By 2008, the failed Iraq policy will make the hawkish John McCain radioactive as a candidate for president.
President George W. Bush, contrary to the will of the American and Iraqi peoples and his own military commanders, seems ready to embark on a potentially disastrous escalation of the Iraq war, which was lost long ago. This mind-numbingly idiotic strategy is sure to needlessly cost more American and Iraqi lives and to lose the presidency for the Republicans in 2008.
Apparently, the impressionable president, who is still listening to the neo-conservatives who got him into this mire in the first place, will announce this week that up to 20,000 more U.S. troops will be sent to Iraq to dampen the violence in Baghdad and Anbar province. This relatively small number of troops will not quell the violence, however. Although more troops are being added, they will now patrol Shi’ite areas, as well as Sunni enclaves, thus continuing to be spread too thin. And news of the arrival of more foreign occupiers most likely will increase resistance. Previously, when more U.S. forces were sent into Baghdad to pacify the city, violence actually spiked. U.S. military commanders have already admitted that the war cannot be won militarily, yet that vain hope still seems to be in the mind of the President. Unfortunately, U.S. and Iraqi casualties are likely to rise in the futile effort.
What can President Bush be thinking? Taking the best case (which is not all that good), in a convoluted way of thinking, the President could be setting up a U.S. withdrawal. For public relations purposes, he could show that he made every effort to help the Iraqis, but that they just could not rise to the challenge. They will most certainly fail to meet the economic, political, and military goals that he will set for them. Then a U.S. withdrawal could be justified even to the President’s conservative supporters.
Henry Kissinger, who has been advising the Bush administration, escalated the war in Southeast Asia during the 1970s before negotiating a U.S. withdrawal. Similarly, John McCain, the hawkish presidential wannabe, has left a back door open in his advocacy of more troops for Iraq. He has said that if such an escalation doesn’t work, he would then support withdrawing U.S. forces from the country.
Although escalation would help Bush retain what remains of his political base, it is totally unnecessary. He doesn’t have to run again for re-election. Also, the President doesn’t have to throw more troops to their deaths to rhetorically say he has done all he can do to help Iraqis help themselves. After all, the United States has already lost more than 3,000 troops in Iraq and spent more than $300 billion trying to pacify Iraq, and the American and Iraqi people have both grown tired of the effort. By escalating the war, the “pro-democracy” president is flouting the outcome of the 2006 elections in the United States and the popular will of the Iraqis, the majority of whom want a U.S. withdrawal.
More likely the President is trapped in his own psychological maladies. Deep down, he knows that Iraq is an unsalvageable mess, but he is an avoider of bad news and cannot accept it mentally. Psychologically, he just hopes to postpone defeat in any way he can. Defeat in Iraq means a failed presidency for him. The likely outcome of this mental trap is to attempt to keep the lid on Iraq’s escalating civil war until he can hand off the problem to his successor.
Escalation of the war means his successor will very likely be a Democrat. By 2008, the failed Iraq policy will make the hawkish McCain radioactive as a candidate for president. Even Republicans who were skeptical of Bush’s war policies, such as Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), probably will not be able to win the presidency. In the 2006 congressional elections, even Republicans who opposed the war — for example, Jim Leach of Iowa — were defeated. Thus, Bush’s new strategy will likely strengthen Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress in 2008.
Despite the verbal support of many Republicans for escalation, it is they who should be most dispirited by the President’s new policy. The gleeful Democrats will oppose the escalation rhetorically, but give the Republicans the rope to figuratively hang themselves. Despite their hints to the contrary, the Democrats will not take the courageous step of cutting off funding for the war, lest they be accused of pulling the rug out from under the troops. At a minimum, they should nix funding for added troops, but may be hesitant for fear of being blamed for “losing” the war and out of a reluctance to stand in the way of the Republicans digging their electoral hole deeper.
Although President Bush’s new Iraq policy will be golden for the future of the Democratic Party, it will be disastrous for the already exhausted U.S. soldiers, the Iraqi people, and democracy in Iraq and the United States.
ieland@independent.org
http://www.independent.org
Read more articles by Ivan Eland
The sky is falling! We lost the war years ago, and Bush refuses to listen to the people who have spoken! The world is coming to an end!
