| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| ’Lowering Our Sights’ |
| 2004-05-04 |
| Calls for a withdrawal from Iraq are starting to pop up all over the place now and will proliferate in the coming days and weeks. I find even the administration’s strongest supporters, including fervent advocates of the war a year ago and even some who could be labeled "neoconservatives," now despairing and looking for an exit. They don’t put quite that way, of course. Instead, they say that seeking democracy in Iraq is too ambitious; we need to lower our sights and settle for stability. But this is probably just a way station on the road to calling for withdrawal, for it ought to be clear that even establishing stability in Iraq will require a continued American military occupation and continued casualties for quite some time to come. Faced with that reality, conservatives and even neoconservatives can be heard muttering these days that if the Iraqis won’t take responsibility for their own country, we should leave them to their fate. That is what "lowering our sights" really means. John Kerry and his advisers moved to this stance a couple of weeks ago when they declared that the goal of democracy was "too heroic" and the United States should limit itself to seeking "stability." Since then Kerry has held firm. It’s not inconceivable, though, that he may gradually abandon this rhetoric and begin running openly as the candidate who will get the United States out of the Iraq quagmire, under the guise of handing it off to NATO or the United Nations. That could soon seem a better political strategy. Few Americans will believe that Kerry can really do a better job of fighting the war than President Bush. But he can plausibly present himself as the candidate most likely to get the United States out of Iraq, if a majority of Americans decide they want that. So get ready for the coming national debate over withdrawal. The unthinkable is becoming thinkable. And it isn’t hard to understand why. All but the most blindly devoted Bush supporters can see that Bush administration officials have no clue about what to do in Iraq tomorrow, much less a month from now. Consider Fallujah: One week they’re setting deadlines and threatening offensives; the next week they’re pulling back. The latest plan, naming one of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard generals to lead the pacification of the city, is the kind of bizarre idea that only desperate people can conjure. The Bush administration is evidently in a panic, and this panic is being conveyed to the American people. Events in Fallujah have also conveyed another impression: The administration is increasingly reluctant to fight the people it defines as the bad guys in Iraq. This reluctance is perfectly understandable. No one wants more American casualties. And no one doubts that more violence in Iraq may alienate more of the Iraqi population. But this reluctance can also appear both to Iraqis and to the American public as a sign of declining will. Among the many lessons of Vietnam is that American support for that war remained remarkably steady, despite high American casualties, until Americans began to sense that their government was no longer committed to what had been defined as victory and was looking for a way out. If Americans see signs of wavering by the Bush administration -- and Fallujah may be one of those signs -- support for the war could decline sharply. It is the sense that Bush officials don’t know what they are doing that has fed all the new talk about "lowering our sights." No one will say, "Let’s cut and run." Instead, people talk about installing a moderate but not democratic government. They talk about letting Iraq break up into three parts: Kurd, Shiite and Sunni. But at the core, this is happy talk, designed to help us avert our eyes from withdrawal’s real consequences. The choice in Iraq is not between democracy and stability. It is between democratic stability, on the one hand, and civil conflict, chaos or brutal, totalitarian dictatorship and terrorism, on the other. The next time someone suggests that the goal of democracy is too ambitious, let him explain in detail what alternative he has in mind. Even if we wanted to establish a non-democratic government in Iraq, how would we do it? Is there a benevolent dictator out there who could enjoy sufficient legitimacy or wield sufficient power to maintain stability in Iraq without continued U.S. military support? Even a reconstituted, Sunni-dominated Iraqi army -- if such a thing were even desirable or possible -- could not impose order without employing all of the Hussein regime’s brutal tactics, including the inevitable massacre of probably thousands of rebellious Shiites. Is that what advocates of "lowering our sights" have in mind? Nor would partition be any easier to engineer. Yes, there could be an independent Kurdistan (and an ensuing war with Turkey) in the north. But the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq are neither geographically nor culturally separate. They are intermingled. So, does partition mean transfers of population? And who would carry out those transfers, and how? Again, people who call for partition as an alternative to Iraqi democracy should explain exactly what their plan would look like and how it would produce a more stable result. The truth is, if the goal is stability, that the alternatives are no easier to carry out and no less costly in money and