Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

There are two remarkable articles on The Washington Post website tonight. The juxtaposition of the two also is startling. There is an article by George Will titled "Bleakness In Baghdad" and another by Secretary Donald Rumsfeld titled "What We’ve Gained in 3 Years in Iraq". Their views of what is happening in Iraq could not be any more different.

George Will writes about the conditions on the ground:

Conditions in Iraq have worsened in the 94 days that have passed since Iraq’s elections in December. And there still is no Iraqi government that can govern. By many measures conditions are worse than they were a year ago, when they were worse than they had been the year before.

Secretary Rumsfeld writes about the conditions on the ground:

The terrorists seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq. I believe that history will show that to be the case.

…

Today, some 100 Iraqi army battalions of several hundred troops each are in the fight, and 49 control their own battle space. About 75 percent of all military operations in the country include Iraqi security forces, and nearly half of those are independently Iraqi-planned, Iraqi-conducted and Iraqi-led. Iraqi security forces have a greater ability than coalition troops to detect a foreign terrorist’s accent, identify local suspects and use force without increasing a feeling of occupation. It was these Iraqi forces — not U.S. or coalition troops — that enforced curfews and contained the violence after the attack on the Golden Dome Shrine in Samarra. To be sure, violence of various stripes continues to slow Iraq’s progress. But the coalition is doing everything possible to see this effort succeed and is making adjustments as appropriate.

George Will sums up the effort to bring democracy to Iraq:

Three years ago the administration had a theory: Democratic institutions do not just spring from a hospitable culture, they can also create such a culture. That theory has been a casualty of the war that began three years ago today.

Secretary Rumsfeld opines on the same effort:

The rationale for a free and democratic Iraq is as compelling today as it was three years ago. A free and stable Iraq will not attack its neighbors, will not conspire with terrorists, will not pay rewards to the families of suicide bombers and will not seek to kill Americans.

What is going on here? Why such starkly different views of the same situation? Is the situation in Iraq much better than the vast majority of the media and punditry would lead us to believe? Or is the Administration refusing to face some very uncomfortable truths about the results of its policy? I am not on the ground in Iraq, I cannot say for certain. However, I can make a best guess based on the information available to me from the Administration and the various media outlets. The preponderance of evidence based on the Administration’s own assessments over the last three years and the information from the media leads me to believe, and I believe common sense suggests, that the situation in Iraq is not going well.

I suggested in two earlier posts today that in order for the Administration to salvage the situation, it needs to be more forthright with the American people. (You can read the posts here and here).

The first two paragraphs of Secretary Rumsfeld’s article are very telling:

Some have described the situation in Iraq as a tightening noose, noting that "time is not on our side" and that "morale is down." Others have described a "very dangerous" turn of events and are "extremely concerned."

Who are they that have expressed these concerns? In fact, these are the exact words of terrorists discussing Iraq — Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his associates — who are describing their own situation and must be watching with fear the progress that Iraq has made over the past three years. [Emphasis added by me]

As long as this Administration continues to equate any views that do not correspond to theirs with the views of the terrorists, they cannot begin to have an honest discussion of the situation. In any situation, including a war, when one side is objectively losing, and it is clear to everyone, including the enemy, that one side is losing; it does not negate the objective truth of the loss. We may loathe the fact that we are losing, but it does not change that truth. Certainly, voicing the fact that we may be losing does not make the speaker, e.g., George Will, an agent of the enemy.

On this third anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War, I hope we reflect on where we are honestly and move forward positively. The American people are resilient and can handle the truth, regardless of where it might lie. It is time to level with the American people and regain their trust and support. I hope we have reached the bottom of the curve, and things do genuinely get better for us and the Iraqis from here on out. We have lit a powder keg, and my hope is that the very smart people within the Administration, including the Secretary of Defense, will find a way to contain the fallout.

In his weekly radio address,  President Bush is quoted by The Washington Post as follows:

"The security of our country is directly linked to the liberty of the Iraqi people," Bush said. "We will settle for nothing less than complete victory."

President Bush also said that we will "finish the mission" and that "more fighting and sacrifice will be required". What does "victory" look like? And what "mission" are we currently engaged in? And why is our security directly tied to the liberty of the Iraqi people? These questions need answers – and not the same old talking points. Talking points cannot turn the tide of public opinion when the reality on the ground is so starkly different than the statements being made. This Administration needs to engage the American people in a forthright discussion of our mission and how we will redefine victory, and why we must subsidize the Iraqi people’s struggle for liberty.

The refrain "we will fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here" is beginning to ring hollow. Who is the "them" we are fighting? Surely, the vast majority of the insurgents are not the ones who attacked us on September the 11th. We need to narrow our definition of "them" and start engaging the right "them" if we are to mitigate the threat of terrorism on our shores. I can’t imagine that a single American wouldn’t support the President in going after the right "them" in the defense of America and most civilized peoples.

The Washington Post has an article today on an upcoming referendum in Wisconsin on withdrawal from Iraq. Although the referendum will likely fail, it is a sign of the growing polarization of public sentiment over our involvement in Iraq.

Our discourse is increasingly more bitter and more partisan. I think most observers on the right and on the left have now come to the conclusion that the original objectives of the war (finding WMD, bringing a pro western stable democracy, crushing the terrorists, etc.) are not going to be achieved. The discussion has turned now to "pull out now" vs. "pull out later". Even the most strident supporters of the war now define "stay the course" or "complete the mission" as meaning stay long enough to leave with some semblence of our credibility intact so that we can declare "victory" and get out.

It is reasonable to ask how vital our current mission in Iraq is to our national interest. Is it in our interest to stay in the hopes of preventing civil war and watch one happen nonetheless? What will be the role of the U.S. military when civil war breaks out? What will be the result of a quick American pullout? Is our involvement in Iraq worth the polarization of the American body politic and the long term harm it may cause our democratic system at home? Is 51% or 48% or 37% public support enough to support a foreign war? At what point do policymakers need to question their operating rationale for a war when the public is so divided?

Our choices are not at all attractive here. Pulling out now will certainly destabilize Iraq in the short term and no doubt hasten a civil war. Pulling out later will cost more American lives, and even though it may prolong the slide into civil war, will ultimately end in civil war with American forces caught in the middle. The stark calculation that needs to be made is the cost of American lives and credibility on the one hand versus the cost of a civil war in Iraq. I wish we were faced with an easier choice.

All this without even considering our inadvertant strengthening of Iran by our intervention in Iraq. Once we get past the "when to pull out" argument, we must clearly address how we go about dealing with a more powerful Iran in the region.