Political Truce
Joe Lieberman is calling for a political ceasefire on all the maneuvers and posturing in Washington. It is sure to fall on deaf ears among the ardent supporters of defeat in Iraq, but he makes the effort anyway.
Among the specific ideas under consideration are to tangle up the deployment of requested reinforcements by imposing certain "readiness" standards, and to redraft the congressional authorization for the war, apparently in such a way that Congress will assume the role of commander in chief and dictate when, where and against whom U.S. troops can fight.
I understand the frustration, anger and exhaustion so many Americans feel about Iraq, the desire to throw up our hands and simply say, "Enough." And I am painfully aware of the enormous toll of this war in human life, and of the infuriating mistakes that have been made in the war's conduct.
But we must not make another terrible mistake now. Many of the worst errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake–assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq.
In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have devastating consequences. It would put thousands of American troops already deployed in the heart of Baghdad in even greater danger–forced to choose between trying to hold their position without the required reinforcements or, more likely, abandoning them outright. A precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake, which terrorists, insurgents, militias and Iran would rush to fill–probably resulting in a spiral of ethnic cleansing and slaughter on a scale as yet unseen in Iraq.
I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed.
Gen. Petraeus says he will be able to see whether progress is occurring by the end of the summer, so let us declare a truce in the Washington political war over Iraq until then. Let us come together around a constructive legislative agenda for our security: authorizing an increase in the size of the Army and Marines, funding the equipment and protection our troops need, monitoring progress on the ground in Iraq with oversight hearings, investigating contract procedures, and guaranteeing Iraq war veterans the first-class treatment and care they deserve when they come home.
The facts are that there will be a genocidal bloodbath in Iraq if we pull out precipitously and the entire nation will become a safe haven for terrorists. Democrats are risking serious damage to their reputations of this. They have long been thought of as weak on national security. This whole effort could make them seen as pro-American defeat as well. They will also be setting a really bad precedent that will come back to haunt a Democrat holding the office of the president in the future. They really need to keep that in mind.
By Former Republican, Monday, 26 February , 2007 @ 10:28 am
“The facts are that there will be a genocidal bloodbath in Iraq if we pull out precipitously and the entire nation will become a safe haven for terrorists”
Those aren’t facts: they are predictions. The American record on making predictions about Iraq ought to induce some humility. Also, the present US leadership has demonstrated its incompentence regarding Iraq (and Afghanistan too). Why should they be competent to prevent a bloodbath?
Were I inclined to make predictions, I would predict that the longer we stay in Iraq, the stronger Al Qaeda will be among Sunni Iraqis. But I’m smart enough not to make predictions. All I am doing is flagging a possibility.
By jay k., Monday, 26 February , 2007 @ 12:54 pm
the former republican, above, is spot on…if the pro-war right is making a prediction be sure to double down on the opposite. take for instance liberman’s op-ed in todays wsj…180 degrees from what he said last year…how so many could be so wrong for so long and still continue to pontificate as if they had a clue is beyond me.
By Jim Harrison, Monday, 26 February , 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Calling the Democrats pro-defeat isn’t analysis; it’s propaganda. Let’s pretend to be serious for a change.
Many of the most strident critics of the war are concerned about the consequences of a rapid American withdrawal. Juan Cole and others agree with Powell that we’ve broken the pot and now it’s ours. I don’t know if I agree with this notion. I acknowledge that the invasion made us responsible for the horrors we unleashed on the Iraqis, but I’m not sure if a continued American presence is really the way to make amends. But how about this as an interim step? Let us make a public and binding promise to remove all our troops from Iraq once certain benchmarks are achieved. As it is, the Iraqis have every reason to believe that we are planning on staying forever in order to remain the de facto masters of their country. An undertaking to leave wouldn’t solve everything, of course; but it would remove one of the main justifications for the resistance. What do you think?
By jeff, Monday, 26 February , 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Mr. Harrison,
You won’t get anywhere here trying to make sense. Yes our presence is making it worse and yes it is our responsibility it got as bad as it did. But the folks in charge are not interested in “interim steps”. It is victory or nothing for these folks with “nothing” doomed to be an indefinite status quo (because victory by their WWII definitions, has been impossible for several years now)
By jay k., Monday, 26 February , 2007 @ 4:30 pm
jim,
while i think your suggestion is perfectly reasonable…the iraqis are already in default of the one benchmark that the whitehouse has publically discussed. they were supposed to have three battalions in baghdad two weeks ago. as of today, maybe half of those that the iraqi government commited to are there. so when do we say enuf already?
By cfaller96, Monday, 26 February , 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Regarding Joe Lieberman (and others), I think he suffers from what I call the “credibility entitlement” complex. Basically, he believes he should get the benefit of the doubt, because…well, because he believes he’s entitled to it.