lives than the present attempt to create some form of democracy in Iraq. The real alternative to the present course is not stability at all but to abandon Iraq to whatever horrible fate awaits it: chaos, civil war, brutal tyranny, terrorism or more likely a combination of all of these -- with all that entails for Iraqis, the Middle East and American interests. That is what President Bush has been saying all along. But Bush himself is the great mystery in this mounting debacle. His commitment to stay the course in Iraq seems utterly genuine. Yet he continues to tolerate policymakers, military advisers and a dysfunctional policymaking apparatus that are making the achievement of his goals less and less likely. He does not seem to demand better answers, or any answers, from those who serve him. It’s not even clear that he understands how bad the situation in Iraq is or how close he is to losing public support for the war, a support that once lost may be impossible to regain. Bush politicos may take comfort from polls that show the public still trusts Bush more than Kerry when it comes to conducting the war. That won’t be worth much, however, if the public turns against the war itself. The tragedy may be that Bush will not understand until it is too late. In which case we will lose in Iraq, and the dire consequences that he has rightly warned of will be upon us. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #12 Kurdisylvania Trust me, this is the country you want in Risk and Dipomacy. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-05-04 6:13:08 PM |
| #11 Biged - From my point of view GW makes sense. See ive always agreed with Paul Berman and Chris Hitchens that spreading democracy in the Mideast IS at bottom a liberal policy. Even if I have to keep hitting my head against the wall with radicals who cant see it cause they hate the US, and more moderate liberals who cant see it cause they hate Bush, and dislike the neocons for other reasons. In the same way I think there are a lot of paleoconservatives who wont see the same thing, out of their love for Dubya, or out of their visceral hatred for the left, the UN, the Euros, etc. Will is just calling it as he sees it. I think hes wrong, but its in charecter - hes never really been a neocon, though hes closer to them than alot of other paleocons - and its not inconsistent with what hes said since the Iraq debate began - or for that matter with what he said about Kosovo, or about nation building in general during the Clinton years. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-05-04 4:52:23 PM |
| #10 Liberalhawk - George Will is usually pretty good, but I found the column today linked on realclearpolitics.com somewhat disjointed. Will is not like himself recently. I don't understand it. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-05-04 4:39:03 PM |
| #9 The choice in Iraq is not between democracy and stability. It is between democratic stability, on the one hand, and civil conflict, chaos or brutal, totalitarian dictatorship and terrorism, on the other. This is largely a reply to George Wills running series of columns. And I think it may well be true. Leaving aside the very different global political situations, I dont know that theres anyone in Iraq who could do what Chiang did in Taiwan. Who is the Chiang of Iraq, and what organization in Iraq is the KMT? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-05-04 4:16:41 PM |
| #8 Chuck, great comment. I could not agree more. The micro-level of information that we receive is getting too many people to focus only on the negative. Yes, there are stumbles, and yes there are costs. But that has been the case in all of the conflicts we have engaged in. GW needs to kick a few State Dept butts, cut some red tape and make it clear to the American people that Iraq has not stopped because of isolated situations in Fallujah and Najaf. Remember, it is always darkest before the dawn and dawn is not coming for a while yet. |
| Posted by: remote man 2004-05-04 4:14:16 PM |
| #7 I'm 'membered of a phrase I read in a book about the other quagmire. To paraphrase, the war was not lost in the air over North Vietnam nor in by the grunts in the jungles in the south. The war was lost in the hearts and minds of the American people. It was their choice. |
| Posted by: Michael 2004-05-04 4:12:22 PM |
| #6 someone: But WaPo is right to criticize those on the right who are already jumping the shark (Pipes, NRO, etc.). Something less than full democracy is acceptable, as long as the new government is pro-American. This is a lot like what happened in Korea, Taiwan and a host of other countries during the Cold War. If full democracy isn't practical initially, we can wait for a few decades. The alternative to full democracy isn't necessarily the kleptocracies of the Mid East. With continuous pressure applied by the US to an Iraqi who is essentially pro-American, Iraq could take putter along as an authoritarian state for decades (like Korea and Taiwan) until it becomes a full democracy. The vital objective shouldn't be democratic rule - it should be selecting a ruler who is capable *and* pro-American to administer Iraq until democratic rule becomes possible. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-05-04 2:14:59 PM |
| #5 We're nowhere near losing on the ground. At home is a bit more precarious, but only because of alarmist editorials like this. But WaPo is right to criticize those on the right who are already jumping the shark (Pipes, NRO, etc.). |
