U.S. Stuck with Few Options in Iraq; Gary Hart on All-out Civil War: "We
Could Lose Our Army"
U.S. Stuck with Few Options in Iraq
by ***** Polman
We can't stay, and we can't go.
As the United States nears the third anniversary of its invasion of
Iraq, there is abundant evidence that military and political options are
narrowing, that President Bush's democratization dream is lethally
imperiled, that we are hostage to events beyond our control, and that nobody
can agree on whether our troops would be better off digging in or pulling
out.
The fog of war has frozen domestic politics. Bush's "stay the course"
stance is being soundly rebuked in the polls, yet divided Democrats haven't
come up with a better idea, a consensus alternative. Meanwhile, the clock
ticks. The danger of a full-blown civil war - predicted 18 months ago by the
CIA, but dismissed at the time by the Bush team - grows with each passing
day.
In political terms, this is a dangerous situation for House and Senate
Republicans who face voters in November. Hints dropped by the administration
last summer have had them anticipating sizable numbers of U.S. troops coming
home in 2006. They looked forward to using this as evidence that Iraqis, in
the aftermath of their December elections, were policing themselves and
freedom was "on the march."
Those hopes are in jeopardy. With Sunni insurgents and Shiite death
squads roaming the cities, and with negotiations for a unity government
perpetually breaking down, longtime Iraq observers are fearing the worst. In
the words of Juan Cole, a Middle East expert who blogs frequently on the
war, "Iraq is a vial of nitroglycerine that can be set off with one shake."
Some might dismiss Cole as a longtime Bush critic, but disillusion
also is endemic within conservative circles; witness William F. Buckley,
icon of the modern conservative movement. He contends that "the American
objective in Iraq has failed" and that Bush must "submit to historical
reality" and make "the acknowledgment of defeat."
Polls show discontent
Most Americans aren't buoyant, either; Bush's winter speeches have
failed to dispel bipartisan gloom. In a Fox News poll of 900 registered
voters conducted Tuesday and Wednesday, 81 percent of respondents -
including 72 percent of Republicans - now believe an Iraq civil war is
likely. On a separate issue, 70 percent of respondents want to cut the money
for Iraq reconstruction. Translation: The public is rapidly losing faith in
the mission, and political analysts believe that, in an election year, a
war-weary public generally aims its ire at the party in power.
But loss of faith in the mission isn't necessarily synonymous with a
desire to abandon Iraqis to their fate. We are basically stymied on what
should happen next. In a new poll sponsored by Democratic strategists Stan
Greenberg and James Carville, surveying 1,135 Americans during the last five
days of February, 49 percent said they wanted to "start reducing the number
of troops" (in the belief that we are impeding stability, and preventing
Iraqis from standing up for themselves), while 48 percent wanted to "stay
the course" and "finish the job" (in the belief that we are a positive force
and a bulwark against global terrorism).
A troops-out convert
One fresh convert to the troops-out camp is Suzanne Nossel, who served
at the United Nations from 1999 to 2001 as a top deputy to U.S. Ambassador
Richard Holbrooke. By phone, she charted her change of heart:
"I've always been very concerned about leaving Iraq as a failed state,
and the ramifications for the image of American power around the world. I
take that seriously. Despite all the mistakes we have made in this war, the
stakes have been so high that I felt we had to stay and try to make things
right.
"But now, facing the facts on the ground" - a reference to death
squads, militant clerics, ethnic fragmentation, and warring Iraqi leaders -
"I question whether we are making a contribution, and whether it makes sense
to stay in." Or, as she argued separately in an online column, "The only
thing worse than Iraq as a failed state is Iraq as a failed state with
130,000 Americans serving there."
Gary Hart said he thinks those troops are at serious risk. The
Democratic ex-senator and onetime presidential candidate, a specialist on
defense issues, talked about Iraq - and, in his view, the benefits of troop
withdrawals - before a speech the other day at the National Constitution
Center.
