“Political language...is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”  George Orwell

Despite the fine rhetoric from Mr. Bush about justice being done or how the trial and execution of Saddam Hussein demonstrates Iraq’s progress toward a free and fair society, the reality still appears quite different.   If anything, Saddam’s execution should leave us all feeling slightly queasy.   Instead of a dispassionate and fair carriage of justice, the unauthorized video of the execution show the guards of a vengeful Shia regime taunting the condemned dictator even as the trap opened and he was hung.   And rather than proclaiming that this was an important day for Iraq as a nation, it was clear that their sectarian loyalties were what mattered, not the Iraqi nation as a while.

Will Saddam’s execution make any difference in the situation in Iraq?  Not for the better.   Perhaps the Bush White House would have liked to spin this as an example of the new, democratic Iraq, but the reality is that the new Iraq is anything but democratic, and Saddam’s execution.....carried out in haste and in disregard even of the laws of the “new” Iraq.....has merely reinforced the widely held belief among Sunnis and much of the arab world that this was little more than victor’s justice.   It also seemed to demonstrate that the Shia dominated government has little interest in fairness toward the Sunni population, and even less concern for their sensitivities and concerns.   To be shouting the name of Moktada al-Sadr as Saddam died only served to convince Sunnis that they will have little place (or security) in the “new” Iraq.

If anything, the way this was handled will only further divide Iraq’s sectarian groups and push Iraq further down the path of sectarian violence and civil war.    To their credit, it does appear that the Bush administration tried to temper the Iraqi’s rush to execute, perhaps out of fear that the consequences would only be counter-productive in terms of bringing any semblance stability to Iraq.    And the complete refusal of the Maliki regime to heed the concerns of Washington simply shows how little leverage the United States now has in Iraq.   Our troops continue to fight and die over there, but our ability to actually influence events is fast approaching zero.

We should not expect that the flawed process by which Saddam was tried and executed will either reflect well on the United States, or contribute to improved circumstances in Iraq.   And any effort on the part of the Bush administration to spin it as yet another milestone in Iraq, as they’ve tried to spin every previous event such as elections, handing over of sovereignty, the death of Saddam’s despicable sons, or the capture of Saddam himself, should be seen for what it is.......whistling in the dark while desperate to avoid the truth of their misbegotten war.   This was no milestone, no mark of progress, no show of justice and legality at work.   It was a sad, pathetic, travesty of a legal process.    That a man who should be reviled and shown for what he was, a vicious mass murderer, could be turned into a martyr among the broader Sunni population only shows how badly wrong Mr. Bush’s crusade to bring democracy to the Middle East has gone.

dtf

“Political language...is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”  George Orwell


The Republicans are desperate.  Whatever the White House and Karl Rove may be saying about “THE numbers,” recent actions and their campaign mode right now speak far louder than mere words.  Anyway, words have always meant whatever it is this White House wants them to mean.  Actions are harder to hide (similar to consequences and the results of failed leadership).   Lurking on the horizon is the possibility that George Bush’s six year run is about to come to a crashing halt as the country takes a sharp turn to the center.   More than anything, public discomfort with the debacle progressively unfolding in Iraq is the reason this may happen.

In the past few weeks, the Bush administration has abandoned “stay the course” while making a big show of looking to the military and outside advisers for advice on Iraq.  They came up with a set of “milestones” to be met by the Iraqi government, though offered no hint of any consequences should those markers, like so many of the administration’s prior markers, fail to be met.   And in yet another indication of how vulnerable the Bush administration now is, the Iraqi government promptly disavowed the whole thing.   

Unfortunately, a change in marketing slogans or tinkering with tactics isn’t going to have any effect on the problems in Iraq.  It’s like deciding to use a glass instead of a cup to bail the Titanic.    The simple reality is that the news from Iraq isn’t good and hasn’t been good for some time now.  Sadly, the administration itself appears to be the last to hear the news.   Mr. Bush was clearly being honest when he once told reporters he never read the papers.

The president is out on the campaign trail, no doubt thrilled to at least be playing at running for office, even as most of his party runs away from him as fast as possible.   It is normal for a seated president to campaign on behalf of other party members in mid-term elections, but this year Mr. Bush has been relegated to cheerleading slots in long-time Republican base areas.  Mr. Bush’s campaign stops are all in heavily favored Republican districts.  He is preaching to, and reaching out for, the most solid of the Republican base.  It’s an act of desperation because it acknowledges that the president is mostly a liability these days.  The Republicans cannot hope to get independents on board, so they’re desperately trying to shore up their base.    