Calm down. It's not that bad. You're just confused.
1. Are we losing the war in Iraq? There's the short answer and the long answer.
The short answer: no. Not at all.
The long answer: There is no objective and honest standard that one can use to say we're losing. If we look at body counts, yea they've killed 3000+ of ours, but we've killed 5 times that of them. And they have less people to begin with. That's winning.
A quick visit to Centcom (www.centcom.mil), shows countless successes. Yesterday alone, we hit 25 insurgent targets, including an insurgent stronghold. Also yesterday, troops raided a meat packing plant and detained several men suspected of helping the insugency. There are five positive stories from January 9th. It's actually quicker to report our bad news, because the only bad news we really have is that the government is slow as sin in forming and that our troops are dying.
The Grand Theft Auto generation is so lazy and so impatient that when this war wasn't over after a month, we began whining about how long it was taking. "C'mon man, I can take over a whole city, topple a drug cartel, buy three mansions, make a million dollars, slaughter several gangs and be a kickass force by myself in a month, and my character can't even talk in the game man. Speed it up."
When did we get this stupid idea that we can win a war without soldiers dying? It doesn't happen. It sucks that our soldiers are dying, but we don't keep up to the minute numbers on our police officers or fire fighters who're killed in the line of duty. We don't whip out "well yea, 8 cops died in L.A. yesterday…we need to reduce our police force there." Because if we did, people would laugh at us and call us idiots. And anyone who made such a weak argument would deserve it. Then why do we tolerate such pathetic debate in war, which by definition is about death?
2. According to a USA today poll, 69% of the people surveyed felt that the Democrats were going to pull out of Iraq too soon, before the goals were accomplished.
So much for: The President is ignoring the will of the people. They DON'T want a withdrawl.
3. The last surge resulted in a pacification of the country, and an escalated rate of insurgent deaths. It wasn't until the surge ended that violence went back up.
4. It is blatantly dishonest to say that military leaders tell us the war cannot be won militarily, when that is not what they've said. They've actually said that the solution to Iraq is not just a military one. And since our goals are to set up an Iraqi government, get the economy back on it's feet, and train troops, of course the solution is not entirely a military one. There is nothing military about building schools. Training the police forces isn't a military goal. And creating a government and economy are not military goals. However, killing insurgents is a military goal.
The generals are behind his new plan.
In understanding why Iraq isn't working, imagine standing in the middle of a huge pool with a bucket. You're trying to empty the middle of the pool by scooping outas much water as you can. But as soon as you get rid of a bucketfull, more water rushes in to take it's place. After dozens of buckets worth, you're exhausted, and don't see any difference. You're still surrounded by water. The water level is definately lower all around, but it sure doesn't seem like it.
It's the same thing in Iraq. They are in the middle of an area of belligerant countries, who are funneling in soldiers, weapons, and money. So even though we're delivering blow after blow to al Quida and other terrorist groups, they're bringing in their cells from all over the world to fight us. So even though we're slaughtering them en masse, due to them rushing in other cells it doesn't look like we're making progress. The only way to speed up the process is to start taking out other enemy nations like Syria, Iran, and squash the monsters worldwide, as we're doing in Somalia.
This isn't going to be a quick war, and unless we're willing to give up, not only is this going to go on for at least another decade in Iraq alone, but we're going to have to start opening up fronts in other countries as well.
Comment by WolvenBear | January 10, 2007
WolvenBear,
Excellent post.
Is Mr. Eland suggesting that the Republican Party should base its war policy on electoral considerations?
Comment by Katzen | January 10, 2007
The war in Iraq is a waste of American blood and treasure. Bush and Co. based on their dealings with Saudi princes naively assuming the average arab/persian muslim could act in some civilized manner. No matter what our troops do over there, they cannot prevent the detonation or sniper rifle in the manner or role they are playing . Instead they have to stand there waiting for it to detonate then spring into action (those not dead or missing arms and legs) then clean up the mess. They occasionally get intel. and perform a raid on another #3 dude, but the intel. is no better than before 911. If you have worked with the intel. community (civilian and military) its easy to see how 911 happened.
