Sunday, April 15, 2007

Iraq Redux

While Iraq is not the only issue facing our nation it is at the top of our political discourse and accordingly I feel I must address it once again before moving onto other subjects of importance.

I last addressed this issue on January 11, 2007 under the title of “Bush’s new-old Iraq strategy” in which I derided the so-called “surge strategy” as being “to little-to late” and accused the Administration of continuing to be in a State of Denial. I concluded my analysis with:

“UNFORTUNATELY OUR FIGHTING MEN ARE THE VICTIMS OF THESE MISGUIDED AND BIZARRE POLICIES, WHICH ARE NEITHER FISH, NOR FOWL BUT HAVE ONLY ONE PURPOSE IN MIND AND THAT IS TO PASS THE HARD DECISIONS ON TO THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION. TO SACRIFICE UNTOLD LIVES TO THIS ENDEAVOR IS THE HEIGHT OF IGNOMINY.”

Now, however, I am becoming concerned that the opponents of the Administration and Congressional Democrats are in a STATE OF DENIAL as well. I say this because I fear that the subscript to the drive to disengage is that if we just pull our troops out, all will work out for the best, or at least what is likely to happen will not have any effect on us. I believe that is as much of a pipe dream as the Administration’s insistence that this war can be won.

There is little doubt in my mind that when we pull out, the blood bath that is now under way in Iraq will explode, with what we are seeing now being mild by comparison. Some will say that this is the Iraqis’ problem, but it is hard to see how people who consider themselves liberals or humanitarians can place so little value on the lives of people simply because they are not Americans or are Muslims. Yes, it is Iraqis who are causing the bloodbath in their sectarian hatreds, but it is a minority of Iraqis, with the vast majority simply wanting to live in peace. Furthermore, even though it is this Administration that caused this disaster with it’s ill advised invasion and it’s poorly conceived and executed occupation, it is nevertheless our country that must, as a whole, accept responsibility for the acts of its duly elected government.

Furthermore, the total implosion of Iraq is not likely to remain within its borders. The chaos that will be engendered is likely to draw in its neighbors. Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran, and even Saudi Arabia, possibly Israel. Warfare on this scale is likely to shut down the Strait of Hormuz interrupting oil shipments from the Middle East, which would trigger a worldwide recession with the worst sufferers being the poorest. 

Does this mean that I now oppose the withdrawal of American troops? The answer is no!

The sad fact is that our troops staying in Iraq can only delay this catastrophe. There is no chance that our troops in their present strength can alter the situation. Their continuing presence can delay but cannot prevent the catastrophe I envision. At some point, whether that is in 2008 or 2009 or 2020, they will have to be withdrawn and when they are catastrophe will follow.

So what is the solution? Ideally, the Vice-President in an act of patriotism ought to resign; somebody like Colin Powell ought to take his place followed by the resignation of the President and the ascendancy of Powell to the Presidency. Then a truly new direction could be undertaken with real diplomacy taking place with and among all the states of the region followed by a pullout. This could not only save the US and indeed the world from the consequences of the follies of the past but could actually save the Republican Party. But that is not going to happen.

So the next best thing is that the Democratic Congress keeps passing bills with a timetable without teeth. Bush will then be faced with the choice of vetoing funding for the war or accepting something which does not actually tie his hands. This is a no-brainer. Bush would have to blink. He could not afford to be in the position of vetoing funding for the troops because he doesn’t like the language. 

It will be up to the next President to extricate us through diplomacy. It can be done. The Middle Eastern states have too much at stake to allow total chaos in their backyard.

But in fighting Bush and the Administration a frank assessment of the dangers must be put forth. We cannot afford for all factions in the United States to share in a State of Denial. Reality must be the watchword. 

If Democrats do not warn of the eventual potential consequences, they will reap the whirlwind of the chaos that will ensue whenever we pull out. Reality must recognize the futility of the military option, but must equally recognize the enormous dangers and potential consequences. Only a frank appraisal and an honest assessment of what we are facing can avoid catastrophe.

5 comments:

Herb Reiner of Cedar Grove, NJ said...