Mr. Bush is kept to safe venues and crowds, carefully selected to sustain whatever shreds of presidential stature he still has, while Laura hits the hustings in more competitive races.  With his approval ratings hovering below forty percent, no one but the hard-core party faithful want to see him.  The only remaining unanswered question of his presidency is how much of a lame duck he will be from now on.   His historical legacy is already determined, as we bleed ourselves in the stalemated sands of Iraq.

Down to the wire, the best the Republicans can throw at the opposition is the increasingly tired (and incredible) argument that electing the Democrats will mean losing the war on terror.  Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, that wouldn’t make us any worse off since we’re losing the war on terror now.   They can accuse John Kerry, a decorated combat veteran, of disrespecting “the troops,” but as Senator Kerry pointed out, the real disrespect is sending them into a war they were unprepared for, without the necessary equipment to fight that war, without a viable strategic plan for that war, and handling the occupation phase so ineptly that the situation today is worse than it was a year ago.....and far worse than it was in the immediate aftermath of our invasion of Iraq.     Leaving “the troops” to die for a failed “stay and pray” policy is the height of disrespect.   Who wants their child to be the last to die for a failed policy?   The point of Senator Kerry’s mangled joke was clear to anyone with half a brain, and hopefully most voters will recognize White House “outrage” for the desperate effort to change the subject that it is.    

Although predicting elections is always a dangerous gamble, a week out this one looks tilted toward the Democrats.  A lot can change in a week.  There could be a terrorist attack...there have been rumors of an al Qaeda attack planned to coincide with the election.   There could be a major terrorist alert, something that sets everyone’s nerves on edge and reminds us all who has allegedly prevented more attacks here at home subsequent to 9/11.   Or an impending terrorist plot will be prevented, with the highly publicized arrest of a hidden al Qaeda “cell” here at home.   

Winning for the Democrats may turn out to be bittersweet, however.  Even holding one house of Congress will guarantee that the Republican media machine will go into high gear, blaming Democrats for every bad thing that happens.....never mind that the groundwork for all the bad things now beginning to happen around the world has been well laid over the past six years by the Bush administration and their irresponsibly profligate allies in Congress .   

For the die-hard supporters of this administration, failure in Iraq won’t ever be the consequence of Mr. Bush’s inept and blundering implementation of an occupation, any more than America’s inability to influence events will be attributed to this administration’s feckless, downright reckless, foreign policy.   Instead, it will be the fault of obstructionist Democrats and the liberal media.   A new “stab-in-the-back” theory to comfort narrow minds, made even more credible with a strong Democratic victory next week.   One can only hope that the country is finally waking up to the reality, which is that this president and his supporters have done this country some severe damage, and it is going to take a major bipartisan effort to dig ourselves out of the whole they’ve put us in.

dtf

“The ability to evaluate the situation objectively has always been the sign of true leadership.”   General Frido von Senger und Etterlin

The real question related to Iraq is that of the “tipping point”; i.e. the point where the cost of continued commitment is no longer acceptable, where any hope of achieving even modest objectives has been overtaken by negative reality on the ground.  Have we reached or passed that point in Iraq?   We don’t know, but it’s clear the Bush administration and its supporters do not even want to have that discussion, hence the appeals to “stay the course” (accompanied by less visible White House prayers that the situation doesn’t go completely bad before they leave office) along with simplistic accusations of “cut and run” being leveled against challengers.
    
The Republican Party will unquestionably play the terrorism card this fall, seeking to universally paint Democratic candidates as “cut and run” appeasers.   In order to counter such tactics, a somewhat nuanced position on Iraq and the fight with Islamist terrorism is desirable.   In particular, turning Republican accusations around by calling for a broad debate over policy and criticizing the lack of any coherent anti-terrorism strategy, may offer a useful counter to the inevitable partisan attacks.   

Whether we should have invaded Iraq in the first place is certainly debatable, but now irrelevant.    We’re there.   While there is clearly growing public discomfort with that commitment, the American people are also skeptical of any policy which simply abandons Iraq to whatever fate might be in store.   Recent Gallup Polls indicate that Americans are divided on the war, largely along partisan lines. Yet despite a sense that the war is not going well for the United States, only about one in five favors an immediate withdrawal of troops. Most support gradual withdrawal of troops, preferably within a year, but close to half may be willing to keep troops there longer to achieve U.S. goals, assuming of course that such objectives are in fact still realizable.

