Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

The Iraq debate in Washington is all about "cutting and running" versus "stay the course". The war in Iraq now is being spun by domestic American politics. However, notwithstanding the food fight in Washington, there is still a real war raging in Iraq. The politics in Washington is still overshadowed by events in Baghdad. Such is the predicament of the Bush Administration. It has led the United States into a conflict that it cannot control.

Last week President Bush, fresh from his victory lap in Baghdad, announced his determination to "stay the course" in Iraq:

"One message I will continue to send to the enemy is, ‘Don’t count on us leaving before the mission is complete,’ " Bush said at a White House news conference.

"Don’t bet on American politics forcing my hand, because it’s not going to happen," he said. "I’m going to make decisions not based upon politics but based upon what’s best for the United States of America."

"What you hear from me no matter what these polls and all the business look like, is that it’s worth it, it is necessary and we will succeed," Bush said.

After surprising Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki in Baghdad, Mr. Bush was undoubtedly feeling his oats. He was back to the tough talking Commander-in-Chief that his handlers believe wins votes.

The Republicans in the House last week outmaneuvered the Democrats by passing a resolution connecting Iraq to the War on Terror and supporting Mr. Bush’s policy in Iraq:

The House voted 256 to 153 yesterday to back President Bush’s policies in Iraq after two days of passionate and partisan debate that saw Republicans try to recast an unpopular conflict as part of a broader war on terrorism and totalitarianism.

Forty-two Democrats bucked their leadership to join a virtually united Republican Party and to declare that the United States must complete "the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq" without setting "an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of U.S. troops

The Republicans in the House succeeded in devolving a much-needed debate on the war in Iraq to campaign slogans for the upcoming Congressional elections in November.

Earlier the Republicans in the Senate flexed their political muscle by rejecting any notion of an Iraq withdrawal:

Across Capitol Hill, Republicans and Democrats alike provided a preview of potential strategies for discussing the three-year-old conflict in the run-up to November’s midterm elections.

As the U.S. death toll in Iraq reached 2,500, the Senate soundly rejected a call to withdraw combat troops by year’s end, and House Republicans laid the groundwork for their own vote.

In a move Democrats criticized as gamesmanship, Senate Republicans brought up the withdrawal measure and quickly dispatched it — for now — on a 93-6 vote.

By week’s end, the Democrats were cowering.

Over the weekend, Senate Democrats regrouped and today presented an Iraq pullout plan to try to regain the political upper hand. The Democratic plan calls for the United States to begin pulling out troops by the end of the year but does not set a deadline for complete withdrawal. With this plan, the Democrats hope to show the voters in November that they are serious thinkers and not wimps who just want to "cut and run".

But, the political debate in Washington ignores the reality in Iraq. The reality in Iraq is that the Bush Administration has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams in installing an Islamist regime in Iraq. The Islamists in Iraq have played the Bush Administration masterfully. They have used the American occupation as cover to do a little bit of house cleaning (ethnic cleansing) and have consolidated power within the military and the police forces. Having consolidated power, now it is time to give the Americans the boot.

In a particularly well-timed op-ed in the Washington Post, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq’s National Security Advisor, shows the United States the door:

With the governors of each province meeting these strict objectives, Iraq’s ambition is to have full control of the country by the end of 2008. In practice this will mean a significant foreign troop reduction. We envisage the U.S. troop presence by year’s end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007.

So, there’s your timetable: Leave Iraq by the end of 2007. This kind of clarity from the Iraqi government makes the debate in Washington, to borrow our Attorney General’s word, "quaint".

Mr. al-Rubaie also kicks a little bit of sand in Dick Cheney’s eyes by labeling Americans as "occupiers", albeit by indirection:

The eventual removal of coalition troops from Iraqi streets will help the Iraqis, who now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators they were meant to be. It will remove psychological barriers and the reason that many Iraqis joined the so-called resistance in the first place. The removal of troops will also allow the Iraqi government to engage with some of our neighbors that have to date been at the very least sympathetic to the resistance because of what they call the "coalition occupation." If the sectarian issue continues to cause conflict with Iraq’s neighbors, this matter needs to be addressed urgently and openly — not in the guise of aversion to the presence of foreign troops. [Emphasis added by me.]

This turn of events should not come as a surprise to anyone who has been following events in Iraq over the past few years. Although it may come as a surprise to the still significant number of Americans who believe we are bringing "freedom" to the Iraqi people. It should also not have been a surprise when the Iraqi government declared last week that they would grant amnesty to insurgents who had killed American troops. Even though the Iraqis backtracked from that declaration, it was nonetheless symptomatic of the environment in Iraq where Americans have long been viewed as occupiers.

We have handed the reigns of power in Iraq to the al-Dawa party and the SCIRI, both Iranian backed and nurtured parties. We have handed power to the very terrorist organization that killed American soldiers in Kuwait and Lebanon in the 1980s. Mr. al-Rubaie himself was the spokesman for this terrorist organization in the 1980s. In his latest incarnation, Mr. al-Rubaie speaks not only for the al-Dawa party but also the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. So much so, the President of the United States, on his Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad, had the following exchange with Mr. al-Rubaie:

American officials in Iraq are well aware of al-Rubaie’s ability to navigate in both worlds; when President Bush landed in Baghdad for Thanksgiving dinner, clearly he’d been briefed. As al-Rubaie remembers their encounter, the president pointed at him and said, "Dr. al-Rubaie, I want you to convey this message to Mr. Sistani. Tell him that I pray to the same god he prays to… Tell Sistani I have nothing but praise for your religion. I have many millions of Muslims in my country back home." [Emphasis added by me.]

