November 29, 2006

The Full Costs of the Iraq Fiasco

 

In addition to more obvious damage, the administration’s Iraq debacle has had a significant impact on many aspects of our country’s security. As the dust clears, the full cost will become more evident and painful. Redirection efforts must take into account these larger systemic impacts to begin to get our great country back on a more secure track.

 

The war effort itself is unraveling geometrically. While Washington insiders debate the fine points, the country is falling apart, with our soldiers in the middle and no feasible end in sight. There are rumors that even Barney, the White House dog, has been growling at any mention of Iraq on television. If Barney is on the case, can the President be far behind?

 

Bringing our brave troops home, whether sooner or later, will not end our Iraq nightmare, but only begin a new chapter. The administration made one accurate prediction: that our exit will leave behind a catastrophe, for the Iraqis and ourselves, as a consequence of this obsessive and poorly planned crusade.

 

Al Qaeda recruitment is believed to be up considerably, as our own military recruitment flounders. These situations are likely to continue for some time. We have severely weakened our ties with Muslim governments, some that depend on our support, in countries where the only alternative is extreme Islamic groups. We need to mend these fences, and at an acceptable cost.

 

Our depleted political capital limits possibilities to play positive roles in other situations – Darfur being an obvious example. The Arab government of Sudan is committing atrocities on Black Africans (Muslims themselves) of Saddamesque proportions, but we can’t afford to do anything that might look like further “persecution” of Arabs. Likewise we have lost the legitimacy to press for reforms in several hated Arab dictatorships in the region.

 

The U.S. forced Pakistan to break a centuries-old understanding with the people of its tribal areas and send in Pakistani troops. This action may have weakened the Pakistani government even more than its more general support of U.S. policy in the region. Pakistan and other countries are forced by the “with us or against us” approach of the U.S. government to take explicit positions on subtle issues, positions which weaken them internally.

 

We have lost the moral high ground for the advocacy of principles in the conduct of war, as a result of our own atrocities and the administration’s fuzziness regarding prohibitions on torture. We claim exceptions for people attacking us, the very situations that tempt those prohibited behaviors for any country. Our putting ourselves in a special category of the “righteous”, above normal ethical restrictions, will create a lack of trust for years, unless it is somehow addressed.

 

Our go-it-alone “cowboy” approach has alienated us from traditional allies of many years. “Old Europe” as they may be, these alliances, developed through the sacrifices of our troops in WWII, the Marshall Plan and 50 years of nurturing, have been severely weakened in the name of the administration’s Iraq obsession. They will take some very wise attention to restore.

 

Internally, it is clear that we have weakened our military substantially, and made it difficult for ourselves to be a credible deterrent in other situations that threaten us more than Saddam’s Iraq: Iran and North Korea most especially. Our military leadership questioning our current capacity to add Marines in Iraq sends an unfortunate message to other potential adversaries.

 

There will be effects on the trust of our current and potential military in the government they are serving – regarding the cause for which they risk their lives, the strategy for doing it and agreements that government makes with them about their service. It took us 40 years to recover from the effects of Vietnam on our national psyche. Who knows the ultimate cost of the “Iraq complex”?

 

The total impact is leaving our country and the world weaker and less stable. King Abdullah recently pointed out three civil wars now brewing in the Middle East, the region the Iraq adventure was supposed to stabilize: in Iraq, the Palestinian Territories and Afghanistan. New leadership must address all these issues, beginning now, and especially when a new president assumes office in two years. This will take a genuinely strategic approach: for re-establishing relationships, confronting our adversaries with the active support of many more countries, re-strengthening our military and security at home and re-establishing norms of respectful dialogue – a strategic approach that has been missing for the last six years.

 

To offer feedback on this column, click here.