I don't agree that most Congressional Democrats are in a state of denial on this issue. There are proposals for setting benchmarks and timetables for a withdrawal that extends for months if not years. Logistically an immediate withdrawal is impossible and most Democrats recognize this. True, one that is too abrupt could precipitate an exploding blood bath-- but further overstaying our “welcome” may, in the long run, shed more blood – certainly more American blood.
Can you substantiate your assertion that the “vast majority of Iraqis want to live in peace” when 50% of Sunnis polled approved the killing of American troops? Muqtader al-Sadr, head of the largest Shia militia, has also called for the killing of Americans and a huge number of Shia responded by demonstrating to demand that we leave Iraq.
General Odum argues that those who insist on staying in Iraq longer make the consequences of withdrawal more terrible and make it harder to find an alternative strategy for achieving regional stability...it becomes clear that U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is the precondition to winning the support of our allies and a few others for a joint approach to the region.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=63
In fact, there are too many variables to know which course of action will be the least calamitous, especially when it’s being carried out by the people who got us to this point. Had we done things right from beginning, we may have had a slight chance of succeeding despite the lessons of history. But having lost the trust of the Iraqis as the rest of the world, the outcome is beyond our grasp. We can only hope that we are as wrong about the result of our Iraq fiasco as we were about our Vietnam fiasco (“falling dominoes”).
In the meantime, we seem to be headed toward a confrontation with Iran. If push come to shove, the present moment will look like a piece of cake.

Claudia Bial of Fort Lee, NJ said...

Colin Powell is some pipe dream!
An older pipe dream was that of the senator from Vermont, whose name escapes me at the moment, who recommended years ago that the U.S. simply declare victory in Vietnam and pull out forthwith. We have an easier option in Iraq now. The Iraqis themselves want us out so we should simply comply. If I'm not mistaken, that means our soldiers  would leave but the U.S. would still have a presence there, hopefully to aid in reconstruction but most definitely to try to keep oil flowing in our direction. And it's still all about oil, isn't it?

Emil Scheller of Fort Lee, NJ said...

Of course it's still about the oil, but there is nothing evil about this if what we want is to prevent the blocking of the free flow of oil to the world. That is a necessity if we are to bring the world economy from collapsing. But if it's all about the oil means keeping control of the oil for its wealth than it is indeed the height of imperialism and it's history lies at the foundation of much of our mistakes that we have made in the Middle East, not the least of which was the overthrow of the elected government of Iran, and the placing of the autocratic Shah on the throne of Iran.

Frank DiPrima of West Caldwell, NJ said...

But Gore has more foreign policy experience than any Democrat in national politics (Clinton gave him an important role), and he was the only Democrat on the national scene to have opposed the Iraq war before it began for all the right reasons after having supported the Gulf War,which many Democrats in the Senate opposed. Both calls were correct. Hillary's call on the Iraq war was wrong, and she is still in denial. Once we get out of Iraq (and I do not share your reluctance to do so.
BTW, do you understand why a free Kurdish state in the North means an automatic conflict with Turkey? I don't and can use an explanation. With a little American and European diplomacy, why can't these two peoples of good will get along? Not an idle question, because whatever we do and whenever we leave Iraq, the Kurds may have their nation-state, Biden or no Biden.

Emil Scheller of Fort Lee, NJ said...

I don't agree with Frank DiPrima's view that Hillary's call was wrong. I think she is taking a bad rap. The media keeps talking about people who voted for the war. That is another misleading presentation by the media. The Congress voted to authorize Bush to take military action. That is not the same as voting for war. In fact Hillary in casting her vote made it crystal clear that she was doing it even though she opposed taking military action. She said she felt it was necessary to give the President that power in order to give him the leverage to get the inspectors back into Iraq. Hillary's vote showed itself to be wise when it worked and Saadam allowed the inspectors in and they found nothing. Bush then went to war anyway. Such idiocy could not be anticipated. Therefore, Hillary's insistence that she has nothing to apologize for is well founded.
I am not reluctant to get out of Iraq. I just think it is simplistic to talk about getting out without any thought to the possibility of a worse disaster and how it can be avoided. In addition the politics of it indicate that we are not likely to be out before the next Administration. Will Democrats, when push comes to shove, actually cut off funding and if they do will Bush find a way to keep the war going anyway?
On the Kurds and Turkey. Turkey has a large Kurdish population adjoining Iraq. Their fear is that an independent Kurd nation on it's border will make its population revolt to join the new nation. They are determined to take preemptive action to keep it's territory inviolate. But you are right- there may be no way to prevent these developments- Biden or no Biden.