not just the President, not just Republicans, we -- America -- would be ruined in the world. If your goal is to cause our friends never to trust us again, if your goal is to precipitate a bloodbath in Iraq, if your goal is to sow defeat and discord in our own country -- then by all means, follow the counsel of the NYT. |
This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.
| Or we could get the job done. We made a decision, one that was popular both with the country as a whole and in the Congress. The opponents of war had their say in 2002, and the country rejected their arguments. None of us likes war, and all of us want this war to be over -- but not by walking away and condemning 26 million people to hell. In the end, the NYT's call is childish in its irresponsibility. Americans are many things, but we won't be irrresponsible. We did that once in a place called Vietnam -- turned our backs on a decent people -- and we learned from that mistake. We won't do that again. |
Posted by: Steve White 2007-07-09 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=192960 |
|