April 30, 2007

Democrats and Iraq: Focus on the Real War

 

Democrats’ new-found Iraq gumption is very welcome, but they may need to refocus their efforts to win necessary hearts and minds. The terms of this debate need to be reframed in a way that takes us away from winning or losing wars, to determining the best strategies for securing and strengthening our country. My best sense is that those best strategies do not include years more in Iraq - wasting billions of dollars, eroding our military, alienating our friends and emboldening and strengthening our enemies.

 

Senator Harry Reid announces “The war is lost.” True enough, but an unfortunate choice of words in a country for whom not losing wars is at the core of national identity. In any case the administration has changed the criteria for success so many times that any notion of winning and losing has pretty much lost its meaning. Why not just reduce those criteria one more time, say we’ve won, and leave? I used to have a sign up in my office that said, “If you want to be sure to hit the target, shoot the arrow, and wherever it lands, draw a circle and call that the target.”

 

Even for the president, the Iraq debacle gets its principal rationale from being a part of what he calls the “War on Terror”, a name that would have us fighting ourselves, given all the terror we’ve caused Iraqis and others over the last six years. That’s assuming we give him the benefit of the doubt that he’s referring to our larger struggle against militant Islamic extremism, the same struggle, by the way, which is being waged, even more personally, by most Muslims around the world.

 

Even most supporters of the war understand that, alone, the Iraq War has no rationale and really never did. It is now clear that even when the CIA believed that Saddam had so-called “weapons of mass destruction”, as if 500-pound bunker-busters were not weapons of mass destruction, our analysts did not believe he posed any significant threat to our security. It now seems the “slam dunk” referred to by then-CIA Director George Tenet actually had to do with the availability of intelligence to make the case for this pre-decided course of action.

 

It is a reasonable argument that, regardless of past errors, our involvement in Iraq should now be evaluated in terms of its current benefits and costs regarding this larger struggle – war if you like – against militant Islam. It is now clear to everyone except the president, Barney and perhaps Vice President Cheney, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nor al Qaeda until we got involved. Let’s allow that it does now, even if as a result of our own folly. Then our most relevant and timely national dialogue should be about whether the incredible cost of blood and treasure, given current chaos, can now produce results that will validate continuing this cost.

 

It’s about deployment of our resources. “Redeployment” has become a synonym for the famous “cutting and running”. Let’s be clear. Troops were at some point redeployed to Iraq. The question is where they can be best deployed now, to create our strongest leverage for our longer-term struggle.

 

Thoughtful consideration of this question must include all relevant factors, political as well as military – all the actual and potential impacts of our actions that might affect our capacity for fighting this persistent and amorphous enemy. We might even consider how we can best deploy our diplomatic resources also. And politically, in order to get our government freed-up to do this task, the Democratic leadership needs to add this strategic thinking to its timely courage.

 

One last point – if our Congress is serious about winding down our involvement, it might best forget about setting dates, and appropriate funds which are clearly and only indicated for 1) keeping troops safe as their presence in many locations is reduced; 2) working with any Iraqis to keep track of and help control al Qaeda; and 3) securing Iraq’s borders as the wind-down occurs.

 

They might attach some of the funds to political milestones, internal to Iraq, or even involving Syria or Iran. When the president vetoes that one, it will be clearer who is putting the troops in harm’s way. And when he ignores its ultimate passage, impeachment might become a not-so-crazy idea.

 

Dennis Kucinich, your 15 minutes are on the way.