2004 Year in Review

Success in Iraq

It is remarkable how quickly opinion has changed regarding the prospects for success for Iraqi mission. Every week columnists, members of Congress and generals are voicing concern about the prospects for peace and democracy in Iraq. Many of these are Republicans and supporters of the war.

US General John Abizaid, the most senior commander in Iraq, fears increased levels of violence in Iraq:

General Abizaid told reporters in Washington: "The clear thing I understand as a military commander is - whether we have elections or not - as we move toward an Iraqi sovereign authority, we're going to have increased levels of violence."

Abizaid earlier said that it is "possible" Iraq could descend into civil war.

On Saturday Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana said:

the United States isn't doing enough to stave off terrorism and criticized President Bush for failing to offer solid plans for Iraq's future.

Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the nation must prevent terrorism from taking root by "repairing and building alliances," increasing trade, supporting democracy, addressing regional conflicts and controlling weapons of mass destruction.

The Sunday “Los Angeles Times” in an article by Doyle McManus said this:

A series of Senate hearings last week showcased the growing fears of many foreign policy experts — a mood some described as "panic."

"I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure," retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "We are looking into the abyss. We cannot start soon enough to begin the turnaround."

"If the current situation persists, we will continue fighting one form of Iraqi insurgency after another — with too little legitimacy, too little will and too few resources," warned Larry Diamond, a former advisor to the U.S. occupation authority in Baghdad. "There is only one word for a situation in which you cannot win and you cannot withdraw: Quagmire."

In a “Washington Post” column, “A Foreign Policy, Falling Apart” (registration required), Robert G. Kaiser says:

Senior military officers, government officials, diplomats and others working in Iraq, commentators, experts and analysts have all joined a chorus of doubters that is large and growing. And the applause -- in this case, public approval as measured in polls -- is fading.

Already, some of the authors' friends are grabbing them by their rhetorical lapels. "Failures are multiplying," wrote George Will, the conservative columnist, yet "no one seems accountable."

Americans are hopeless romantics -- we're always looking for the triumph of the good guys and happiness ever after. But any happy endings in Iraq remain so remote that they are invisible from here. Today no one seems able to come up with a realistic definition of what "success" might be.

Many of the critics of the Iraqi policy are former supporters. In the last couple of weeks, CNN’s conservative columnist Tucker Carlson expressed his regret for the support for the war as reported in the "New York Times":

"I supported the war and now I feel foolish," Mr. Carlson said. "I'm just struck by how many people like me who were instinctively distrustful of government forgot to be humble in our expectations. The idea that the federal government can quickly transform the Middle East seems odd to me for a conservative. A basic tenet of conservatism is that it's much easier to destroy things than to create them - much easier, and more fun, too."

However, as a comment to this column wrote last week, it is not enough to say that the policy is failing. The real question is what to do about it.

In an editorial in Sunday’s “The Washington Post” by Lewis E. Lehrman and William Kristol (an early supporter of the Iraqi invasion), “Crush the Insurgents in Iraq”, argue that it is necessary that the United States crush the Iraqi insurgency before the June 30 turnover of sovereignty to a new Iraqi government:

If a provisional Iraqi sovereign government is to operate effectively from July until the elected government takes power in January, adequate security is necessary. This requires striking a decisive military blow against the armed insurgencies that seek to prevent the Iraqi government from coming into existence.

They compare the present despair over the Iraqi conflict to doubts in the United States during World War II after the Japanese invasion of Singapore and similar doubts during the Civil War: In August 1864 there was a widespread belief in the North that the Civil War could not be won. President Abraham Lincoln believed that the war stalemate and the terrible casualties could lead to the election of his opponent, George McClellan, who might repudiate the Emancipation Proclamation and sue for peace on the basis of the status quo ante -- a free North, a slave South.

In each case, they argue, optimism increased when there were victories. In the case of WW II, this happened after the Midway naval victory. In the Civil War, the North gained the momentum by Sherman’s taking Atlanta.

Some, including Republican Senator John McCain, feel that the United States should increase the level of troops to ensure victory.

Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry essentially agrees with the Bush “stay the course” philosophy with the caveat that the United States should enlist its European allies, the United Nations and NATO to assist to rebuild and secure Iraq. Independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader believes that the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq in six months.

I believe that the Iraqi situation will likely change dramatically, probably not for the better, before a new President could take office next January. Thus it may not matter much what Kerry and Nader would do if they were President. In addition, John Kerry’s proposal doesn’t add anything substantive to the debate. It is unlikely that given the current lack of security in Iraq that the Europeans would be willing to assist the US. Their attitude is that the United States has made its bed (by invading Iraq), let the US solve it. So, like it or not, the US is on its own.

William Kristol’s idea of taking on the insurgents militarily before June 30th seems unlikely to succeed with the level of US troops presently involved. The insurgencies are growing and getting stronger and US troops are stretched to thin.

It is probably too late to greatly increase troop levels in Iraq to enhance security. In addition, this policy, taking the war into hostile cities like Fallujah, for example, would lead to countless civilian casualties. This would not only further inflame the Iraqi people; it would also reduce the public support for the war in the United States.

The answer, it seems to me, is for the Bush administration to hold to its promise of a June 30th turnover of complete sovereignty to a new Iraqi government. The Bush administration has stated that our troops would leave Iraq if asked by the new Iraqi government.

I think it is likely that a new government in Iraq will quickly distance itself from the United States (since its population now overwhelmingly wants the US to leave)and allow our troops to come home. A gradual reduction in US troops over the next few months(not years)would put the responsibility for Iraq squarely on the shoulders of the Iraqi people. This has already worked in Fallujah, at least for now, where relative calm was restored once the US troops withdrew from the city and turned the security over to an Iraqi force.

The best way to support our troops in Iraq, then, is to congratulate them on their great victory in overthrowing a despicable tyrant, Saddam Hussein, and welcome them home safely to their families and friends. They’ve done all they can do – all that anyone can ask of them.

Note: An interesting article about a possible solution for an eventual Iraqi government was written a couple of weeks ago by Peter W. Galbraith in “The New York Review of Books.” In How to Get Out of Iraq, Galbraith argues that Iraq should be split into three countries: a Kurdish country in the north; an essentially Shiite country in the south; and a religiously mixed country in the center including Baghdad. This approach is not without its issues, but read the article and see what you think.

by John Legler, Guest Columnist
May 23, 2004