Unless General Petraeus is a remarkably talented bald-faced liar (as claimed by MoveOn.org), we can safely conclude that the security situation in Iraq is improving. Even more noteworthy than the downtrend in the number of attacks that began in mid-June is the fact that this favorable trend persisted during the most recent two weeks (see page 3 of the Petraeus slides). The militants/insurgents/terrorists have known for as long as have we when Petraeus would be testifying; as well, they have been aware of the doubts in the minds of many Americans regarding the efficacy of the surge. Had they staged a sharply larger number of attacks during the fortnight before the General’s testimony, the rug would have been pulled out from under Petraeus, the doubters would have claimed to have been prescient, and the calls for an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would have intensified. Except for the shouting, it would have been all over.
Now that the surge’s success is undeniable, the advocates of rapid withdrawal must reformulate their argument. Referring to other times during which the security situation showed improvement, they can correctly point out that these promising episodes were short-lived and assert that history will repeat itself. To be credible, this assertion would have to take into account at least two important differences: first, that our military strategy—counter-insurgency—is fundamentally different, and, second, that al-Qaeda has outworn its welcome in Anbar province and elsewhere.
Those who favor rapid withdrawal can also correctly argue that the political progress that was supposed to result from a successful surge is nearly or totally absent. This observation, with which I am in complete agreement, leads to the question which neither General Petraeus nor Ambassador Crocker could satisfactorily answer: even assuming further improvements in the security situation, why should it be believed that the Iraqis will reach a political settlement? And if there is little or no likelihood of such a settlement, why should we stay in Iraq a day longer than is required to safely extricate our soldiers and marines? Why should Americans suffer violence if Iraqis are unable eliminate violence from their dealings with each other?
I have no more confidence in the intentions and abilities of the current Iraqi government than the next man. Therefore, if my analysis of the situation were to take into account only those considerations I have already noted, I would join those who are demanding an early exit. However, there are other considerations, and they persuade me to support the course described by General Petraeus.
The weakness—the critical weakness—of the case argued by the early-exiters is that it fails to consider the possible—and, perhaps, the probable—consequences of a rapid departure. The creation of a power vacuum into which Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Middle East states would be drawn and genocide are two of the most obvious and gravest of these possible consequences. I am unaware of a single instance of an advocate of rapid withdrawal addressing these critical questions. I may disagree with them, but I could respect the views of those (if I could find them) who, having considered and openly admitted the existence of these risks, have decided they are worth taking in return for saving American lives. To favor an early exit without considering the possible consequences is, in my view, irresponsible—especially for politicians.
Very solid thinking, Marc. Note, too, the WSJ article today on the American Army establishing a new U.S. base on the Iraqi/Irani border: better late than never, and wish it were USMC instead of Army, but hey! if Rangers are included at the new base then the Marines can take a well-deserved rest. If we also set up another U.S. base on the Turkey/Iraqi border, then we can watch Iraq dissolve into three new states, sometime in 2008-09: a free Kurdistan in the north, a fanatical Shi’istan in the south, and a power grab by Syria and Jordan for central Sunnistan.
A free Kurdistan makes the entire OIF effort worthwhile; the Iraqi capital captured in 23 days; Hussein later caught by American troops, and then convicted and hung by his countrymen; and the entire Arab world put on notice about the UN’s annual Arab Development Report (800 years of continuing intellectual stagnation).
A free Kurdistan; almost ninety years late, but what a wonderful way to begin a new century: another thug gone, another people free.
If, as seems to be happening, Iraqi society is rebuilding itself from the ground up, we cannot predict what the outcome will be with certainty. However, the possibility is there for an outcome which may be positive. Kurdistan is the example. Anbaristan is a possibility. If these can serve as anchors to give confidence and security to minority ethnic/religious groups in Iraq, the Iraqis may come up with a government that they can agree upon.
Why should this possible outcome be foreclosed by withdrawal?
The costs are high, and each person lost or injured is a piece of our hearts, but for a war that has gone on for six years, we have, in military terms, an unbelievably low number of casualties. Certainly not comparable to Vietnam or Korea.
The opposition to the war has not confronted the effects of such a withdrawal. Because the effects will be horrible. But the opposition does not care. Just as it did not care in Vietnam.