| Posted by: someone 2004-05-04 12:59:53 PM |
| #4 With American forces in an independent Kurdisylvania would a war with Turkey really be in the making? I'm thinking not. But I agree with most of the post. I also think that Americans are not cowed by the bad press regarding the prison soft porn show. As compared to what they know about the barbarity of the enemy. G43, take out the guys standing up to you. Do it now. A new news cycle will put it as past history in days! And Americans, regular Joes and Janes, will be happy to see it. Lets go for the win. Thinking about tieing a stray cat, thats been hanging around lately, to the bumper of my car and drag the evil thing around the block. Would that be a hoot? Shouting God is great! |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-05-04 12:40:16 PM |
| #3 Strategy and tactics. Never confuse one with the other. We have two minor problems in Iraq, both fully contained at this time, Fallujah and Sadr. As has been noted here before, the enemy in Fallujah is confined to the northwest quarter of the city and is surrounded by our Marines.. It will occur to these guys very shortly that they have gained nothing. Iraqis taking over for Marines just means more Marines available for combat. We are in no hurry. Classic seiges have taken years. This one won't take that long, and every day that our Marines aren't dying in house to house combat is a good day. Sadr continues to throw men against our forces in Najef and they keep dying for no purpose. Reports from inside the city show increased impatience with his thugs. Again, time is on our side. Bremer continues to roll out Iraqi government ministries, utilities and infrastructure repairs continue nationwide, and nearly all of the 23 million Iraqis are day by day seeing a better life. Most Iraqis want us to leave, and that is both understandable and our strategy. Most Iraiqs want us to help them become safer, and that is both understandable and our strategy, as well. These things take time. Conservatives are beginning to sound like libs in one respect. Refusing to engage in fighting on the enemy's terms is being seen as lack of planning and failure of will. What has actually been happening is an adaptive strategy, based on making changes as the situation demands. Strategy dictates tactics, not the other way around. Our primary goal is to return Fallujah and Najef to the control of the central government. We are, slowly but surely, doing so. We are not in Iraq to kill Iraqis, nor to take some sort of revenge, nor to profit from a conquest. We make mistakes, and adapt because of them. The world, Rantburg included, is watching all this in real time. Life doesn't operate in real time. Everything we do plays out and the results are not immediately seen. Many people seem to expect results in days that will take months or years. Lack of immediate results does not indicate the lack of a plan, nor the failure of a plan. The President has been clear that this process will take time, an undetermined amount of time. The military has always said that they expected our losses to mount as June 30 approached. The Liberation of Iraq is an on-going strategy that is proceeding in stages and will continue in that manner. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2004-05-04 12:36:45 PM |
| #2 Wow. Once again, in the classic double-speak so prevalent in the press, WaPo plays up what it reports as fact, poses shooting-gallery bear questions, oredicts without any sense of irony future negative reporting, and editorializes answers that pose more questions, for tomorrow's editorializing - especially the Big Doubts that anyone knows anything. Manufactured Big Doubts serve one purpose when posed by these cretins: to reflect negatively on those in authority. Remarkably, and this is the real magic of their craft, Big Doubts never harm the press or the opposition - no, of course not... it seeds the next round. A wordsmithing thing of beauty. Self-contained, neatly bundled in the middle but with messy skeery pointy things - things meant to undermine confidence - poking out of both ends. That they miss the boat and get their reporting wrong an amazingly high percentage of the time doesn't phase them, doesn't invoke the shame that comes for the Avg Joe when he screws up. No, indeed, they project their errors onto authority and call it confusion and mixed messages. Truly artful-dodger stuff. Bravo, WaPo! You have "elevated" disingenuos agenda-mongering to a new low. Now FOAD - the filtering process needed to glean the facts and toss the agenda is just not worth the effort required of your drivel anymore. "I think calls for ignoring WaPo and its ilk are starting to pop up all over the place now and will proliferate in the coming days and weeks. I find even the profession’s strongest supporters, including fervent advocates of the J-School model a year ago and even some who could be labeled "subscribers," now despairing and looking for an exit." Me? I'm outta here. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-05-04 12:34:04 PM |
| #1 Blah blah blah 'quagmire' blah blah blah 'neocons'...blah blah. What tripe. The Post would love nothing better than to see the US pullout of Iraq, and they have been doing their best to undermine any good news coming from there. They might as well change their name to the Washington Post-Jazeera. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2004-05-04 12:28:47 PM |