April 9, 2007

Is the Iraq End Game Here at Last?

 

We may not yet be in the “last throes of the insurgency”. But hopefully one way or the other, we will soon be in the last throes of one of the most disastrous foreign blunders in our history.

 

Increasing numbers, including many Republicans, are abandoning the president’s lemming-like march. Even the conservative Heritage Foundation recently made fun (as much fun as those guys make) of the president’s tagline about the terrorists following us home, pointing out that most of them are local, and that the relatively few Al Qaeda fighters have neither the means nor desire to come here. Even Henry Kissinger, the president’s now less-frequent visitor and confidant, believes there is no prospect of anything looking like victory in this war.

 

The president’s people are still waiting to be met as liberators and show no sign of changing their positions or plans, the meddlesome Congress or new developments notwithstanding. If he can stick it out for another 20 months, he may just leave this mess for the next president, a vision that he let slip out with unusual candor several months ago. Still, if cooler and wiser heads prevail, we may yet reverse course, perhaps even without a major constitutional crisis.

 

As the Democrats struggle with crafting a practical exit strategy, the vice president accuses them of creating moving targets. Huh? The administration’s own expressed goals have varied a bit – from a showcase of Middle East democracy, to a multi-ethnic constitutional government, to any government that can survive for a while on its own, or perhaps oil sellers friendlier than Hugo Chavez and now exit with even a Vietnam-like fig leaf of respect. Those fickle Democrats – there they go again.

 

So what if we had a critical mass of clear-headed leaders willing to plan a least-bad way for minimizing everyone’s losses? What then?

 

The principal criteria appear to be 1) lessening as possible the fallout from the war; 2) catalyzing Iraq’s establishing equilibrium and stability after our departure; and 3) encouraging an Iraqi government whose actions are as consistent as possible with American interests – even given that according to polls a majority of Iraqis want us out, many even feeling it’s appropriate to attack American troops. Still, not all versions will be created equal regarding concrete American interests.

 

Three useful areas of focus are:

 

Reframe the Domestic Debate – The main question is not Iraq, win or lose, as the administration insists, but rather, “Is our continued outpouring of blood and treasure on a lost and increasingly costly cause our best strategy for fighting a long-term global battle with Islamic militants?” Iraq is still not the cornerstone of this global war, unless we continue to make it so – at the expense of Afghanistan, Pakistan, border security, cargo inspections, international policing, relations with Muslim countries, etc., etc.

 

Plan Our Withdrawal­ – We will leave Iraq at some point and a large mess behind whenever we do. That is the conclusion of most analysts, including long-time administration supporters. U.S. forces have become a bandage - temporarily covering many future costs of this tragic intervention. They will become fully evident in any case.

 

The Democrats putting all their eggs in the basket of a specific and public date for withdrawal may not be the answer. There is some concern about giving our adversaries this useful information, though a clear timeline should be a part of the plan – leaving aside the question of with whom and when we share this information.

 

How our military leaves Iraq will be as important as when. Our withdrawal must be safe and orderly – with no hasty helicopter escapes from embassy roofs. Clarity that we are acting strategically will cause less risk of miscalculation by adversaries or friends regarding our resolve about the larger conflict.

 

Involve Regional Players – Despite the anger in the region towards us, there is a shared interest in minimizing fallout from this disaster. Involvement of others in decisions gives them part ownership of the resulting cost. This was the case in the first Gulf War. Unfortunately it has not yet been the case for this one.

 

There is still something to be gained from involvement of key players, even real and potential adversaries, in planning now. They will most experience the impact and possess similar concerns and perhaps desires. We’ll have to listen to some unpleasant comments, but that will be a small price to pay for lessening the catastrophic fallout.

 

To offer feedback on this column, click here.