As for the attacks on Petraeus, here is a link to a .pdf (861 kb) of the ad:
http://pol.moveon.org/content/pac/pdfs/PetraeusNYTad.pdf
And here is an op-ed from the Boston Globe which decrys the ad:
PETER D. FEAVER: MoveOn’s McCarthy moment
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/11/moveons_mccarthy_moment
I wonder if in WWII anyone in the U.S. ever even thought about the possibility of “withdrawing” from Europe or the Pacific – or for that matter, even somewhere like, say, India? If so, I can find no evidence of it in my long and varied studies of that war.
In WWII there was discussion of whether to go direct to Japan or via the Phillipines or whether to invade Europe through France, Italy, or the Balkans, but it was all focused on the best way to the ultimate victory.
Those who advocate “withdrawal” as an objective simply are advocating defeat, PERIOD. They offer no alternative to Operation Iraqi Freedom, except possibly sending more forces to Afghanistan to “get Bin Laden.” Aside from being strategically pointless at best, this is no more than a reflection of their belief that we are not at war bu instead need to trerat the attacks of 9/11/01 as – and only as – a law enforcement matter.
The critics of OIF are not saying “Pull out of Iraq and go into Iran, that is where the action really is.” Nor are they saying “Why get involved. Issue ultimatims to those people and if they don’t do what we want nuke them off the face of the planet.” (although that would be the ultimate result). Their approach is not “Win the war by invading Normandy instead of the Balkans.” It is rather “Let the Nazis have Europe.”
The “Withdraw!” crowd has no real answer to “And then what?” Or at least, no answer they will admit.
I think that (at least some of) the withdrawal crowd does have an answer, but is unwilling to say it. Why not? Because the members of the crowd believe that their re-election is more important than the national interest. So instead of saying what the consequences of withdrawal would be, they assert that Bush is setting up the Dems (assuming they win the presidency) for the catastrophe that will follow after they pull out of Iraq.
Note that during the Petraeus/Crocker hearings, no Representative or Senator expressed concern about what would happen after an early exit. Disgusting and shameful.
I agree with you that rapid withdrawal is irresponsible. I feel quite odd about unfriendly public opinion to this war from the beginning. The media, lawyers, and multinational NGOs have been launching humiliation campaigns to the Bush administration.
In reality, even Brookings senior fellows, Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, admit progress by surge.
Media and Jurists’ Humiliation to the Iraq War and the War on Terror
Is the UN More Legitimate than the US?
I’ve been calling for just such considerations from those who favor a rapid withdrawal of our forces from Iraq for nearly a year, Marc, both at my place as well as at Dean’s World and OTB (where the audience is much larger). The silence is deafening.
However they complain about the Administration’s rosy scenarios they seem to be just as committed to rosy scenarios of their own.
THE ENEMY’S LOSING
FACTS ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ
By AMIR TAHERI
NY Post
September 14, 2007
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09142007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_enemys_losing.htm?page=0
“Here are some other facts on how the enemy is doing right now:
The main Arab Sunni armed groups (including the 1920 Brigade and the Islamic Army of Iraq) have switched sides, agreeing to work with the Iraqi government against foreign terrorists.
The Sunni Arab tribal sheiks in once-unruly Anbar province have decided to come off the fence and take up arms against al Qaeda, even if this means collaborating with the Americans.
On the Shiite side, Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army to lay down arms for six months. He made that decision after dozens of his commanders, former members of Saddam’s Republican Guards, had switched to the government side.
Sadr also saw the writing on the wall after his gunmen tried to seize power in Karbala, Najaf, Wassit, Misan, Dhiqar and Qaddisiyah – and failed.
Another Iranian-controlled Shiite group, known as the Thar Allah (God’s Revenge), has also been crippled, with dozens dead and scores captured by the new Iraqi army.
The British withdrawal from Basra did not lead to a takeover by Tehran’s agents, although both Mahdi Army and Thar Allah did test the waters. Instead, the Iraqi army and police, with support from nationalist Shiite groups such as Fadila (Virtue) and the Islamic Council of Iraq, control Iraq’s second largest city. The Basra Bloodbath predicted by some pundits has not materialized.
The various Sunni and Shiite blocs that had withdrawn from the Iraqi parliament during its summer recess have ended their boycott.
