[note: This is a long post, reflecting thoughts on the debate. I've put the key stuff at the top, though, to improve readability.]
WINNING THE PEACE, THE "POLITICAL STABILITY" OF IRAQ
Assume that the military - any military - could 'surge' enough to bring violence very near to zero, would Iraq be 'stabilized'?
1. No, because there is not a political power-sharing that is completed. Among the key potential sources of "instability-by-omission" are brokers oil sharing arrangements (either short-term or long-term or a combo with a 'transition period'), civic participation at many levels, sectarian 'exceptionalism'. These are just as important as the festering sources of "instability-by-commission", which we might lay at the feet of any number of groups who fight for dominance, rather than the best compromise possible.
2. Possibly no, because there are few indications of progress toward a cohesive, competent government that can "defend itself" in any way other than along sectarian lines. Other key items, like an independent and functioning judiciary seem illusory, so far.
3. No, because of core problems in local governance. There are local governments, neighborhoods and provinces, that do not have representative administration, because of all kinds of past problems, some due to Iraqis themselves (rejectionism, corruption, etc.) and some due to the Americans.
These things are arguably not issues for the US military, for General Petreaus, to solve, even if both understand they exist.
The incompetence of the Bush Administration to be able to manage the politics of transition to a functioning government post elections is clear. It looks like it is, once again, the s-a-m-e p-r-o-b-l-e-m that caused the dereliction that stunted OIF under Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld from the start: "hope for the best, and don't plan for the rest". On that calculus, calling al-Maliki 'the right man' is like putting your entire bet on "curveball".
The incompetence of the Bush Administration to be able to manage the politics of transition to a functioning government post elections is clear. It looks like it is, once again, the s-a-m-e p-r-o-b-l-e-m that caused the dereliction that stunted OIF under Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld from the start: "hope for the best, and don't plan for the rest". On that calculus, calling al-Maliki 'the right man' is like putting your entire bet on "curveball". It's politically unprofessional to do so, it's amateurish, and it suggests a crude diplomatic incompetence that is *ongoing* with Bush-Cheney. It's enormously expensive, in lives, treasure and in dimming the prospects for the future (not everything can be undone). It's unforgivably wanton.One could say that the lack of progress on political measures is compounded, if not directly caused, by the President's refusal to adopt the political strategy of Hamilton-Baker, and start to re-shape the political landscape, with a view toward signaling a *conditional* support (a.k.a. upcoming withdrawal of military commitment), not as a goal in itself, but as *one* tool in the box to incent others to get involved in pushing the politics in the right direction.
THE IRAQI GOV'T HAS FAILED US, MUST WE THEREFORE SIGNAL A DEPARTURE?
True, it seems that the Iraqi government has flagged in achieving all of its self-professed goals. It's clear that the Administration, having chosen Petreaus' military plan and rejected Baker-Hamilton's political plan, do NOT have a 'plan B' on the political side, other than hoping that al-Maliki can do what is needed and trying to plus-up transition teams and work locally.
Basically, we read that ar-Ramadi, for instance, like Fallujah before it, has turned the corner, becoming 'safe' (not because of the plus-up, however). No one yet has fully articulated how to consolidate those gains at the national level, under the current strategy. .. these gains appear to exist in a valorous yet artificially supported bubble.
Basically, we read that ar-Ramadi, for instance, like al-Fallujah before it, has turned the corner, becoming 'safe' (not because of the plus-up, however). No one yet has fully articulated how to consolidate those gains at the national level, under the current strategy. One would think that these successes would start to form a virtuous circle, self-reinforcing order and stability. However, there is certainly no evidence, that I've seen at least, of an accelerating growth in security forces, either locally or nationally, on the heels of declines in violence. So far as I understand it, neither Fallujah nor Ramadi are capable of policing themselves - they continue to rely on "free" U.S. involvement. Without the central government cohesiveness to step in an consolidate the gains, these gains appear to exist in a valorous yet artificially supported bubble. And without the central government, the local incentives appear (to me, from my distance) to be to 'wait' and rely on the Americans, before making sacrifices - or to take "free" American small arms (which are showing up in Turkey, most recently, incidentally).ARE THERE OTHER APPROACHES TO THE POLITICAL PROBLEM, BESIDES WITHDRAWAL?
Is the President prepared to dismiss the al-Maliki government? Can we *force* a timeline for provincial elections? Isn't the lead-time required to pull off elections nearly six months or more? How long does Petreaus estimate will be required before local councils, in Baghdad even, can get properly rebuilt, with Sunni participation? If these timelines run out 12-to18 months, at least, shouldn't we realistically be gearing up for a much longer engagement, if you believe in the cost of pursuing them?
If the GOP is willing to make the financial sacrifices necessary, perhaps one could start to see a way to giving some time to put some pressure on the State Department to 'show us the money' on political progress, eh?
THE DUPLICITY OF OUR LEADERS AT QUESTION
Are Bush-Cheney just playing games with this? We can easily guess that they want, (a), 'stay the course' and, (b), 'fund our troops' until the end of their term. What better way to string things along than to drag heals on forcing political progress, only to discover a 'New Political Strategy for Stability in Iraq', just when you are down to the last six months or so and need to squeeze only one more 'emergency supplemental' out of the Congress, eh?