Comment by Dean | January 10, 2007
The sky is falling! We lost the war years ago, and Bush refuses to listen to the people who have spoken! The world is coming to an end!
In which fantasy world is this? Saddam is gone, more than 20,000 insurgents have been killed, for the first time in 100 years, Iraq is set to have a working parliament. The USA has had a little under 4000 casualties, and yes, they are regrettable, but so is the nasty business of war. All wars have casualties, and this isn’t any different. The fact of the matter is, that yes, it will be a long, hard fought war, but will result in a victory. The saying goes “if at first you don’t succeed, keep trying”
What would be the solution do you think? Withdraw and allow the insurgents to take over the country again?
Comment by Australian_Young_Lib | January 10, 2007
And wolven bear, here's something for you types, you know you arm chair killers all nice and safe her in the good ol' US of A. You go and spend 2 to 3 years of your life dying for miscalculations, debacles and blunders that will in no way benefit anyone in the western world. You go without seeing your family for that length of time and have your life thrown away for nothing. BTW here's a tip, no one I know joined up to have their life thrown away on a lost cause. Die for your country, maybe, but to die for a PC miscalculation on the intentions of good muslims, no effin way! Or worse, knowing your C in C sold your family's safety out for PC and an unprotected border. Now thats genius. Leave military family's vulnerable to illegals and send their husbands off to die with one arm tied behind their back, you go Bush and Wolven Bear. I 'm sure you would lay down your life for the protection of the border huh?
Iraq is now at the mercy of Iran and Syria no matter what we do. No matter how many troops we put in there to be targets of opportunity from our own JAG corp. who will do more, sacrifice more late nights to prosecute them for deemed misconduct than Bush would do to prosecute the war. Bush does more everyday to build up the cause and justification of terrorism by building up one of the world's 'Greatest Religions' in every speech he gives now.
Comment by Dean | January 10, 2007
I don't understand. Does anybody seriously think that a Saddam-free Iraq will have more affinity for the United States than to Iran– to which Iraq is closer religiously, culturally, and geographically?
If we were so bound and determined to break the evil Saddam's power, perhaps we shouldn't have subsidized him in the first place.
But having done so, I'm not sure about the military genius involved in overthrowing the archnemesis of the Iranian government. We have created an Iranian satellite state; even Ted Turner can't transform a culture that quickly. The only way now to keep Iraq from drifting into Iran's orbit is to make Iraq a permanent U.S. colony.
Or paste the region with atom bombs and kill 'em all.
Comment by J.D. | January 14, 2007
J.D.
Or, to effect regime change in Iran.
Comment by Katzen | January 14, 2007
OH MY GOD! The "arm chair killers" card. Yawn.
I believe I'm being asked if I would fight in the U.S. Army (Navy/Air Force/Etc.). The answer is no. There's no way I'd fight in a service that looks more at ridiculous regulations for soldiers to follow than it does at the enemy they're fighting. If the draft is reinstated, and I am drafted, I will ask if I can serve my time in the Israeli forces where their soldiers are allowed to shoot things with no limits.
So, on that call, Dean, RIGHT ON! Set the Hadatha crew free.
However, on the others, I have as much right to speak as you do. Our enemy wants me dead just as much as it wants any soldier dead. On 9/11, our nation didn't pay the price in the blood of soldiers and warriors. It paid in stock traders and secretaries…civilians. See also: people who didn't sign up to fight and die for their country…in a war against Islam, or anyone else.
So let's go through your list of greviences:
And some of this is going to sound callous, but I see no need to fall all over myself double apologizing if feelings are hurt. These are basic truths, known to every soldier from moment one of signing up.
"Soldiers are sent away from their family for long periods of time!"
And? How is that different than times of absolute peace? Soldiers are sent all over the world in places other than Iraq, where they're shot at and don't get to come home. Where they die of foreign bugs that their systems can't handle or die of a terrible accident. And much moreso than fighting a declared enemy of the U.S., those deaths are "in vain".
"Soldiers are dying in miscalculations and blunders."