"Our army is in danger," he said. "If all-out civil war breaks out, we
could lose our army. If Sunnis and Shiites take to the streets by the
thousands, it could literally be impossible to get [the soldiers] out. ... I
know that sounds apocalyptic, but it's not out of the question. We need an
exit strategy. We have no choice. We're making things worse. Ninety percent
of the insurgents are Iraqis who don't like the fact that we have occupied
their country. ...
"I know we can't just pack up and leave right away, but we're still
acting as if we hold all the cards over there. We don't. We're losing
control of the situation. ... The British occupied Iraq for 35 years and
finally had to leave because there was a constant insurgency against them.
We haven't learned anything."
But others see the chaos in Iraq as proof that we must stay, despite
having spent more than $300 billion and expended about 2,300 American lives.
And they're not all Bush fans.
Troops must stay
Marshall Wittmann, a centrist Democratic thinker and frequent Bush
critic, posted this on his blog the other day: "Is it possible that Iraq
will be lost? Of course it is. And it will be much more likely that it will
be lost if America leaves precipitously. Then, the supporters of an early
withdrawal will have to address the consequences of both an American defeat,
and that our international jihadist enemy will be emboldened."
And Missouri political analyst Tim Lomperis, who served in Vietnam as
an Army intelligence officer, said by phone, "I know it seems like we've
stepped into a volcano, and it is depressing." But "I see Iraq as the
Vietnam war that we can't afford to lose. We were able to lose Vietnam and
walk away because it was a peripheral outpost. Iraq is not. It is central,
the same way that Berlin was central during the Cold War.
"Yes, Iraq at the beginning was a war of choice. And yes, if we can't
get a unity government, we're stuck with a strategic mess. And it's true
that we won't give the Iraqi troops some of our helicopters and tanks,
because we're afraid they'll end up in the hands of the insurgents. But
pulling out is not a realistic choice. If we do that, the Islamic radicals
will come after us, with Europe as the next front line. This hasn't sunk in
with Americans yet."
Stalemate in politics
Sensitized to the ambivalent national mood, Democrats in Washington
remain averse to speaking boldly, or finding a way forward. Some have signed
on to a plan - co-written six months ago by a former Reagan assistant
defense secretary - that calls for "strategic redeployment," a euphemism for
troop pullouts on a timetable, by the end of 2007.
But more hawkish Democrats see a timetable as a gift to the enemy -
and to the GOP, which long has proved adept at labeling Democrats as soft.
So even as there are few good policy options in Iraq, there are few
good political options at home. Democrats as a group won't call for a
pullout, because they want to look tough to independent swing voters. Bush
can't call for a big increase in troops, because polls show that's political
suicide. And even if he wanted to launch a serious withdrawal, much of his
conservative base would revolt.
Hence, the fealty to familiar talking points. On ABC the other day, he
again used that tactic, saying, "We're making progress ... spread freedom
.... we will prevail," phrases that brought to mind a comment to Bob Woodward
in 2002:
"I'm the commander, see? I do not need to explain why I say things.
That's the interesting thing about being president. Maybe somebody needs to
explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an
explanation."
Given the restiveness about Iraq, however, that view might not be
sufficient anymore. In former U.N. official Nossel's words, "Americans are
hungry for a hard-headed debate on the policies that could have an impact on
our standing in the world for years to come.
© Copyright 2006 Knight Ridder
###
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0306-02.htm
Our army is in danger. If all-out civil war breaks out, we could lose our
army. If Sunnis and Shiites take to the streets by the thousands, it could
literally be impossible to get [the soldiers] out. ... I know that sounds
apocalyptic, but it's not out of the question. We need an exit strategy. We
have no choice. We're making things worse. Ninety percent of the insurgents
are Iraqis who don't like the fact that we have occupied their country. ---
Gary Hart
Democratic ex-senator and onetime presidential candidate
.
|
