Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Pragmatism From A Politician

It's been all over the news lately that Bush has lost not only the general public at large on the issue of Iraq, but is now losing senior congressional figures in his own party as well. As I'm sure you've heard, Senator Richard Lugar delivered a stark assessment of the Iraq situation on the floor of the Senate yesterday. Its a lengthy piece, but its chock full of the type of common sense insights you will never hear in the soundbite driven debates to be found on the cable TV talking head shows that pass for reasoned discourse these days. Some highlights from his speech:

"I see no convincing evidence that Iraqis will make the compromises necessary to solidify a functioning government and society, even if we reduce violence to a point that allows for some political and economic normalcy."

"I suspect that for some Americans, benchmarks are a means of justifying a withdrawal by demonstrating that Iraq is irredeemable. For others, benchmarks represent an attempt to validate our military presence by showing progress against a low fixed standard. But in neither case are benchmark tests addressing our broader national security interests."

"The risk for decision-makers is that after a long struggle in Iraq, accompanied by a contentious political process at home, we begin to see Iraq as a set piece -- as an end in itself, distinct from the broader interests that we meant to protect."

"American strategy must adjust to the reality that sectarian factionalism will not abate anytime soon and probably cannot be controlled from the top."

"The window during which we can continue to employ American troops in Iraqi neighborhoods without damaging our military strength or our ability to respond to other national security priorities is closing."

"We do not know whether the next President will be a Democrat or a Republican. But it is certain that domestic pressure for withdrawal will continue to be intense. A course change should happen now, while there is still some possibility of constructing a sustainable bipartisan strategy in Iraq..... In short, our political timeline will not support a rational course adjustment in Iraq, unless such an adjustment is initiated very soon."

"To determine our future course, we should separate our emotions and frustrations about Iraq from a sober assessment of our fundamental national security goals."

"...credibility and sustainability of our actions depend on addressing the two elephants in the room of U.S. Middle East policy -- the Arab-Israeli conflict and U.S. dependence on Persian Gulf oil. These are the two problems that our adversaries, especially Iran, least want us to address. They are the conditions that most constrain our freedom of action and perpetuate vulnerabilities. The implementation of an effective program to remedy these conditions could be as valuable to our long-term security as the achievement of a stable, pro-Western government in Iraq."

"We cannot allow fatigue and frustration with our Iraq policy to lead to the abandonment of the tools and relationships we need to defend our vital interests in the Middle East."

"If we are to seize opportunities to preserve these interests, the Administration and Congress must suspend what has become almost knee-jerk political combat over Iraq. Those who offer constructive criticism of the surge strategy are not defeatists, any more than those who warn against a precipitous withdrawal are militarists."

-Ico

5 Comments:

At 8:03 AM , Blogger Centerline said...

Lugar has traditionally been on the right side of every foreign policy issue since he first made it to the Senate. Unfortunately, he lacks the charisma to make it to a higher office - and he failed in his attempt.

I also agree with his conclusions this time. I had the opportunity to watch the speech on C-span in its entirety, and the fact is that in a democracy, public perception is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The loss of Iraq will, in my mind, have profound consequences for generations to come in our struggle to beat back the Islamic barbarians. But, if a majority of our people does not see it the same way and feel, as they do, that it is better to cut our losses and watch from outside, then we need to do it sooner, rather than later, and let the chips fall where they may.

 
At 1:08 PM , Blogger Carl Spackler said...

I agree that the loss of Iraq is going to set us back immensely in our objectives in the Middle East. However, this war was lost when we went in without having a plan to win the peace. All we are doing right now is wasting American lives.

Just like our withdrawal from Vietnam was a loss of prestige for the U.S., so will our withdrawal from Iraq result in a loss of prestige. However, in my opinion, that does not change the fact that we should withdraw. Hopefully, we will learn lessons from this conflict that we can use in future conflicts, just as we learned from our loss in Vietnam.

 
At 7:58 PM , Blogger Ty Webb said...

I guess Iraq is now 'too hard' for us Americans to stick it out...so we rationalize a non-defeat. Essentially we will take our ball and go home. Can't believe the neo-cons on here are agreeing with Lugar's surrender....

My question - what will Lugar suggest we do when a humanitarian crisis erupts from our retreat? if we add troops then as part of a UN mission will it be better somehow?

Or what about when Bin Laden takes up residence in Iraq and orchestrates the 9/11/2011 attacks? will be go back then? Can America truly not summon the will to subdue Iraq? Even in a post 9/11 world? with internet broadcasts of beheadings? With a nuclear Iran next door?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2U2M2FiOGU5YzVjZjg0ZmNlMWY4MTQ2OWZmMGI0ODY=

here is the most relevant paragraph

What we need in Iraq is not a shining liberal democracy, but a rough-and-ready political compact among the factions that keeps the country from being overrun by terrorists and militias and its citizens from being savagely murdered daily. If we continue to improve the security situation and beat back al Qaeda, that is attainable. But only if we have more patience than the politically nervous Republicans who are looking for the door.

 
At 2:08 PM , Blogger Carl Spackler said...

First, I am not rationalizing a "non-defeat". I go farther than that. We have lost in Iraq, there is no "non-defeat" about it.

I think the most significant question, at this point, is not whether or not a "political compact among the factions" is necessary, that is a GIVEN. That is the only thing that can pull Iraq back from the cusp of anarchy at this point.

The real question is whether or not the U.S. presence in Iraq helps or hinders this coalition. As with everything, the answer to this question is not simple. On the one hand, there is no doubt that when the U.S. leaves there will be a power vacuum that will result in further humanitarian stress, and violence. How prolonged and serious this situation will be is difficult to predict.

On the other hand, it is likely that many of the players that are now content to sit on the sideline and wage a proxy war at the our expense, will be much more likely to engage when the prestige of poking the elephant is off of the table. According to the article, Al Quaeda is behind the escalating violence. In this area, they have sympathizers who want to bring down the U.S. backed government. However, if the U.S. withdrew, those sympathizers would likely be more incented to shut down Al Quaeda and work towards some sort of workable truce.

This is not about a reluctance to place U.S. troops in harms way. This is about only doing that when the odds of our success warrant us doing so. In my opinion, the odds of success of our involvement in Iraq are no longer good enough to justify our continued involvement at the same levels we have now.

 
At 10:28 PM , Blogger Ty Webb said...

Dunno if there is an easy answer but - let's leave victory/defeat out of it.

Is there any foreseable result that would let the US withdrawal the majority of our forces within 10 years - short of a stable Iraq government?

Doubtful - as soon as the power vacuum starts to get bloody the same lefty pundits who want us out now will be braying into the camera about the humanitarian crisis and our obligation to intervene.

Or - heaven forbid - Iraq becomes the next Afghanistan and a launching ground for attacks at Israel and our regional interests...again we will be right back over there.

Simply put getting things right now will save capital and lives in the long to medium run. I guess that is - IMHO - the ugly but pragmatic truth about this poorly concieved war.

Let's hurry up and get this settled so we can start on Iran!

BTW - The second to last sentence seems wildly speculative - as factional rulers/warlords are notoriously poor negotiators and operate with a very short-sighted timeline with the main goal of enriching themselves and killing the opposition in large numbers. (see Somolia, Afghanistan under Hekmatyar or Ismail Khan). I find it highly unlikey that the Iraqi's would do better without us.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home