I am sure Mr. Bush’s evangelical friends on the right really appreciate that Mr. Bush prays to the same God as Muslims.

To complete the humiliation in Iraq, the same terrorists who killed Americans in the 1980s are now telling us to get out of Baghdad. I wonder if Mr. Bush will consider such an exit to be in the best interests of the United States. I have long argued that the United States does more harm to Iraq and its own credibility by staying in Iraq. Our credibility is already damaged in Iraq. Withdrawing from Iraq under our own terms would not have damaged our credibility that much more. However, being told to leave by the Iraqi government will round out the humiliation. That is exactly what is now happening.

It appears that Mr. Cheney was partially right about "last throes" in Iraq, only it is our occupation that is in its last throes.

Dateline Ramadi June 18, 2006 from the Associated Press:

RAMADI, Iraq – Thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops set up outposts Sunday in southern parts of Ramadi as part of an operation to establish Iraqi army bases in the country’s largest Sunni Arab city and wrest it away from months of insurgent control.

The United States Military is poised to retake the insurgent stronghold of Ramadi from the Iraqi insurgents. Keeping with the theme of progress this week, the press is dutifully reporting "progress" in the Iraq war.

The White House is busy taking victory laps after the killing of al Zarqawi a week and a half ago. In his latest "Freedom is on the march" tour, the President has snuck into the Green Zone bunker in a display of virtual freedom, Maliki has cracked down in Baghdad for the cameras, and the city of Ramadi is being retaken from the insurgents.

In spite of the PR blitz, the picture in Iraq remains largely the same and is getting steadily worse. The American Embassy in Baghdad, having not received the Karl Rove memo, reports in a cable to Washington that things are going from bad to worse.

The pundits in the press want to hear none of it however. The more interesting news is the bounce President Bush is likely to get in the polls. The more interesting news is how Karl Rove can now use Iraq to bludgeon the Democrats into defeat in November. Well, at least that was the preferred storyline this week until the deaths kept on piling up in Iraq. President Bush’s dead cat bounce in the polls is not translating into progress in Iraq.

So, how do we measure progress in Iraq? At a bare minimum, in a war, one sign that you are winning is defined by how much territory you control. Arguably, the United States and the Iraqi government do not control very much outside the Green Zone in Baghdad and the Kurdish regions. Since Ramadi is in the news now and the press is breathless about the impending violence, it is worth looking at how many times we have taken Ramadi only to lose it again. Surely, if we are doing the same thing over and over again, we are not making progress; we are at best treading water. And given the loss of lives and treasure in recapturing the same city over and over again, we are in fact going backwards, i.e., losing.

Dateline Ramadi December 2, 2005 from the BBC:

US and Iraqi forces have launched a military operation in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, the day after insurgents staged a show of strength in the city.

Dateline Ramadi February 26, 2005 from the BBC:

Reports said three died in a gun battle in Ramadi, as US and Iraqi forces try to clear insurgents from key areas in the so-called Sunni Triangle.

People in Ramadi said there was a prolonged exchange of fire.

Dateline Ramadi July 23, 2004 from the Christian Science Monitor:

RAMADI, IRAQ – Some of the heaviest fighting in months erupted on Wednesday in the troubled city of Ramadi. Throughout the day, the thud of mortars, bombs, and machine-gun fire echoed down desolate streets as insurgents battled hundreds of US Marines.

An estimated 25 insurgents were killed, and 25 people – including two Iraqi police – were detained in a day of clashes, which saw 13 US soldiers lightly wounded in firefights and multiple ambushes.

At sunset, as American helicopters swooped over central Ramadi, a small funeral procession for Iraqis killed in the fighting moved slowly through town. But stores remained locked behind metal gratings and few residents ventured onto streets littered with debris and cratered by bombs.

The pattern in Ramadi, and much of Iraq, has been insurgents fleeing the area as US troops move in. When the troops inevitably leave the insurgents creep back in. After the insurgents come back in, they kill or chase away whoever the US has put in charge:

Large swaths of Ramadi have been in insurgent control for months. Powerful roadside bombings and gunbattles take place every day, confining U.S. patrols to small sections of the city. Prominent tribal leaders who have cooperated with U.S. forces have been assassinated or forced to flee outside the country.

It’s the same story every time. Ramadi is a microcosm of what is happening throughout Iraq. Add to the insurgency the sectarian violence and growing civil war and you have a real quagmire.

This is apparently the "progress" Karl Rove accuses the Democrats of "cutting and running" from. Our Iraq policy is no longer (if it ever was) about winning. It is not even about avoiding defeat. Our Iraq policy is now all about domestic politics. The Republican National Committee has officially dubbed the Democrats’ Iraq policy alternatives as "Cut and Run". Serious policy debate is no longer possible. The RNC political strategy is quite shameless. It will use our troops and the Iraqi people to try to garner enough votes in November to retain control of Congress.

I think the Bush Administration must know by now that they have failed in Iraq. The best thing the United States could do right now for the Iraqi people is to start pulling out. Unfortunately, having lost Iraq, the Administration and its allies are now trying to salvage their political careers. American soldiers and Iraqi citizens are dying in the battle for control of the United States Congress.

So, once more unto the breach. Once more into Ramadi we go.