Bush
and Iraq, In Context
RattlerGator
Tallahassee, FL
October
21, 2004
Thomas P.M. Barnett has today posted a fantastic analysis of why he thinks Bush is going to win this presidential election. So,
what does he believe the Republicans have done well vis-à-vis this election?
Terrorists
attack America on 9/11 and we have three essential choices for reply: hunker down in "homeland security," go out and kill
them as fast as we can, or . . . think strategically about what the terrorists seek to achieve with this form of warfare and
get there first. Bush's message of "spreading the power of liberty" (see
"In Bush's Vision, a Mission To Spread the Power of Liberty," by David E. Sanger, New York Times, 21 October 2004, p. A1) answers-albeit simplistically-that strategic challenge: we seek to
connect the Middle East to the Core faster than the Osamas and Zarqawis can disconnect it and by doing so, set it motion a
long-term movement toward individual political liberty and-more importantly-economic opportunity-that is sadly lacking there.
That is a happy ending, and it's one designed to make Americans feel better about themselves and our role in history, and
you know what? That's awfully damn smart of the Republicans, because you never motivate anyone to sacrifice through shame
and derision.
And what have the Democrats done wrong or at least poorly? First:
Instead
of offering the happy ending, Kerry and Co. have chosen to lead with the two alternative
approaches. Yes, you can try to firewall off America
a la Richard Clarke and Steven Flynn and a host of other inward-looking books that encourage Americans to seek safety through
hunkering down. You can do the Chicken Little routine (which Clarke excelled at throughout his government career) of constantly
crying "they're coming" and "be afraid" and "close the gate" and so on and so on. But there is no happy ending in this pathway.
It's M. Night's movie "The Village" writ large and it's largely defenseless as a vision of a better world, so much so that
it's so easily mocked by parties both left and right and straight down the middle of the political spectrum.
Second:
The
second bad choice the Dems have made is to embrace this rote statement of "John Kerry will hunt down and kill these terrorists,"
as if that's an answer to anything, instead of just being a duh!-sort of obvious tactic anyone is going to employ when president.
Bush has shown a real willingness to engage and kill the enemy, so why the Dems think having Kerry second that emotion is
simply beyond me, because when that's the sound bite everyone from Sandy Burger to his daughters spit out every TV appearance
they can, it essentially kills the discussion of what John Kerry's long-term strategy of defeating al Qaeda's strategic objectives
should be. Instead we get "need more allies" and "fight smarter," which is fine in and of themselves, but doesn't really extend
a line of logic to what should really be enunciated: Kerry's definition of the finish line in a global war on terrorism. By
offering the "nuisance" argument, however reasonable it is, Kerry left it to Bush's people to fill in the blank.
He then begins his conclusion:
I
know the temptation of appealing to people's fears during difficult times. I also know of the challenge of the challenger
in getting a frightened public to get rid of a powerful leader during uncertain times. But the Dems have made two fatefully
bad choices in this election by choosing to focus on tactics (kill terrorists) and operations (defend America) instead of real strategy (beat the enemy to the finish
line). They have selected downer subjects, where Kerry's sophisticated understanding of things actually works against him,
leaving Bush to exploit the high ground, where his simplistic-yet-very-sincere delivery works like a charm.
The good doctor betrays his biases (who doesn’t?) by supposing
that Kerry’s supposed sophistication is something which is eminently desirable while presuming that Bush’s clarity
(“simplistic-yet-very-sincere delivery”) is something less than (or other than) genuine clarity. Am I reading
too much into his choice of the descriptive word “delivery”? Maybe.
Finally, he writes:
I
have said it before and I will say it again: the more optimistic candidate wins national elections, and despite the great
mishandling of the Iraq occupation by this administration (yet another damning article today in the Times by Michael Gordon on page 1: "Debate Lingering on Decision To Dissolve the Iraqi Military"]),
their mindless alienation of allies around the dial, and the growing sense of strategic despair both have created throughout
far too much of the U.S. military, Bush and his campaign have managed to seize the high ground of both grand strategy and
an optimistic vision of the future, leaving Kerry and the Dems to mutter about how "we'd do it better if we had the chance."
For the life of me, I can’t figure out why he thinks the
occupation is going so poorly. Chaos was certainly inevitable and (it is here where it seems to me that the good gentleman
makes his underestimation) had we maintained that Iraqi standing Army – the Iranians FOR CERTAIN would have infiltrated
it and instigated battle between the Sunnis and Shias and we would have been far, far more likely to have that feared civil
war. It’s all about context – over there and back here at home. Come on, Dr. Barnett, surely you see that.
