Win or Leave
Yesterday I promised to suggest a coherent position for Democrats on Iraq and those three words are it: “Win or leave.” Basically, make it clear that if Bush is ready to do what it takes to use Iraq as the cornerstone of a genuine, effective anti-terror strategy in the Middle East – really do what it takes – then Democrats will support him. But if not, then we need to bring the troops home now, because leaving them there under current conditions will only get more Americans killed and do nothing to forward American interests.
To make this message credible, Democrats need to communicate a few key points.
The current strategy has failed. Bush has wasted two and a half years in Iraq, seemingly guided more by the political imperative to minimize the domestic impact of the war than trying to win it. He and his commanders have made blunder after blunder. At this point, it is impossible to see how the current process will produce anything worth having in Iraq, either for those Iraqis who really want freedom or for Americans who want a stable regime to help secure the region.
If Bush isn’t willing to do what’s necessary to clean up his mess, then what’s the point? Allowing the conflict to fester at a low level while Iraqi politicians contrive some kind of backward, mullah-ridden theo-kleptocracy with institutionalized tribal conflict (euphemistically referred to as “federalism” – James Madison would be turning in his grave!) does not require the further participation of American troops, American money or the American people.
Define victory: Victory in Iraq is not an Islamist state. Period. If that’s what the people there want, then Iraq isn’t ready for democracy. I think most Americans will agree, especially if it turns out Bush’s vision for a “free Iraq” includes half the population stripped of its rights and law and society reduced to medieval conditions. Coming home after this outcome is dishonest and unacceptable, both from the perspective of our interests and our values.
No, victory in Iraq looks like Turkey in 1925: a fledgling Western-oriented secular state with a strong central government, rapidly expanding infrastructure, committed to education and social advancement, with its “democracy” closely supervised by a military committed to modern technocratic principles (and hostile to any form of religious extremism). Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish state, sometimes stood for election, but was essentially a benevolent dictator. He used his direct power over the military to turn it into the strongest institution in the country, capable not only of keeping order but of promoting the values of law and scientific management across a state that was, at the time, at least as poor, pathetic, violent, fanatical and humiliated as Iraq is today. In a remarkably short period of time, he turned the old Ottoman Empire (the “sick man of Europe”) into a fully functioning country with public safety, a decent economy, and basic freedoms, which has maintained steady progress to this day. Turkey isn’t perfect – it still has its ethnic and religious conflicts and its government (frequently an imperfect democracy by American standards) has tended toward the oppressive on occasion – but if we could put Iraq on this path, we could rightly call our mission there a success.
Explain the costs: Turning Iraq into Turkey can’t be done with 120,000 American troops and $500 billion. It can’t be done with mercenaries and profiteers running all over the place, often at odds with the military. It can’t be done by perpetuating the sham of “democratization,” in which the political future of the country is left to a council of scheming tribesmen and religious fanatics.
Turning Iraq into something that actually fulfills America’s (and the West’s) strategic, political and economic interests means sending as many troops as necessary to entirely pacify the country and crush the insurgency. This can’t be done cheap and easy with air power and laser-guided missiles. It might mean half a million or more boots on the ground, going village to village, making the massive show of American power and will that should have been done in 2003. Even this is no guarantee of victory at this late date, but if we’re serious, then we owe it the maximum effort.
It might mean a draft. It will certainly mean higher taxes and shared sacrifice. It will likely mean relinquishing some of the economic and political decision-making to allies willing to share the burdens. And it will definitely mean cleaning house of all the civilian and military decision-makers whose unbroken chain of errors and misjudgments has pushed us to the brink of defeat. But if Bush and the Republicans truly mean what they say about the importance of Iraq in the War on Terror, in creating a new and better Middle East, and in protecting the American people, then this is what it will take. Their claims to the contrary now rest on a solid foundation of failure, lies and mistakes.
Make it a clear choice. If Bush has the stomach to go for a meaningful victory and is willing to appoint (then trust) competent professionals to carry out the plan, Democrats should be willing to support it. But if he isn’t – and of course he isn’t – then it’s time to come home. The endless succession of half-measures aren’t making progress, they’re making things worse.
Iraq is an American crisis, caused by Republicans – and Republicans are still in charge. Finally, Democrats need to hammer home the point that, although they support American victory and in some cases voted for the war, no Democrat would have put America into this position in the first place, and most in the Party deplore the chain of incompetence that has made such a rotten choice necessary. Furthermore, with the 2002 and 2004 elections, Democrats have no say in policy-making, and their proposals have been ignored (often contemptuously) at every turn.
Still, what’s most important at the end of the day is American values, American security and American interests. Democrats should be prepared to do what it takes to achieve those things in Iraq as the first option, should the Republican leadership decide on that course. But if not, there’s no further need to pretend that Bush’s current policies do anything to promote a positive outcome. Staying the course we’re on will lead to defeat and humiliation, likely exposing us to even greater dangers.
In 2003, Bush was successful making the argument that “the costs of doing nothing” about Saddam were higher than the potential costs of war. Today, the same argument applies. The costs of drifting along in Iraq while the country makes uncertain progress toward an undesirable objective are higher than the costs of victory, and higher than the costs of rapid withdrawal.
Win or leave, Mr. President. It’s up to you.
10:17:33 AM 
|
|
