It wasn’t supposed to be like this. We were supposed to topple Saddam, and Iraq would revert to its inner Edenic paradise. Alas, four years later, the slog continues. I hate to play Harry-Know-It-All, but while I didn’t expect the battle for Iraq to be this hard, I knew the larger war would be seemingly endless, especially for a society with such a short attention span.
At the very same time that President Bush was strolling about the deck of an aircraft carrier, I was reading Thomas P.M. Barnett’s “The Pentagon’s New Map.” One concept in that book leapt out at me as especially jarring while President Bush was declaring victory. I’m paraphrasing, but basically Dr. Barnett counseled, “Forget about exit strategies.” For a society and a military that had enshrined the concept of the exit strategy as its very lodestar, this would obviously be tough medicine. But Dr. Barnett was right. Forget about exit strategies. Or win first, then worry about leaving. And remember – winning will possibly take years, more likely decades.
IN LOOKING AT IRAQ FOUR YEARS LATER, IT’S HELPFUL TO RECALL what Iraq was supposed to be. Iraq was going to be a demonstration project in two vital areas. First, it was going to serve as an object lesson for the world’s tyrants who intended mischief with American civilians and the global economy. In the immediate aftermath of Saddam’s tumble from power, tyrants learned this lesson well. Muammar Qadaffi, perhaps the craziest of the world’s loony dictators, sought us out so that he might join the community of civilized nations. Syria’s chinless ophthalmologist was momentarily scared straight. Obviously frightened, he told the western media that he was no Saddam Hussein.
The other lesson was to be that American hard power could usher a dysfunctional Islamic nation towards becoming a 21st century state that embraced peace, democracy and tolerance. Obviously, this part of the process has never gone well.
On the home front, there is frustration with the status of the war. Much of the blame for this rests with the White House’s communication efforts. Before the war, the White House’s public relations focused on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. While virtually everyone in the global intelligence community agreed that Iraq had WMD, the WMD’s were never the casus belli that the Bush administration made them out to be. If they were, we could have long since withdrawn from Iraq having effectively dealt with that threat.
America never realized it was in for a long war in Iraq. Whether the White House knew or not is anyone’s guess, but I for one certainly hope it did. But still, as the war dragged on, the White House, perhaps inspired by Tom Friedman, always spoke about six month increments. It still does.
FOUR YEARS IN, THE TIME HAS COME FOR THE ADMINISTRATION TO SPEAK TRUTH. Why not? It’s not like there’s much room in the polls for the President to fall.
Here’s where we stand: After four years, we know what we’re doing. The guys who know how to fight a counterinsurgency are the ones now leading the war. The Petraeus plan is basically simple, so simple that it’s a source of wonder and frustration that the White House hasn’t communicated it with more clarity to an anxious public.
For any government to be legitimate, it has to have a monopoly on violence. That means that all non-state actors that intend violence or threaten violence have to be disbanded or, if necessary, destroyed. The surge of troops into Baghdad will accomplish this. Another thing that the administration has poorly communicated is that the surge will effectively triple the fighting complement of American troops in Baghdad.
Once we deal with the sectarian militias, insurgents and Al Qaeda fighters who have made Baghdad such a dangerous place, that doesn’t mean peace will instantly break out all over Iraq. But it does mean that Iraq’s central government in Baghdad will have time to put down roots and strengthen its institutions. It will have the breathing space necessary to become legitimate. After it and its military are duly strengthened, the government will be able to enforce the rule of law throughout Iraq.
A relevant example from our own history springs to mind as a helpful guidepost. Early in his administration, Andrew Jackson had to deal with Nullification Crisis where South Carolina vowed to stop paying the taxes that it didn’t feel like paying. Jackson promised to deal with this situation with a massive military response. Because he was Andrew Jackson and the central government had grown strong over the past 30 years, the crisis quickly passed. Iraq needs time to develop its institutions. And its Andrew Jacksons.
LASTLY, IRAQ IS BUT ONE FRONT IN THE WAR on radical Islam. Is the fight hard? Of course. But lamenting its difficulty makes about as much sense as ruing the challenge of invading Normandy. The war against Radical Islam is one of necessity, not one of choice. It’s been going on since 1979, and we got a taste of what a defensive posture will bring us on 9/11. Just a taste.
One can argue that Iraq was an unwise place to continue the war, just as one could have argued after D-Day that landing on Normandy was a poor strategic decision. At this point, such lamentations have little relevance. The war has begun, the battle is afoot – there is no undoing decisions that were made in 2003.
There is also no undoing all of the mistakes that the administration, the congress, the military, the State Department, and the Iraqi government have made since 2003. I personally believe that most of the mistakes that were made were made in good faith. War is always tough and inscrutable, and this is a new kind of war with a new kind of enemy. The fact that it took the administration and the military time to figure out the best way to proceed isn’t surprising. Besides, they’re way ahead of our member of Congress who still can’t tell the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite.
But even if one inclines to take the dimmer view of Bush and company, that shouldn’t diminish the importance of the fight. We have to win this battle. And the next one, and the one after that.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.