To address my point about context, consider this discussion below.
Mind you, this is prior to my decision to drop my registration as a Democrat and become a Republican. Tacitus is a talented blogger with an interesting website that I have periodically reviewed during the last year. On
January 20, 2004 (I know it may seem like ancient history now), he posted the following opinion, based on the then-current
state of affairs in Iraq (no link is apparently
available for the material I’m posting below; Tacitus moved his blog to another provider between then and now):
January 20,
2004
Well, it's over
The Iraqi occupation, I mean. Via Drum, I see that the British occupation authorities are breaking ranks with the CPA and essentially endorsing Sistani's demands for a direct democratic handover by conceding that yes, direct elections
are possible in the short term. A while back, I warned of the dangers of allowing the Shi'a to drive events; now the turkeys are coming home to roost. And how -- it's no coincidence
that the UK about-face is coming hot on
the heels of major Shi'a street protests and implied
threats of violence. What lesson does that teach the masses? Should be obvious -- muscle gets results, and the occupiers do
not have the stomach for the level of violence required to reassert control. Make no mistake: at this point, it would take
a great deal of violence to reassert authority as a sovereign occupier. Six months ago, a couple of infantry squads
simply showing up was enough to quell a major demonstration. That won't deter anyone now; if anything, that's when the shooting would start.
If our principle partners in the war and occupation -- supposedly the ones with the
more colonial experience -- are publicly presenting a disunited front, then, barring an American willingness to inflict serious
wartime horrors on defiant Shi'a, the occupation is over. It's only a matter of time. Of course it was a matter of time anyway,
but I had hope it would end on our terms. At the moment, though, the most likely scenario to me looks like a partial US pullout, some sort of election boycotted by one or more major parties, and something very
much like a civil war in places like Kirkuk and Baghdad.
At which point we doubtless intervene, to preclude interventions by unfriendly neighbors. And the process starts anew.
The dreaded end won't come because we were unwisely strong. It will come because we
were unwisely weak. Remember that.
Posted by tacitus at January 20, 2004
05:29 PM
Many, many comments were generated on the site in response to
this post. Some were like this:
Me thinks everyone is jumping the gun here. The brits are giving
an opinion, sistani and friends are giving an opinion, Kofi has an opinion, and the IGC has an opinion. Let the horsetrading
begin - all is not lost cause of the brits agreeing with Sistani. Be cool, switch to decaf if necessary.
Mr. Liberalhawk,
Precisely. Well said.
And others were more negative and defeatist, like Tacitus’
original post:
Was this end EVER in doubt? Not among anyone who had a shred
of insight to an administration driven (not led) by political expedience or an Iraq
as classical post-colonial patchwork of seething ethnic and political rivalry set atop enormous treasure.
Though as Kimmitt suggests, those who got us into this sordid mess will no doubt seek
to blame those wise and strong enough to argue against this folly for it's fate.
Didn't need the Oracle to predict that either!
This, of course, had to be continually reinforced by the same
poster later in the thread:
"The war made this dance possible, and it should be perfectly
feasible to keep the dancing civilized. "
A perfectly Wolfowtizian prophecy if ever I've heard one.
And others all too fearful and pessimistic:
Tacitus, how uncanny to log on to your site and see my unformed
thoughts so cogently expressed.
Look for a "declaration of victory" this summer and a withdrawl from the major cities.
What a mess. Will we be able to sustain some sort of geographic contact with the Kurds, our only true allies in the country?
I logged on and scrolled down without reading any interim comments. Going back now.
And, yes, the inevitable “Q” word made an appearance:
Would someone please just scream "Quagmire!" and get it over
with?
But then, here comes a doubter who is nevertheless still an American
at heart, rather than a simple political partisan:
Tac -
The occupation may be over in the sense you describe, but I have felt for months now
-- and this is a peacenik speaking here -- that if Iraq
can possibly stay out of a civil war, then the whole thing might actually have been worth it.
Mind you, I have assumed there will be a civil war from the get go, which was one big
reason I was against the war, but there is always hope. And if there is not, if we leave somewhat gracefully, and if Iraq starts to rule itself without excessive violence,
then I will be forced to reconsider a lot of my old opinions.
Amid speculation that the July handover date was far too optimistic
and far too early, more comments came in:
"Wasn't this a widely
predicted outcome? I mean, it was one of several, but one that many regarded as significantly probable.
The U.S.
has abruptly removed the (admittedly brutal) glue that held Iraq
together while proclaiming that we were there as liberators. Now the liberated majority are expressing their will and it's
not necessarily aligned with U.S. interests.
