A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
October 25, 2006Stay The Course RIPThe familiar slogan the Bush admin has used to brand its approach to the Iraq War has been relegated to the dustbin. President Bush is expected to make a "substantial" statement about Iraq in a White House news conference this morning, a senior administration official said. Read the whole thing to see the insider politics. It's mostly about rhetoric, as all signs indicate that what's happening here is a re-branding of the approach that the admin has insisted upon, which is that our actions and tactics are are driven by what the admin (and many others) views as a crucial foreign policy goal: democratizing Iraq. But hey, rhetoric can matter, especially if you are not a wonky insider. Expect that whatever re-branding occurs will make it harder for Bush's critics to gain traction with the claim that Bush is inflexible and unwilling to adapt to evolving circumstances. The point they are going to try to make is that the goal (or destination) is very important, but that the path to that goal is not. Any path will do. So I expect the re-branding to attempt to re-focus people upon a goal-centric vision and away from a play-by-play path-centric vision. Only time will tell if such a view garners converts or reinvigorates the ranks of the wavering. As someone who has always understood that "stay the course" was shorthand for insisting upon reaching the goal deemed crucial, I view it as a clarification. The article I link to above suggests this is what's going on. Though the White House said it has abandoned the stay-the-course message, its strategy remains the same. Snow said that there will be no dramatic shifts in policy on Iraq. I hope I don't have to update this when the actual statement is released. I'm predicting "whatever it takes to get to a democratic Iraq" with an emphasis on joint ventures with the American and newly trained Iraqi forces and an ongoing transition to the Iraqi forces being in charge. It's not really a change in strategy, it's just a change in what the admin is choosing to stress in response to simple reflexive criticism. Some of Bush's critics are already screaming that this is just more of the same. IMO they ought to tread lightly lest they appear to want us to lose. Americans don't like losing, and they know that bailing on Iraq will make us look weak internationally, with future consequences. The amusing thing about the CNN article is that the quoted critics do not appear to agree on whether this is change, they just agree it's bad. Call this one Nancy Drew and the Case of the Dueling Spins by American Enterprise Institute Scholars Fred Kagan: "This is the same strategy that has produced so much failure so far." OK, just so we're clear....regardless of whether it's a change in Iraq war strategy, we know it's bad. Thank God we have resident scholars to help us understand these complex issues....LOL. UPDATE: The story i linked to has been substantively revised to the point where the quotes I've excerpted are, at a quick scan, gone. Glad I quoted the good bits! At least the revised story was, as expected, an attempt to focus attention goal-centrifically. Posted by Brian Keegan at October 25, 2006 12:16 PMComments
I hate to be a pessimist about it but it seems to me that we've already lost in Iraq. And that almost totally because of the failure to plan for what happened after the initial entirely predictable military victory over Saddam's forces. Since about two months after Saddam's government fell what we've had over there has been a classic case of all the kings horses and all the kings men attempting to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Posted by: Kevin at October 25, 2006 01:40 PMSome of Bush's critics are already screaming that this is just more of the same it is easy to see where you are coming from. [C'mon Rob, that's just a drive-by. Can't you do better than that? --BK] Posted by: rob at October 25, 2006 01:41 PMJust to follow up on my initial comment... I'm not one who subscribes to the notion that Iraq couldn't have been democratized. I'm just of the opinion that Rumsfeld et al have allowed the insurgency to become far too deeply entrenched. You'd think that the "preemptive" crowd would have understood the wisdom of preempting a likely insurgency by giving some serious thought to what to do once our boys kicked the Iraqi Army's behind. But it seems that they were too preoccupied with no-bid contracts and such. It's a damn shame too. These jokers will be out of power and into retirement soon, leaving the American people to try to make the best of a very bad situation which seems to be getting progressively worse the longer we stay in Iraq. Posted by: Kevin at October 25, 2006 01:46 PMKevin, I had a lengthier and more well-thought-out reply that regrettably got glitched away... Of course if you are certain in both your mind and your heart that we can not succeed in Iraq then you must advocate withdrawal. I am not there. I see reports of troubling violence, usually in Baghdad or places where local insurgents enjoy local support. While troubling, they don't allow me to feel that I have anything approaching a comprehensive understanding of the nation of Iraq on a day