The Iraq Debate Continues

The Washington Post continues to publish well-written reviews on the Iraq conflict, which is much more than what you'll not see on the boob-tube. This past weekend, we had editorials from the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. First the Good, by Andrew Bacevich:

Bush had once counted on the U.S. invasion of Iraq to pay massive dividends. Iraq was central to his administration's game plan for eliminating jihadist terrorism. It would demonstrate how U.S. power and beneficence could transform the Muslim world. Just months after the fall of Baghdad, the president declared, "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." Democracy's triumph in Baghdad, he announced, "will send forth the news, from Damascus to Tehran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation." In short, the administration saw Baghdad not as a final destination but as a way station en route to even greater successes.

In reality, the war's effects are precisely the inverse of those that Bush and his lieutenants expected. Baghdad has become a strategic cul-de-sac. Only the truly blinkered will imagine at this late date that Iraq has shown the United States to be the "stronger horse." In fact, the war has revealed the very real limits of U.S. power. And for good measure, it has boosted anti-Americanism to record levels, recruited untold numbers of new jihadists, enhanced the standing of adversaries such as Iran and diverted resources and attention from Afghanistan, a theater of war far more directly relevant to the threat posed by al-Qaeda. Instead of draining the jihadist swamp, the Iraq war is continuously replenishing it.

Look beyond the spin, the wishful thinking, the intellectual bullying and the myth-making. The real legacy of the surge is that it will enable Bush to bequeath the Iraq war to his successor -- no doubt cause for celebration at AEI, although perhaps less so for the families of U.S. troops. Yet the stubborn insistence that the war must continue also ensures that Bush's successor will, upon taking office, discover that the post-9/11 United States is strategically adrift. Washington no longer has a coherent approach to dealing with Islamic radicalism. Certainly, the next president will not find in Iraq a useful template to be applied in Iran or Syria or Pakistan.

The Bad is contributed by Gen (ret) Jack Keane, Frederick Kagan, and "liberal" Michael O'Hanlon:

The number of American forces in Iraq matters. Although the change of U.S. strategy announced last January and the change in attitude among Sunni Arabs were critical to the successes achieved in 2007, the addition of five Army combat brigades and three Marine battalions was also critical. Petraeus and Gen. Ray Odierno know the strains the surge has placed on the military and believe that we can reduce our forces to pre-surge levels by this summer without compromising our gains. Considering the big steps taken by Iraqi security forces over the past year, as well as the tremendous damage our forces and Iraqi forces, together with the Iraqi people, have done to al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni Baathist insurgency, Iranian-backed special groups and the fighting elements of the Jaish al-Mahdi, this belief is probably justified. But we cannot be sure.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is working hard to regroup, and our soldiers are fighting hard to prevent that. Activities of Iranian-backed special groups continue to be worrisome. And much remains to be done politically at the local and national levels to secure the gains we have made.

Some in Washington are already calling for a commitment to additional reductions, resulting in force levels below pre-surge levels, even before we have finished the current drawdown. Such calls are unwise. America has made this mistake in Iraq before -- withdrawing too soon, attempting to hand security responsibilities over to Iraqi forces unable to accept them, and assuming that the best-case scenarios will play out. We must not make that mistake again. It is inappropriate to try to evaluate the possibility of reductions beyond pre-surge levels before we have had time to examine the situation after the completion of that drawdown. Therefore, Congress, the president and the American people should not expect Petraeus to report in March on the feasibility of still further reductions but, rather, on the sustainability of the reductions already in progress.

And the Ugly by centrist Fareed Zakaria, which for some reason, isn't in the electronic WaPo:

The most intelligent strategy for the United States combines political and military objectives. If we are to engage in peacekeeping, the operation needs to be internationally recognized, sanctioned, and supported - as it was in Bosnia. We should call an international conference on Iraq and get the support of other countries - crucially, Iraq's neighbors - for this mission. There should be then an international push to get Iraqis to make the kinds of political deals that will turn cease-fires into lasting peace. Over the next year, if violence continues to decline, countries such as India, Poland, and South Africa could be persuaded to relieve American troops. With sustained and focused efforts, over time American forces could draw down substantially. The mission could then become what it was always billed to be as, an international effort to assist Iraqi people in founding a new nation.

The current military strategy isn't going to hold once the surge troops come back. That's why no one is expecting to see an end to American troop presence in Iraq within the next year. The consequences of this strategy could lead to thousands more American and Iraqi deaths during the next four years. Unfortunately, you'll not hear these debates coming from the current political candidates or from the empty talking heads on the evening news.

Comments

[sglover]

It was nice growing up in a more-or-less functioning constitutional republic. I don't think the emerging banana republic will be quite so pleasant.....

[James]

Zakaria is stuck in John Kerry's 2004 election position. It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now. Nobody wants to go back to Iraq.

Keane et al are right about one thing: drawing down the surge will be the signal for renewed violence. It is common knowledge in the US that the surge cannot continue past early summer, therefore it must be common knowledge among the enemy that there will be fewer Americans to fight later on this year. Once the number of US troops drops, the violence will ratchet up, and the policy holding pattern we've been in will turn into a downward spiral.

Or, as Sun Tzu says, "never stop an army on its way home."

On the face of it, Keane, Kagan, McCain, and even Bush seem to understand this. What they don't seem to understand is that there isn't much they can do about it. There just aren't any more troops; the US has no more reserves to commit to Iraq. The drawdown WILL occur, like it or not, and the violence will start up again.

And this is because Bacevich is dead right in HIS analysis. Even if the US now manages to accomplish everything it desires in Iraq (read: never in hell), the cost far outweighs the benefits. No one in his right mind contemplates Iraq as the template for global revolution. A few more such victories would ruin us, I think.

[HMS]

We have already stayed too long. People prefer to have us fight their civil wars than doing on their own. "We will stand down when they stand up" assures that they will not stand up. They need either to fight it out or make a deal. Leaving will help them decide.

[lester]

well, if bush had fired rumsfeld earlier, we could have left on a much higher note at least.

of course, if he had started off with gates instead of rumsfeld, we ould never have gone in in the first place.

also, it needs ot be said: we cannot have neoconservatives spouting off in our media. it's a middle finger to america. these people need to be margenalized in every respect, if not flat out arrested.