Yes, it's called war. Soldiers died of malcalculations and blunders during every war we've ever been in. War can't be fought perfectly.
"Bush has policy blunders I disagree with."
OK? He's wrong on one thing, therefore he's wrong on everything?
Oh, or do you mean that since I think it was a good thing to get rid of an evil dictator who shot at our planes everyday (endangering our soldiers I might add) and was making WMDs, I MUST agree with the idea that we don't need to police our border?
Or do you not know what you're charging here?
"Soldiers don't sign up to die in PC blunders."
Soldiers sign up to fight and die in whatever war the US is in. Period. For those in the armed forces who signed up post-9/11, yes, they did sign up to fight the war on terror, in all it's fronts.
And I love the whiners who cry about soldiers who die in the war zone in Iraq, but couldn't be bothered with the USS Cole Bombings, or Mogadishu, or even the first Deserty Storm war. The first Desert Storm was more about oil than this one. Bosnia was a fib sold to the public. We lost soldiers in both of those. Why can't the anti-war forces cry crocodile tears about those?
IF you're a vet, Dean, good for you. Thank you for what you've done for our country. However, I'm not backing down to my criticism just because you may be. Is Bush contradictory in many of his policies? Yes. Is he weak on border security? Yes. Does any of that affect whether or not he's right about Iraq? Absolutely not.
The bottom line is this: We are against an enemy that sees things entirely in terms of strength. When we first invaded Iraq, we looked strong, and opposition was thin. But OBL bet on the fact that (like Mogadishu), at the first sign of trouble, we'd run. And he attacked us. And the more soldiers he kills, the louder we cry, and the more soldiers he kills. They are convinced that, as long as they cause enough blood shed that eventually we will flee. It's why Zawahiri has said that the victory for Democrats was "a win for al Quida, and a loss for America."
It's our refusal to present a united front and even PRETEND that we give a damn about our survival that has led to the conflict in Iraq. It's the anti-war forces that have put us in this boat, not the pro-war ones.
Comment by WolvenBear | January 15, 2007
I voted for McCain but after his dismissive attitude towards illegal immigration, it would have to be a choice of him or Hillary for me to vote for him now. Illegal immigration and private property rights initiatives passed overwhelmingly in states where democrats won elections in November, that should be a clue what a Republican Presidential candidate needs to address in order to beat the democrats. But first you have to overcome the dems propaganda machine, including CNN.
Comment by RMichael | January 15, 2007
"Or, to effect regime change in Iran."
Is it possible, though, that the Iranian & Iraqi people themselves are not so enamoured of Western-style democracy as we all seem to think? When we talk about "regime change" and "winning hearts and minds", I can't help but get the impression that we aim to remake their society and culture in our own image.
Much as Leftists in America have used the education system and mass-media to remake the American landscape in their own image.
How many Iraqis support attacks on US troops, now that we've, er, liberated them? Isn't this something of a problem, when many if not most of the people you "rescued" hate your guts?
"Illegal immigration and private property rights initiatives passed overwhelmingly in states where democrats won elections in November, that should be a clue what a Republican Presidential candidate needs to address in order to beat the democrats."
This strikes me as fairly astute.
Comment by J.D. | January 16, 2007
"I believe I’m being asked if I would fight in the U.S. Army (Navy/Air Force/Etc.). The answer is no. There’s no way I’d fight in a service that looks more at ridiculous regulations for soldiers to follow than it does at the enemy they’re fighting."
Good to know that you're smarter than all those poor shmucks who are fighting over there right now.
Comment by J.D. | January 16, 2007
J.D.,
Yes, it is possible that the Iranian and Iraqi people are not so enamoured of Western-style democracy as many seem to think. That's why I did not specify what type of regime we should bring about in Iran. I'm not opposed to a pro-Western dictator in principle if that is the least bad option.
Another military option is to reduce Iran's military and economic power to the point where it is in no position to accocomodate countries in its "orbit."
I should say that I agree with you that our difficulties in Iraq make an American Iran policy more problematic, and I would add that our difficulties with Iran make an American Iraq policy more problematic.
Comment by Katzen | January 16, 2007