June 05, 2007
The War Lovers
Experts continue to state that anti-war politicians will spill more blood, not less, in the Middle East.
For months, professional journalists, combat soldiers, defense experts, intelligence analysts, regional governments, and bloggers have been warning about the consequences of the disastrous retreat from Iraqi being orchestrated by the radicalized left wing of the Democratic Party.
Writing in WSJ's OpinionJournal today, Dan Senor ties it all together, showing through the words of experts that the precipitous headlong retreat favored by so many Democrats will only result in American combat forces returning to the region in greater numbers and facing a far more bloody and destabilized Middle East dubbed "Iraq Plus."
Consider Brent Scowcroft, dean of the Realist School, who openly opposed the war from the outset and was a lead skeptic of the president's democracy-building agenda. In a recent Financial Times interview, he succinctly summed up the implication of withdrawal: "The costs of staying are visible; the costs of getting out are almost never discussed. If we get out before Iraq is stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble Iraq today. Getting out is not a solution."And here is retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Centcom Commander and a vociferous critic of the what he sees as the administration's naive and one-sided policy in Iraq and the broader Middle East: "When we are in Iraq we are in many ways containing the violence. If we back off we give it more room to breathe, and it may metastasize in some way and become a regional problem. We don't have to be there at the same force level, but it is a five- to seven-year process to get any reasonable stability in Iraq."
A number of Iraq's Sunni Arab neighbors also opposed the war as well as the U.S. push for liberalizing the region's authoritarian governments. Yet they now backchannel the same two priorities to Washington: Do not let Iran acquire nukes, and do not withdraw from Iraq.
A senior Gulf Cooperation Council official told me that "If America leaves Iraq, America will have to return. Soon. It will not be a clean break. It will not be a permanent goodbye. And by the time America returns, we will have all been drawn in. America will have to stabilize more than just Iraq. The warfare will have spread to other countries, governments will be overthrown. America's military is barely holding on in Iraq today. How will it stabilize 'Iraq Plus'?" (Iraq Plus is the term that some leaders in Arab capitals use to describe the region following a U.S. withdrawal.)
Among the people on Iraqi soil cited by Senor is NY Times Bureau Chief John Burns, who has made comments equating an American pullout with the onset of a regional conflict and violence without limits.
CNN's Michael Ware and Kyra Phillips have echoed similar sentiments, saying a U.S. pullout "would be a disaster."
U.S. secretary of Defense Robert Gates is even more blunt:
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Wednesday warned that limiting troops' activities in Iraq and withdrawing from Baghdad could lead to "ethnic cleansing" in the capital and elsewhere in the country.Gates' comment followed a proposal from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to end most spending on the Iraq war in 2008, limiting it to targeted operations against al Qaeda, training for Iraqi troops and U.S. force protection.
"One real possibility is if we abandon some of these areas and withdraw into the countryside or whatever to do these targeted missions that you could have a fairly significant ethnic cleansing inside Baghdad and in Iraq more broadly," Gates said.
The general premises of anti-war groups is that they wants a U.S. military pullout in Iraq seem based upon the following primary arguments:
- There were no WMDs/the reasons for the War were a lie (the playground mentality "I want a 'do-over'" argument).
- The U.S. military is causing tremendous civilian casualties in Iraq (the "remove the babykillers and the bloodshed will stop" argument).
- Leaving American troops in Iraq without a firm withdrawal date with only allow the various factions to continue fighting without coming to a political solution (the "they're all savages until we disappear and they’ll be forced to negotiate with each other" argument).
- The various Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions are going to slaughter each other anyway, so why place American troops in the middle where they can be killed as well (the "they're all savages, let them die/kill each other" argument)
Obviously, there are variations of those major themes, but those are their general arguments.
The common failure of all of these arguments is the purposeful refusal to recognize what many (if not most) experts think will happen in the wake of the arbitrary and precipitous U.S. withdrawal, which are those predictions of a much wider regional war, a phenomenal increase in civilian casualties, the possible attempted genocide of some factions, and the re-entry of the U.S. military into the same region under far worse conditions and the threat of far greater casualties.
Anti-war politicians claim that they want to stop the war in Iraq, but the policies to which they subscribe are akin to throwing water on a grease fire. They would spread the flames of war, and create far more deaths.
Anti-war? No, it is a far wider war they will cause.
See, this is why I'm not a Democrat.
I'm still against this war, but not for any of the reasons given. If you can stand it one more time, this is why we should pull out, and this is the opinion of a minority of one:
If we're not going to commit ourselves to this fight - and by that I mean more troops, raise taxes and be honest about how much it will cost and how long we'll be there - then don't do this half-a**ed. I don't want any American to be killed because this administration doesn't trust us enough to do what needs to be done and tell us the truth.
And as blithely as you curse the Democrats, don't forget to put the initial blame where it belongs - on the Bush administration. They screwed up the war and the occupation so badly that there are no decent alternatives. Everything looks bad thanks to their criminal incompetence.
There's plenty of blood to go around.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 5, 2007 12:50 PMDavid
I am not certain that the war was so screwed up, but certainly the occupation was fouled up from the beginning.