It never occurs to him (and others) that
-when he/they say in a WSJ editorial a year ago that things are going great, and the strategy is working;
-but today he/they say that there haven’t been enough soldiers to properly implement a strategy;
that he/they are exposing themselves as complete liars. He simply expects to be believed, because, well, because we’ve never called him/them on it before.
Enough. We need to stop paying any bit of attention to those who have been so wrong about so many important things, only to see them turn around and pretend they did nothing wrong. They’re liars, and they’re a complete waste of our time.
By Kathy, Monday, 26 February , 2007 @ 6:43 pm
“The facts are that there will be a genocidal bloodbath in Iraq if we pull out precipitously and the entire nation will become a safe haven for terrorists.”
1. As opposed to what? You’re describing Iraq right now, and for the last two years.
2. Pull out precipitously? We’ve been there for four years! Obviously the mission failed, because Iraq was supposed to be a thriving democracy by now, not a safe haven for terrorists. The very fact that it IS a safe haven for terrorists demonstrates that the avowed purpose of the war is a failure.
By Adam, Monday, 26 February , 2007 @ 7:01 pm
Will someone please explain to me how DEMOCRATS will suffer damage to their reputation, but Republicans will get off scot free?
By Quilly Mammoth, Monday, 26 February , 2007 @ 7:16 pm
Wow, Gaius, you’ve sure attracted the Moonbat Patrol today. One thing about Moonbats…they have a remarkably short memory. In February of 2006 things in Iraq were looking better. A democratically elected Government had been elected, albeit with many Sunnis opting out, and violence was going down in the vast majority of the nation. Then Al Qaueda upped tha ante by attacking Shia’. Since then the nation of Iraq has been wracked with sectarian strife.
Lieberman is right. And so is Petraeus. As the General argued we never fought the War for Peace using the mistakes of Vietnam as guidance. Part of the problem with Vietnam is that once the enemy was defeated in area we would move on and let them “swim like fish” back into it. That has been a constant complaint of various Iraqi bloggers. This has been exacerbated by the increased focus by Iran on the area.
Petraeus has selected a team of warrior intellectuals to fight this phase. Including the hero of 73 Easting , COL H.R. McMaster. Also included is COL Pete Mansoor. All of whom have impeccable credentials in LIC warfare.
This is a change in course. Those that oppose it put lie to the claim that all they wanted was a change for “Stay the Course”.
As for Democratic’s wanting the enemy to win…what do you call Murtha’s call to hamstring the American forces so as to insure that?
By Blackhawk, Monday, 26 February , 2007 @ 7:27 pm
Hey Gaius! Looks like you’ve got some new friends!
By Gaius, Monday, 26 February , 2007 @ 8:43 pm
Does this mean I hit the Jerkpot?
By jeff, Monday, 26 February , 2007 @ 9:33 pm
Mammoth,
I know Tony and the folks at fox news say the sectarian strife started with the mosque bombing in 2/06 but if you were actually reading newspapers you would have seen that the death squads were operating in earnest by mid 2004 and any graph you want to do (Iraqi deaths, US deaths, number bombings, time the lights are on) shows stagnation or steady worsening over the last 4 years. You guys have this convenient fantasy that everything was rosy and purple thumbs until the Mosque blew up. It wasn’t and it ain’t.
As for this wonderful election as a sign of “success”,remember that the people elected a significant number of Mahdi Army members. In earlier days voters also elected Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin for that matter; it is the quality of elections that matters, not just that you have them.
By Jim Harrison, Monday, 26 February , 2007 @ 10:34 pm
Me and Don Quixote trying to find a sliver of common ground between the Moonbats and the Wingnuts.
Whoever your are, do you or do you not insist on leaving American troops in Iraq forever?
By Quilly Mammoth, Tuesday, 27 February , 2007 @ 6:51 am
Hey Jeff, just call me Quilly.
There was simmering sectarian violence. However every chart you look at shows an amazing increase in the operations of the death squads beginning in March, 2006.
I’ve never said everything was rosy, but the purple thumbs are important. Because democracy is the only course between two unacceptable options: Dhimmitude or Option Zero.
By Mark Hansen, Tuesday, 27 February , 2007 @ 10:41 am
…?
According to W & Cheney we’ve already won so much (”we’re winning…”), so we can declare victory (if you like) and leave. The British have already declared victory, and are withdrawing (many countries have already done this). So, what are we waiting for?
Will Iraq fall into futher abyss? Since we are causing some of the violence now (anyone disagree with this?), I don’t see how it can get much worse; at least for any lenght of time.
Mark
By cfaller96, Tuesday, 27 February , 2007 @ 10:51 am
According to Quilly Mammoth (and President Bush and others):
elections = democracy
I disagree. Democracy requires many more institutions than elections, otherwise the Soviet Union yesterday, and Venezuela and Iran today, constitute democracies as well.
By Robert, Tuesday, 27 February , 2007 @ 11:09 am
Nice war you got in Iraq.
How much of the $15 Billion it was going to take to win do we still have remaining?