Our options seem to be taking on a longer and more aggressive role as an occupying force with all the messiness that entails
or pulling out and leaving Iraq to decide
its own fate."
Uh, no. You seem to be missing one option - our best option. Which is to come to accomodation
with the various consituencies. Seems like Sistani is interested. Likely that the Kurds are interested too. Can we get the
Sunni there as well? That's the $64,000 question.
Where does everybody - Tacitus included - seem to get this idea that our only options
are (i) to impose our will on everybody and (ii) give up and pull out completely?
And Tacitus returns to clarify his thoughts a bit:
In brief, there are three areas in which we could have shown far more resolution --
more strength:
· Politically. It became clear after a certain point that
the CPA felt bound to respond, retreat and revise whenever Sistani or the Shi'a objected to something. We conceded them a
veto early on that we need not have. This is, frankly, stupefying behavior for a conquering occupier.
· Materially. As I've said countless times before, there aren't
enough soldiers or resources in-country. This obviously limited our options and contributed to an impression of limited means
and even weakness on our part.
· Militarily. The Shi'a get away with murder -- literally
-- in ways that the Ba'athists and Sunnis, both of whom are relentlessly hunted, do not. The case of Moqtada Sadr is instructive.
Can you imagine a Ba'athist or Sunni cleric who openly organizes his own anti-American militia, preaches violent resistance,
and even stages lethal ambushes of American soldiers -- and is left unarrested and unmolested? Look too to the unpunished
killers of the six (if I recall correctly) Royal MPs this past summer. Our unwillingness to bloody our hands against the Shi'a
who perpetrated such acts again contributed directly to the perception of our weakness and lack of resolution.
At this point, the only way to reverse matters is to have and implicitly threaten the
use of sufficient force to put down a national Shi'a uprising should one occur. We could do it; but it would be staggeringly
bloody, and not even I would have the stomach for it -- so I know our leadership doesn't.
So, game over.
Luckily, a reader states what should be the obvious – at
least for those who aren’t too fearful or pessimistic:
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, all this speculation
is terribly premature. Let the politicians of all sides practice their business. Patience.
Which led to this entry by yours truly, RattlerGator:
Am I the only one reading this long list of comments stunned
by the lack of faith exhibited by most writers? The Shiite demonstrations are a good sign -- what do you know, these "A-rabs"
are engaging in the process of political persuasion. Works for me.
We're engaging in an experiment, one that I fully support. The expectations of most
Americans [and most Iraqi's I would be willing to bet] simply aren't that high. Even a Civil War is not an indication of failure
to me. You simply can't do what we're attempting to do without much blood being shed -- Iraqi's are going to have to fight
for a better future, and much of that fighting will be among themselves. It's as simple as that and it is clearly already
happening. It could not be otherwise.
We've reached another defining moment in world history. And the American left, my political
home, lined up on the wrong side. Many writers in this thread seem to be deeply desirous of American failure -- for the sake
of American failure, damn the Iraqi's.
Not me. And notwithstanding all the intellectual discussion here, it's my suspicion
that one often cited weakness of the Iraqi state will turn out to be it's saving grace -- multiple and fractured ethnicities,
even among the Shi'a. They are not monolithic people and that's a good thing.
Let the horse-trading begin. Let the deals be made. Let the backstabbers act, and expose
themselves. Let street justice be done. Let powerful factions consolidate power. Let the natural course of things take their
course. Let that natural course surprise us, and them. We should not fear that. Instead, we should proceed with what I've
thought was the plan all along -- because it was clearly foolhardy to even have a detailed post-war plan.
Capture, try and execute Saddamn Hussein and the remnants of his government. Nudge the
Iraqi's forward with only the most basic framework of democratic government. Build stakeholders as fast as possible in the
most basic and fundamental governmental provisions -- utilities, police, judiciary, health, schools. Otherwise, step back
and let any and all other vacuums be filled primarily by letting their concepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
flourish.
Whatever form of democratic government that emerges, cool. Just let it have an Iraqi
face. And make sure that the emerging Iraqi government, whatever the form, is cognizant of American power -- principally in
the form of the United States Army. Secondarily in the form/allure/provision of Islamic commerce and culture, modified to
regional sensitivities.
It's all about faith. Ultimately, either you believe in the Iraqi's [and the Americans]
or you don't.
Still sounds good to me. Still seems to provide the proper context.
And it still demonstrates why I later left the Democratic Party and to this very day have contempt for the actions of the
Democrats regarding the War in Iraq.
History will show that President Bush has done an incredibly good
job managing the Post 9/11 world and certainly deserves to be reelected as President of the United States.