A change in policy should not lead to a worse situation than already exists and therein lies the danger in a policy of rapid withdrawal: the sudden departure of US forces from Iraq may well lead to a worse situation.   At a minimum, It would further harm the U.S. image abroad, already severely undermined by the Bush administration’s feckless diplomacy and arrogant unilateralism.   For better or worse, American credibility, prestige and image are at stake here.   The Bush administration has not done well in terms of the psychological side of the conflict with Islamist fanaticism; i.e. the effort to win “hearts and minds.”    A precipitous departure from Iraq will further damage that effort, leaving friends in the region skeptical of our seriousness, and allowing enemies to claim a great victory.   The propaganda consequences of a forced or abrupt withdrawal can only make the broader struggle with Islamic fanaticism in the region more difficult.

A second likely consequence of a rapid withdrawal is that it will almost certainly be followed by full-scale civil war between Sunni and Shi’a, with the Kurds moving quickly toward de facto if not de jure independence.   This will open the door to increased Iranian influence and power in the region, even more than what Teheran has already achieved in recent months.   The ensuing chaos may well lead to widespread instability and insecurity throughout the region.

Finally, a rapid U.S. retreat from Iraq will create conditions in which al Qaeda and similar Islamist terrorist movements will find not only sanctuary but a ready audience and recruiting pool.   The net result will be a Middle East that is even more unstable, more dangerous, and more threatening than the mess we already have.

If we leave quickly, we are likely to find ourselves having to go back again in a decade or less, at greater cost and after far more death and destruction has been visited not only on the people of the region, but on the United States as well.    Having said the above, one must be cognizant of the possibility that all the negative consequences will come to pass no matter what we do in Iraq from here on out, that we have already passed the “tipping point” and the dangers of withdrawal are now exceeded by the costs of staying.   Thus, the need for a serious examination of where things stand in Iraq now.

The accusation of being a “Cut and run Democrat” resonates with the public, despite the fact that it is a simplistic description of what most Democratic candidates would actually propose.    It is a handy slogan that permits Karl Rove to change the subject from “what can we do to manage and perhaps improve the ultimate outcome in Iraq” to a false accusation of Democratic weakness.    By changing the subject and focus, it also obfuscates the reality of the administration’s “Stay and Pray”strategy.

What America needs is a serious discussion about what is achievable in Iraq, what milestones or measurements might mark progress toward those objectives, and whether in fact there are realistic strategic goals still obtainable there.    Iraq may already have passed beyond the tipping point, and no amount of further bloodshed or treasure will allow us to accomplish even the most modest of objectives, but at some point there must be a realistic calculation of cost versus benefit.   In order to make that judgment, however, we need honesty about the situation in Iraq, not partisan rhetoric and dewy-eyed optimism contradicted by the realities on the ground.   

The recent deluge of assessments and revelations, from the Devlin Report and the recently discussed NIE, to Bob Woodward’s new book “State of Denial,” and the still deferred NIE on Iraq itself, all suggest that the optimism of the Bush administration is misplaced at best and dishonest at worst.    The continued inability of the elected Iraqi government to cleanse the police and Interior Ministry of militias and criminal elements is not encouraging.    Prime Minister Maliki remains a weak leader, dependent on the same political elements who are connected to the militias and private security forces.   His ability to bring about real change, and to create an effective central government remains in doubt.    Our own military is expressing doubts about the long-term viability of our effort in Iraq.  

Clearly current policy, as set and adhered to by the Bush administration isn’t working well.   Troop levels are the highest they’ve been since we invaded Iraq, with no sign of relief in sight.   The administration has created a stalemate machine, in which the insurgents can’t win, the sectarian violence is kept from exploding into full-scale civil war, and the US/Iraqi government makes little or no progress toward a stable and secure Iraq.
        
The mess in Iraq is the result of going to war without a clear strategic understanding of what we were doing.   It was a brilliant tactical success but, as Thomas Ricks describes in his recent book Fiasco, the Bush administration never had a clear strategic plan for Iraq beyond removing Saddam Hussein, nor a coherent strategic plan for fighting Islamist terrorism.   Their response to the threat thus far has been disjointed, overly militarized, and reactive in nature.  As a result, we may in fact be losing ground in that struggle.1      

The question isn’t whether to “cut and run” or “stay the course,” it is whether current policy is working, whether there is a clear and coherent long-term strategic vision for both Iraq and the broader “war” on terror, and whether there are metrics that would provide us a better understanding of where progress is being made as opposed to where we are failing.    The rhetorical assurances of the current administration are no longer adequate or even credible when it comes to these questions.    What is needed is a serious debate, and a more cogent strategic vision, one which incorporates all the elements of American power, soft as well as hard, and is proactive rather than reactionary.   The time for that discussion is now.

dtf
29 September 2006

 

 

1. cf, the commentary on U.S. Counter-terrorism strategy in Strategic Survey, IISS, August 2006, Routledge Press, pp 29ff)