to day or region to region basis. I have no problem acknowledging that the outcome seems in doubt, or in joining those who wonder whether Iraqis, as a nation, want democracy for themselves as much as we want ot for them. But still I think that democracy in Iraq would be better for both us and them in the long run, and that the price of bailing would be high. Too high to even consider? I wouldn't say that, I'm willing to entertain the notion that we could muddle along after a bailing if necessary, but quite skeptical that the price pof bailing would represent any sort of a bargain price. Right now we're in the m iddle of experiencing the high cost and pain of staying, but those costs and pains simply don't speak conculsively to whether the cost of bailing might end up being higher or more painful. We've got no calculus here. Posted by: bk at October 25, 2006 02:53 PMBrian, I fully and completely agree that democracy would be better for both the Iraqis and for us. You're preaching to the choir on that point. I don't think that as citizens of a democracy (of sorts) ourselves that we require anything close to absolute certainty before we ought to address the issue or make decisions regarding it. Those troop serve, by political extension, at our pleasure. We have not only a right but an obligation to express our views to the body politik. I just don't see how things are going to improve in Iraq given the present course. Two years ago we should have flooded Iraq with at least twice as many troops to enforce a semblence of peace and to prevent the insurgency from getting a head of steam. Bush et al disagreed and steadfastly maintain that POV. Given the situation I just don't see how it can possibly turn around. We won't commit anything close to enough troops and the Iraqi troops seem to disintegrate as fast as we stand them up. Hell, is there any doubt that in the process of trying to stand them up that we've trained many insurgents and death squads? Every time the White House or Pentagon trumpet some new figure for how many Iraqi troops have been stood up a short while later we quietly find out that the number had to be scaled back because it was unrealistic. The situation is going from bad to worse. Every time BushCo has told us that the bad news is just a last gasp effort by the bad guys things have not only continued but they've continued to get worse. How many more billions of taxpayer dollars are you willing to spend in Iraq? How many more of our soldiers are you willing to spend in Iraq? I understand sacrifice and have no problem with it. What I have a problem with is seeming open-ended sacrifice with no visible benefit being gained and no objective reason to believe that continued spending will change the situation. Kevin, I don't believe that this war is the type that can be won by employing large numbers of troops exercising overwhelming force. From what I have read so far, I have found the arguments presented in Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife quite persuasive. The insurgency is a fish that swims in the water of the people. Poisoning the water is not an option because it's the water we care about the most, and catching every fish is not practical, because the pond is too vast. The only path is to convince the water of the people to be less hospitable to the fish. Either we will ultimately win the battle for the hearts and minds of everyday Iraqis by treating them justly and showing them a better way to live and govern, or the insurgents will win their hearts and minds by convincing the Iraqi people that we don't really care about Iraqis. Now I know that a simple linear projection of force makes the suggestion that more troops = more security, and that security is viewed as the most deeply rooted need. More troops doesn't make any sense to me unless the military folks in charge are asking for them. Iraq is vast. Do you really think that adding 10k or 20k troops (or even DOUBLING them) would make a substantive difference in our ability to eliminate insurgents? They are not in bright uniforms marching at us from beflagged base camps. They swim among the people. I agree with you that our patience cannot be unlimited. I simply have not reached the same conclusion as you that things have continued to get worse on the whole. I am pretty convinced that I lack many good yardsticks for making such measurements. There IS violence, but that's to be expected, and it tends to be confined to the areas wherew e'd expect itr to occur...in the splashly area of Baghdad where everyone is watching, and in the few regions that are relativeinsurgent strongholds. Here are the sorts of things that I would look for as evidence that the situtation had devolved into likely ireversible decline: -large protests by Iraqis demanding that US forces leave, occuring not just in say Fallujah City, but in many regions where diffferent tribes dominated: Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd -large scale spontaneous evacuations of people from populated regions because they feared for their safety -the breakdown of civil society...courts, schools, hospitals destroyed or not functioning, only furtive vehicle traffic, shops without goods, and so on I don't read reports that such things