So what is the solution in Iraq? Put aside the lies that took us there - we're there. What do we do now?
There are the mil-bloggers that almost unanimously see success. Slow and difficult success, but success nonetheless. And while I am certain they do see some improvements where they are, the point remains that in terms of basics - security, water, electricity, sanitation, and oil shipments - it's not improving.
There is the right wing that still supports the war, saying that American power and prestige are on the line and requires that we see this through. While our power & prestige would take a hit if we left, we survived leaving Vietnam and if we are destined for failure, better to start recovering from that now.
And there is the right wing that sees this as a failed mission and sees no compelling national interest in our staying there. This country does have the resources that we could remain in Iraq indefinitely if we chose to, so this is really an argument that it is not worth the effort. Yet bringing democracy to the Middle East is clearly in the long term interests of the world. There is too much oil and too much money, and too many people there to just leave it as is.
On the left wing we have had consensus for some time - leave now. On the far left I believe most people take the view that 1) War is never the answer, 2) Bush is in favor of it so it must be wrong, and 3) The U.S. is the problem, not the solution. But clearly leaving now would lead to all-out civil war and partition of at least the Kurdish north - which would then bring in Turkey, Iran, and Syria. There are outcomes worse than what we presently have in Iraq.
On the near left (hey - that's me!), we have a desire to see some sort of Democracy take root (I'd settle for Japan/Mexico 1960 style) with a concern that we are failing and need to add troops for success. Yet this is akin to Vietnam where the troop levels kept growing and growing - and yet success stayed as elusive as ever.
So, what does this mean?
First off, anyone who says they know what we need to do in Iraq is wrong. No one knows what will work. I don't know, you don't know, and the Bush administration and Pentagon clearly don't know.
Second, a large part of what will work will depend on events we have no way of predicting. So even with perfect knowledge of how Iraqi's would react to any given action of ours today, that could all change tomorrow.
Third, sometimes a country just has to have a Civil War. If any one group things they will gain more from Civil War than any other approach, then you will have the war. It's only when all groups get tired of the fighting and decide that politics is a better solution that the war ends. Lebanon seems to have figured this out in 20 years. Ireland it was over 100 years. It may be that an ongoing low-level civil war is something Iraq's people must go through - to learn the hard way that it doesn't work.
So what should we do...
I don't know. But I do know what we are presently doing is not working. And our politicians are failing us because the only discussions are should we leave or should we stay the course. I hear no discussion about alternative approaches. Why not?
Step 1: The present approach is a mess. Fire everyone at the top who architect-ed this. Rumsfield and the other top civilians at the Pentagon. Pace and the other top Generals who are responsible for strategy. Bring in people who will look for alternative approaches. Promote the officers in the field who have been effective. (Eisenhower's permanent rank was still Colonel when he was first in command of all allied forces in Europe.) Find us our Generals Marshall, Eisenhower, Bradley, and Patton.
Step 2: Talk to the American people about what is going on and what is being tried. Continuing to just sell the plan, even if the administration comes up with a successful one, will not get the support of the American people. Time is running out and the only hope is either to leave or to get buy in for the public.
Step 3: Start looking at some different approaches.
- Why no discussion of making Iraq a loose federation with U.S. troops pulling back to patrol the borders between the three parts and leaving each group to work things out themselves. We did that for the Kurds and they built a functioning democracy.
- Why no discussion of cutting off insurgent cities and leaving them to starve or surrender. Yes innocents would die - but they are dying now with no end in sight.
- Why no discussion of how many troops it would take to successfully lock down the country, and what that would require.
- Why no discussion of securing the oil wells and pipelines and leaving the rest of the country to the Iraqis. This would leave them to settle their differences, would insure that oil still flows to the world, and would keep the oil money out of Iraqi hands so it didn't got to weapons for the civil war.
I'm not sure any of the above are good ideas. But they could be. And there must be hundreds of others that might be the road to success. But we're not going to know as long as the administration hunkers down to stay the course and congress is arguing over stay/go.
I don't know what the right solution is. But I do know if things continue with the present stay the course vs leave argument, we will be leaving within the next 4 years.
Agree? Disagree? Please comment - I would like to get other viewpoints on this.
Trackbacks: DailyKos, ColoradoPols, Mudville Gazette, The Command T.O.C.