THERE ARE NO GOOD ANSWERS
There are costs to staying and costs to leaving. BOTH sides of the debate appear to have insufficient attention to the costs of their strategy. More work needed for both, rather than just talking past each other.
Just because the costs of staying are known does not mean that they are less (cf. McCain). What's more, costs are increasing, since the military is extended, if not over-extended and will require extraordinary measures to continue on 'as is'. Costs are increasing on other measures too, including the increased risk to soldiers and lives lost, at least in the short to mid term.
WE WILL LET DOWN OUR TROOPS AND GENERAL PETREAUS WHO HAD OUR IMPLICIT BACKING 'UNTIL SEPTEMBER'
We don't fight wars for our troops. Never. We don't fight wars to protect the legacy of our military. Morale is a key consideration, but not an objective of war, per se.
WAIT FOR THE REPORT
No.
1. We have on-going assessment from the battlefield and lives at stake.
2. The principle, not-in-our-own-hands issue is political progress in Iraq, so the issue is political time, not calendar time. With the Irqi Congress "away" in August (do they actually leave the green zone?), we're talking six more weeks of political time.
3. Passage of the bill now will not make it become law. It won't even get to the President's desk for veto for weeks, most likely.
4. Prompt, immediate feedback to the political decision makers is required, so that they don't 'play games' with us.
"WE FUNDED THE SURGE DAYS AGO"
Mr. Lieberman, if you want to keep fighting Islamists this month, as is, please use your influence on the other side of the isle to, say, end the phase-out of the inheritance taxes and, in fact, issue an "emergency war funding" increase in them.
Begging pardon, the GOP have NOT "funded" the war. I really, really don't call debt-spending (tax the next generation) any kind of responsible way to carry on, year after year. Mr. Lieberman, if you want to keep fighting Islamists this month, as is, please use your influence on the other side of the isle to, say, end the phase-out of the inheritance taxes and, in fact, issue an "emergency war funding" increase in them. Anything less, any substitute like a 'gas tax', is not convincing. Let the GOP make the sacrifices by upping wealth taxes, if they want to keep going. The price tag is $12-billion a month, before interest on accumulated GWOT debt.THE INCOMPETENCE OF BUSH - HE SHOULD STEP ASIDE, NOW, AND LET BAKER ASSUME THE PRESIDENCY, IF HE REALLY WANTED 'THE TROOPS TO SUCCEED'
We continue to fund the war, although it is clear that this Administration's leaderhsip is the cause of so many of our problems.
Moreover, the political cooperation that we need may not be forthcoming precisely because Bush-Cheney are to be denied a victory by Iraqis possibly resentful of their ongoing involvement (I don't *know* that's true, but it is a real-world consideration).
THE 'TRIO' - THE PRESIDENT, THE DEFENSE SECRETARY, AND GENERAL PETREAUS
It's telling of the continued focus on the military within the Administration, even after the Administration has fessed up that there is not a military solution (and its corollary, that they haven't acknowledged, that we *may* fail to reach even reasonable objectives, i.e. "lose", or be fought to a stalemate).
Does anyone remember that we have a huge diplomatic mission to Iraq, under newly appointed Ambassador Crocker, who should be managing the politics of progress? Why does no one ask for, say, a critical report of Ambassador Crocker? It's telling of the continued focus on the military within the Administration, even after the Administration has fessed up that there is not a military solution (and its corollary, that they haven't acknowledged, that we *may* fail to reach even reasonable objectives, i.e. "lose", or be fought to a stalemate).MCCAIN: PROGRESS EVERY DAY
Seriously? The key progress measure is that the ISF stand up for themselves. This is not happening. Barring changes, the consequence is stalemate ad infinitum, with the Iraqi Government consuming the "free" (to them) public goods of the security that our troops provide.
WE MUST CONTINUE TO HELP TRAIN THE IRAQIS
Seriously? After four years, Iraqis themselves have not built up the facilities and capability to train their own? More sign of 'no progress' worth fighting for or an indication that the Commander in Cheif ought to step aside, in favor of new civilian, wartime leadership.
WE WILL FAIL FOR CERTAIN IF WE WITHDRAW
How is perpetually "not winning" (i.e. stalemate) different than failing, except that it costs $12 billion a month to be able to keep saying we haven't failed, yet?
This attitude is also indicative of a misconceptualization that occurred at the outset of the war under Rumsfeld. We were in a race against time from the moment troops crossed the border. The mere passage of time doesn't mean that we are 'not failing'. When time is not with you, you are *losing* every day, right?
This attitude is also indicative of a misconceptualization that occurred at the outset of the war under Rumsfeld. We were in a race against time from the moment troops crossed the border. The mere passage of time doesn't mean that we are 'not failing'. When time is not with you, you are *losing* every day, right? [This is also an element of counter-insurgency doctrine.]DON'T CONDEMN THE IRAQIS TO GENOCIDE
I'm really very, very sympathetic to this. However...
NATO was involved in prior 'stop the genocide' activities. It should be, as well as the U.N., in any forward looking decision.
We might choose to view the problems less as genocide and more as civil war. True, the divisions fall along sectarian lines, but the battle is also over shared resource, namely oil - it's not *all* just religious animus, even if those are the chief provocateurs.