are the rule, but rather that they are the exception, or are mostly not happening at all. I have read (only read!) that ex-patriate iraqis from past flights continue to return to Iraq. Sure, some of the recent immigrants must be inspired jihadists, but probably not the families, right? If I find myself, like you, without any objective reasons to think continued spending and bloodshed could result in long-term benefit, I'll come over to your side. But I'm not there. Not even all that close. Streams of evacuees from various grossly unstable and highly populous regions and widespread public anti-American protests would change my mind. Posted by: bk at October 25, 2006 04:25 PMAs for standing up Iraq's forces, I'd like to know what's being done to embed more American officers in the Iraqi military/police force. Max Boot wrote in last week's LA Times about how, while not dismissing the Iraqis' responsibility for preparing their forces, a critical factor is developing Iraqi forces is American advising, yet the task gets short shrift in money and manpower. Posted by: Scott Smith at October 25, 2006 04:59 PMBrian, the point of doubling our troop levels wouldn't be to directly eliminate all of the troublemakers. What's needed is security! Once the insurgency began to get a head of steam we simply had too few boots on the ground to enforce security. Building up a large enough force to, for example, tackle Fallujah, meant drawing down troop levels somewhere else. And as we all know the insurgents simply moved to those elsewhere areas. How did Saddam keep a lid on things? Or any other strongman for that matter? Subtract the inhumane treatment and other assorted objectionable practices that dictators use and what's left? Pervasive, ever-present security forces! And the only way that is ever possible is to have huge numbers of boots on the ground. How are any of the pro-democracy forces supposed to win the hearts and minds of the general population when they are too preoccupied with running here and there trying to put out fires all the time because that's all they have enough boots to do? That's exactly what's been going on there for far too long now! Here's the present problem as I see it. And it's something that I think your proffered choices are too black and white to deal with... I suspect that the silent Iraqi majority are fed up with BOTH our foreign presence AND with the insurgency. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me at all if many didn't secretly yearn for Saddam. Not because they liked him or his method of governance but rather because he at least provided meaningful security. Posted by: Kevin at October 25, 2006 05:02 PMMore troops doesn't make any sense to me unless the military folks in charge are asking for them. Iraq is vast. Do you really think that adding 10k or 20k troops (or even DOUBLING them) would make a substantive difference in our ability to eliminate insurgents? But the commanders at the local level are asking for more troops. It's only their higher-ups, who know what the civilian want to and do not want to hear who are blocking such requests. Take for instance 1st Lt. Pete Hegseth, who was in charge of forces around Samarra: I've heard President Bush repeatedly state he will send more troops to Iraq if the commanders on the ground ask for them. I think, having returned home from Iraq two months ago, that there must be a breakdown in communication somewhere along the line. Maybe units on the ground are painting too rosy a picture for the generals. Perhaps the generals aren't asking because it goes against the "can do" ethos of the Army. Possibly the military is being squeezed by the Pentagon to do more with less. Or maybe the White House doesn't want to admit more troops are needed. In any case, while I do not have the answers nor do I seek to place blame, it is painfully obvious there's a disconnect. Hegseth further adds about the Iraqi attitude to American troops and the ability of additional troops to have a positive effect: Supporters of the current approach argue sending more troops would further inflame anti-American sentiment.... My experience suggests otherwise. American troops are tolerated, even welcomed when they effectively provide security; but their presence is cursed when it does not accompany progress. Violence persists not because American troops are present, but because our presence is futile.... One thing I would add is that the military component of the solution is no reason not to pursue a full-court press on the diplomatic front. I would say that military and diplomacy are actually complementary, military force helps convince participants in a political/diplomatic process that they would not be able to get a better deal through unilateral action and that their interlocutors would not be able to get away with violating any agreement while diplomacy would provide an endplan for the subjects of any military operation. Posted by: Scott Smith at October 25, 2006 05:19 PMre: update-- It's gettin' hard to please 'em It's certainly true that more troops will not win this war. But it is equally true that lack of more troops will make losing it certain. The point of more troops is to get control, to provide sufficient security on the ground that basic