Prime Minister Maliki’s coalition has won a new mandate with the reaffirmation of support by three blocs of parties that account for 85 percent of the seats in the parliament. It is unveiling a full legislative program – tackling such key issues as sharing oil revenues, municipal elections and federalism – as the parliament prepares for a new session.
Most Arab states have ended their boycott of new Iraq and dispatched diplomatic missions to Baghdad to open embassies. France has also ended its boycott and sent Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner to Baghdad with a message of support.
At a “National Reconciliation Conference” in Redwaniyah, religious leaders of Arab Sunni and Shiite communities denounced sectarianism and pledged support for new Iraq.
Al Qaeda has had to postpone its promise of announcing the creation of the so-called Islamic Emirate of Iraq on three occasions. Last October, al Qaeda promised to issue a new currency for its putative “Islamic emirate” and name a “Governing Council.” Those fantasies had to be shelved as it lost safe havens in Anbar, Diyala and Salahuddin provinces.
Judging by the pro-terror buzz in cyberspace, al Qaeda is facing recruitment problems. One al Qaeda guru, using the nom de guerre of Sheikh Bassir al-Najdi, recently warned that the organization was unable to replace “lost martyrs” in Iraq.
The buzz in pro-terrorist circles is that a whole generation of jihadists has been wiped out. The funeral industry in the Arab countries where most jihadists originate is booming.
The number of defectors from al Qaeda is rising. In Saudi Arabia alone, scores of former jihadists in Iraq have surrendered to the authorities and joined a rehabilitation program. Last month, three of them (Saleh al-Quayri, Ahmad Al-Shayi and Saddam al-Qassabi) kept TV audiences captive with accounts of how al Qaeda is losing in Iraq.
Inside Iraq, al Qaeda has not been able to replace at least five key commanders killed or captured in the past six months.”
Read it all.
The latest complaint is that Pres Bush says he is committing future U.S. presidents to extended involvment in Iraq. The Democrats are furious.
I wonder if Pres Truman said “Damn that Roosevelt! Now I have all those troops in Germany and Japan to worry about!”
Or did Pres Eisenhower say the same thing about our troops in Germany, Japan … and Korea?
And did Pres Kennedy say that about our troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, before he sent our troops into Vietnam, Thailand, and Laos?
And every President since say that about his precessors? Well, Pres Nixon may well have said that about Vietnam – and we know how that turned out. But for the most part, they thought, if not actually said “Thank God and my predecessors that we have our troops there instead of our enemies haviong them there!” Even President Clinton no doubt came to realize that, as he deployed our military to what would become a total of more that 100 countries.
But now, this new crowd thinks that winning a war and ending up with a new ally and a new base of operations in a critical strategic location represents not a great victory and a basis for future success but instead a “problem.” And does anyopne think our enemies -all our enemies – don’t note this attitude?
These are people who call themslves leaders? Not only disgusting but incredible, simply, utterly, incredible….
[...] I don’t think that’s a plan that’s going to gain a lot of traction. Blog-friend Marc Schulman put it very succinctly in a recent post: The weakness—the critical weakness—of the case argued by the early-exiters [...]
Hi,
Thought this news might be of some interest to your readers:
NEW moveon.org TV ad coming out on Monday Sept 17th…basically calling President Bush a traitor.
Catch it here:
MoveOn.org TV Ad
For general david betray us fans or not:
General David Betray Us
Have a great weekend!
Steve
Great site – keep it up! Would you like to do a Link Exchange with The Internet Radio Network? At the IRN you can listen for free to over 30 of America’s top Talk Shows via FREE STREAMING AUDIO! Check it out, there’s something for everyone!!
http://netradionetwork.com
rich- isn’t that the guy who said that Iran was making jews wear nazi-type id badges?
Look, you guys have held out day to day on this war. I hope for your sake it continues to get better.
But rememebr the 05 elections? Prager, jacoby, Steyn and others gloated. many a liberal comunist asked “was bush right?”
but then the violence returned.
I hope the gains illustrated by gen petreaus continue. But if they don’t, and the violence escalates and the security deteriorates, then you will have to admit it is time for a complete withdrawl sans victory.
If the gains described by patreaus are reasons to stay the course, the erasure of those gains surely means we must leave.
I fear that this victory will, like the previous one, be fleeting.
[...] Thoughts on Iraq Begging the Question [...]
Great Info…
Thanks for sharing this valuable info, I really enjoyed checking on it. best…..