Hindsight being what it is (perfect, of course), setting up something more like Turkey's government might well have been much more feasible than trying to create a western-style democracy in a culture better suited to dark ages styles of government. Is it too late for that solution? I have no idea. I do know that any solution will have terrible aspects for Iraqis--which is too bad.
I am 100% in agreement that if we (the USA) are not willing to do what it takes to WIN this fight then we should pull out and let the savages kill each other all day long. Like Vietnam, where we also tried to fight a limited war, the killers in Iraq will just wait us out until we tire. Intead of doing what it takes to win --smashing the sources of money, personnel and weapons to the various factions in Iraq, putting enough troops in to quell the insurgency, jailing domestic traitors who publish classified information, executing unlawful combatants after vigorous interrorgation, etc.--we fight a politically correct war watched over by opponents to ensure that nothing effective is accomplished.
So maybe the Democrats are right; pull out now and let the bloodshed begin. Heck, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again. Blame the ethnic cleaning/genocide on Bush & co while hand-wringing in impotence. Let the self-interest of the Iraq government decide if they are to become an Iranian puppet or be a sovereign nation. Adhere to the old philosophy "give them what they (Iraqis and Democrats) want, good and hard".
Posted by: iconoclast at June 5, 2007 02:22 PMiconoclast,
There are no good answers here. None.
If we stay we'll be bled to death, our soldiers a target while we borrow more and more money from the Chinese.
If we leave we'll create a power vacuum that Iran will most likely fill after a lot of internal bloodshed.
It all sucks.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at June 5, 2007 02:47 PMThe left is never happy until fatalities are measured in the millions.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 5, 2007 02:51 PMPA
The "new" left (for those of us old enough to remember the old socialists) haven't enough consistency to be accused of such a sentiment. Besides power, the only overarching characteristic I can see to the entire spectrum is self-delusion and a sort of comic book/harlequin romance world philosophy. How else can one explain the support leftist feminists (yeah, redundant I know) give to islamic fundamentalists?
I have no idea whatsoever how to communicate with such people.
Posted by: iconoclast at June 5, 2007 03:38 PMDavid
Agree, it all sucks. So what do? It seems to me that predicating all future action on its benefit to the USA first and the Anglosphere second (with the rest of the world a distant third) makes the most sense to me.
Assume immiment withdrawal from Iraq, resulting ethnic cleansing, and increased Iranian influence over events in Iraq. Assume critical need to keep oil flowing to the West and fairly friendly governments in some parts of the ME. Assume continued acts of war by Iran against the USA and Israel. Assume continued growth of fanatic Islam in Europe, ME, and Asia.
What should be done? Accept gradual dhimmitude? lance the core of the cancer? wait out the storm? attempt to buy them off while corrupting them with our culture?
beats me. Maybe there never is an end to this--the fight for liberty and tolerance against tyranny and oppression. And we have to win all the wars, while they (the enemy) only has to win one.
I do think that Bush's sentiments were correct--democratic regimes are peaceful regimes, while totalitarian dictatorships are warlike, so start inserting democracy into these totalitarian countries. But he should have studied the USA (and MacArthur's) approach to Japan a lot more closely. But he did not.
Here is my idea on the underlying problem we have had in Iraq. Bush has been trying to fight this war totally half assed, just like David says. On one hand he wants to stabilize Iraq, on the other he wants to please everyone. We need to fight to WIN! Mediocrity, in war, is a horrible thing. Our boys can kick ass like no other, lets let them do it.
Posted by: jbiccum at June 5, 2007 08:19 PMI have no idea whatsoever how to communicate with such people.
Tasers and cattle prods.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 5, 2007 08:47 PMNow were MAKING PROGRESS
"The left is never happy until fatalities are measured in the millions."
YESS!!!!!! read it a second time and thikn it over fellas can you deny the TRUTH
"We need to fight to WIN!"
AGREED!!!
Posted by: Karl at June 6, 2007 12:04 AMI am so sick of you ARMCHAIR PATTONS mouthing off about war. WAR WAR WAR. All you see is blood! War solves nothing.
WHere were the terrorists in IRaq before we got there? Nowhere! Iraq was a PEACEFUL nation
You want to fight tough guys? Join the ARMY
For now, we democrats are just waiting in the wings. AMERICA WANTS CHANGE!
And we're gonna get it soon! Just listen to our fearless and feisty leader PELOSI tellin' it like it is to SYRIA. She understands whats going on in the world! Why do they HATE us? Because of our POLICIES!!!
Posted by: KarlsJr at June 6, 2007 01:02 PMKarl: I can only imagine your post was a joke.
With regards to having a government the same as Turkey. You forget one thing. Ataturk brought Turkey kicking and screaming into the 20th century, and it took years. No outsider could have done it.
I would suggest that one of th major problems with the Iraq aftermath is that the Arabists took hold of the policy. Why else would they allow Sharia to be the law of the land.
The problem I have with the anti-war types is that most of them rely upon lies and deception to support their positions. Karl's post is a good example.