services can be restored with out being immediately wrecked, that the population can go about their lives without being subject to death squads -- in short, so the country can rise out of the anarchic horror that it is currently in. Will that be sufficient to bring peace? No. Lots of other work (nation-building, whether you call it that or not) will be required. But it is a necessary precondition. If we are not willing to take that step, then there is nothing else we can contribute . . . we just make the sectarian/ethnic battles last longer in time, without changing the final numbers of Iraqis killed. Posted by: wj at October 25, 2006 07:24 PMwj stated my own views much better and much more concisely than I managed. Mark me down as dittoing his comments. Without sufficient security we are simply delaying the inevitable. And if that's all we're accomplishing then we might as well cut our loses, the sooner the better. If we're serious about making Iraq a success then we need to be honest about it and stop playing politics with the inevitable costs that will be associated with it at this point in time. As badly as the Iraq War is perceived to be in virtually every public opinion poll for many months now... I'm personally of the opinion that it's not too late to reverse that. But to do so will require being bluntly honest about both the costs of righting course in Iraq, as wj so succinctly stated the situation, but also being bluntly honest with the American public about what it's going to take. We don't want to be BSed any longer. That much I think is stunningly clear. Posted by: Kevin at October 25, 2006 07:59 PMBush can't even seem to tell the truth regarding his "Stay the Course" strategy. Anyone want to place bets as to who's going to be the first "centrist" on this blog to defend Bush on this one? Oh, wait. The GOP just outlawed online gambling. Nevermind. Posted by: nicrivera at October 25, 2006 08:15 PMAnyone want to place bets as to who's going to be the first "centrist" on this blog to defend Bush on this one?Nic, I'm humbled by your deft play of words. Posted by: c3 at October 25, 2006 11:27 PM Nic, defending Bush makes me not a centrist in your eyes, but rather a "centrist," so you're posing an undoable task. Forgive me for spitting that particular bit. I'm not surprised at all that it's possible to find the testimony of one commander (or even several) who wanted more troops and are angry that they didn't get them. Especially if that commander was operating in a high-strife area. I hate to repeat myself, but I've yet to see accounts suggesting that security is woefully insufficient across the nation as a whole. Instead, I see many reports of often violent conflict in some areas, ones were insurgents enjoy local/tribal support. My expectation is that if we double or triple the boots on the ground in these areas, insurgents will blend in or melt away, and things will quiet down, and then when the troops levels are cut back, insurgents will act up again. I am highly skeptical that marginal upticks in troop levels will do much good. I really don't want to disparage the honest inquirers here. I expect that folk like say wj are truly concerned about security and think more boots would do much good (and indeed you may be right over the short term at least). But I am concerned that Bush's reflexive critics will leap to the suggestion that troop increases somehow prove that we are "losing." Ultimately, the only reasonable way to make the decision is on the basis of needs on the ground. Hey maybe it is the case that many or most of the on the ground commanders want more troops and are righ to want them, and the rest of the command structure is in denial or playing politics for the sake of their careers. But so far, I'd say the evidence is quite scant to support that notion. Posted by: bk at October 26, 2006 09:26 AMIf we do need more troops in Iraq, there is also the possibility that we also need more troops in Afghanistan. Just something to consider when discussing troop levels. Posted by: WHQ at October 26, 2006 10:33 AMAnd we may need to use the word "also" a lot more. Posted by: WHQ at October 26, 2006 10:33 AMNo question that Afghanistan needs lots (lots and lots) more troops. It would be interesting to see how many of those advocating pulling out of Iraq would go for moving them straight into Afghanistan. After all, a) it was a more popular war in the first place, b) it seems that today it is more win-able, and c) the Taliban stand for all the things that the left hates (suppression of women, cruel and unusual punishments, etc., etc.). It might even be one of those rare moves which both left and right could support (albeit for very different reasons) -- except that whichever one suggested it, the other would reflexively object without even considering the merits. Posted by: wj at October 26, 2006 03:15 PM |
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Some Smart Surging
Democratic Disgrace Obama: Tastes Great or Less Filling Should United States Attorneys be Professionalized? Don't you dare change your mind! Erin Go Open Thread NCAA tournament thread Blog that Brouhaha to death, AMIIGAF! Why Communism Grew Big: WWI Mythology Part 1 of 3 (LONG) The Right Immigration Questions
|
