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.

Iraq - Whence from Here?

In my last column I pointed out that the Democrats’ victory in this election does not assure success in the next election two years hence.

I urged Democrats to focus on the climate of corruption in Washington. They have made a good start in this area. Hastings was denied the chairmanship of the House Intelligence committee and while Jefferson will be seated, he will be denied any consequential committee assignment. All earmarks have been shelved.

The elephant in the room is, of course, Iraq. Here there have been many voices demanding that Democrats come up with a plan. The Left calls for an immediate withdrawal or at least a timetable, and on the Right there is a call for Democrats to come up with a plan for victory or the latest euphemism, “Success.”

I submit that this is not the time for Democrats to take a position as a party and to allow free discussion among its members.

I urge this because the decisions will in any case be made in the White House and the Congress can only marginally affect policy. In addition there is no good solution. Of course Congress has the purse strings but I would seriously doubt the wisdom of cutting off funds for our troops.

Furthermore, too many on the left at times sound too much like isolationists and/or pacifists and these positions are disastrous both from a policy and a political standpoint.

Not to recognize the serious consequences of a failed state in Iraq is as serious a “State of Denial” as the Administrations claim that things are going well, or that the decision to invade was wise. Of the few things that this Administration is right about is that failure in Iraq will have serious consequences.

The withdrawal of American troops will mean a heightened civil war in Iraq with enormous civilian casualties both among Sunnis and Shiites and is very likely to draw other states in the region into the conflict. The Saudis have already announced that if American troops withdraw they will go to the aid of the Sunni population in Iraq. This could draw Iran further into the conflict on the side of the Shiites, and potentially could lead to hostilities between those states. If this were to happen the Kurds might well decide it is time to get away from the mess and declare their independence. This would probably cause the Turkish Kurds to want to join their brethren, which would bring Turkey into the fray because they would not allow part of its territory to break away. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s have already begun to flee their homeland to escape the violence. Such increased violence would multiply the exodus to neighboring states, particularly Sunni Jordan, causing destabilization of that nation. It is almost inconceivable that with such a scenario Syria and ultimately Lebanon would not be drawn in. The conflagration is hard to imagine. Ultimately it would cause a flood of refugees to leave the Middle East and overwhelm Europe and possibly the U.S., which could not effectively keep out desperate people.

If anyone thinks that such a conflagration, or even a much smaller one, would not seriously interrupt the flow of oil they are dreaming, and while some on the left don’t think that this should be a major concern, there is little, if any, doubt, that a major reduction in Middle East oil would cause a world wide depression at least on the scale of 1929. It might eventually force a return of US troops and be the beginning of a World War on an unimaginable scale.

Lest I be accused of playing the role of Cassandra, let me remind the reader that Cassandra’s predictions were true. But even if this is a worst-case scenario, isn’t it about time that we dealt with the worst case rather than, as this Administration has done, always expecting the best and never preparing for the worst.

If this sounds like I am advocating the Bush policy of “stay the course”, or the McCain policy “of a surge” which may soon become the Bush policy, nothing could be further from the truth. Unfortunately, the damage is done and our troops at present levels are not improving the situation. While a much larger troop deployment early on could have made a major difference, it is now too late, which appears to also be the view of Colin Powell and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Thus we are caught in a dilemma. To stay serves no purpose and leaving spells disaster. What are we to do? The President is the Commander in Chief. For as long as Bush holds that position he will call the shots and any attempt to lay out a policy by the opposition serves no purpose. Ultimately, it is highly likely that we will still be in Iraq in 2008 and that it will be a major issue in the Presidential and Congressional elections. At that time the Democratic Presidential candidate will have to take a position, but it will be a position on the basis of the facts, as they then exist.

I believe that our best hope will be to make the Middle Eastern nations see a Pandora’s box opening before them, and realize that only they can deal with the situation. Before 2008 or right after the election we will have to advise them that we have done all that we can and are withdrawing. We should urge one of those countries, be it Saudi Arabia, or Egypt or Jordan to convene a regional summit and try to reach agreement among them. Their future is even more at stake than ours. They must form a multinational, multi ethnic, all Muslim (drawn from both sects) military, and impose a settlement on Iraq. We can lend logistical support, but our armies will have no further role to play. Will this work? It is a long shot, but it is less of a Hail Mary pass than any of the alternatives.