Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Iraq is Back: The Surge Debate Renewed
Iraq is back on the official news cycle radar screen. Which makes a certain sense if you're GOP leaning since its really the only thing McCain is running on. And he's gone national last week, his remarks at campaign stops clearly now directed at Clinton and Obama, increasingly mostly the latter. The Washington Times (cough! cough! Moonie owned!) passed on this journalistic nugget today about the military having "trepidations" about Obama as Commander-in-Chief. OK, well it turns out they were speaking to retired military guys, and one of them was actually endorsing Obama. But they did find a retired USAF General who said that he knew "many" other retired brass who "(w)ere very concerned about his apparent lack of understanding on the threat of radical Islam to the United States. " BTW, he also happens to be a pro-Iraq War commentator and analyst for Fox News. Still, it shows one attack that the GOP are floating as trial balloons at the start of the campaign that we'll likely continue to see in coming months.
Another Iraq story that has resurfaced in the last week is the one where Democratic candidates are blind to the successes in Iraq. This piece by Mark Bowden in the Inky is typical of the genre. There's alot more to say about this topic than the Times hack piece above, but the slant still leans to McCain. I think Democrats do mostly keep the message to 'pulling out the troops' and not acknowledging the GOP version of current affairs in Iraq, but contrary to Bowden's view, they are changing the message in subtle yet crucial ways. Sure, they're both still trying to win election by a Dem base that is universally against the war, but each of their positions have been carefully vetted to hedge the bets. All the "I'll pull the troops out in 60 days of becoming President" sound bites have significant caveats such as depending on the situation in Iraq on the ground; based on military, diplomatic, or civillian contractor safety; or any perceived international or terror group threat. Those are alot of potential changes that could slow the pullout of US troops, and all of them hinge on conditions in Iraq.
Contrary to that however, AM talk radio has been full of the typical language of 'surrender' positions (e.g. femmy, pinko, wimp) of Dems and the 'victory' position (e.g. manly, gunslinger, courageous) of McCain and Company who support the surge. And by all statistical metrics the surge does seem to have worked. Deaths of troops, security folks and Iraqi civillians are down. But how much of that is actually US doing? And how long will this last? These are questions that even McCain acknowledges can make or break his run.
The fact is the successes of the surge will not lead to the 'Victory' the dittoheads envision. Regardless of when we finally leave Iraq, I can guarantee they'll be no surrender ceremonies, ticker-tape troop parades down Broadway, nor any chants of "USA! USA! USA!" Yes, things are better than they were at the moment, but it can be argued that little of that is due to our specific policies. Successful ethnic cleansing attacks and temporary arrangements between well-armed conflicting sects have created a lull. And indeed our current military leaders don't think that all of this progress is sustainable or inevitable. Sadr just called another Mahdi Army truce, which for him is wise since doing so keeps US pressure off of him, and he's already succeeded in marginalizing Sunni Baghdadis to de-populated ghettos and getting his minions established in power positions. Also from Slate.com, Mike Kinsley argues that the surge is in fact not working, rather that the US has so lowered its expectations for success to make it so.
Still, for McCain, Obama, and Clinton, none of the rhetoric of 'supporting the surge' may mean much very soon anyway. . . because its over.
Troops are being rotated home and there are no combat brigades replacing them. . . mainly because THERE ARE NONE available to do so. The surge was our last gasp. The Army and Marines are officially out of people to send to Iraq. With our other world commitments, rotation times that have already been increased to the breaking point, a fleeing junior officer corps, and increasingly-lame standards regarding violent criminals and lower IQ recruits, we simply can't maintain the numbers. So before November there will be 100-130,000 troops in Iraq. These are pre-surge or lower figures. With so much still in flux there are any number of outcomes that our president will not have a whole lot of say in determining. Stump speeches may win elections, but they don't really solve intractable world problems.
But I do agree with Mark Bowden about one thing: the candidates' messages should change. I'd be willing to accept something even resembling the truth. But that would mean it would have to sound something like this:
"The last administration misled our nation into a costly and unnecesessary war that distracted our attention from real problems both at home and abroad. The Iraq war planners displayed a combination of ignorance, hubris, and flawed ideological and tactical orthodoxy that has cost numerous lives and diminished our nation's image and trustworthiness for decades to come. Nevertheless, I must admit that we have a responsibilty to the country that we destabilized. As Colin Powell was reputed to have said of Iraq to GW Bush on the eve of the invasion, "its the Pottery Barn rule: If you break it, you bought it." Until Iraq is a reasonably stable nation we must continue to garrison troops there, knowing that they will be in harm's way and some will not come home. This is the course that the Bush administration and its pro-war supporters have navigated for us, and one we must sadly continue to chart as we attempt to undo the damage that has been done to us, and in our names, for the past eight years."
Iraq is back on the official news cycle radar screen. Which makes a certain sense if you're GOP leaning since its really the only thing McCain is running on. And he's gone national last week, his remarks at campaign stops clearly now directed at Clinton and Obama, increasingly mostly the latter. The Washington Times (cough! cough! Moonie owned!) passed on this journalistic nugget today about the military having "trepidations" about Obama as Commander-in-Chief. OK, well it turns out they were speaking to retired military guys, and one of them was actually endorsing Obama. But they did find a retired USAF General who said that he knew "many" other retired brass who "(w)ere very concerned about his apparent lack of understanding on the threat of radical Islam to the United States. " BTW, he also happens to be a pro-Iraq War commentator and analyst for Fox News. Still, it shows one attack that the GOP are floating as trial balloons at the start of the campaign that we'll likely continue to see in coming months.
Another Iraq story that has resurfaced in the last week is the one where Democratic candidates are blind to the successes in Iraq. This piece by Mark Bowden in the Inky is typical of the genre. There's alot more to say about this topic than the Times hack piece above, but the slant still leans to McCain. I think Democrats do mostly keep the message to 'pulling out the troops' and not acknowledging the GOP version of current affairs in Iraq, but contrary to Bowden's view, they are changing the message in subtle yet crucial ways. Sure, they're both still trying to win election by a Dem base that is universally against the war, but each of their positions have been carefully vetted to hedge the bets. All the "I'll pull the troops out in 60 days of becoming President" sound bites have significant caveats such as depending on the situation in Iraq on the ground; based on military, diplomatic, or civillian contractor safety; or any perceived international or terror group threat. Those are alot of potential changes that could slow the pullout of US troops, and all of them hinge on conditions in Iraq.
Contrary to that however, AM talk radio has been full of the typical language of 'surrender' positions (e.g. femmy, pinko, wimp) of Dems and the 'victory' position (e.g. manly, gunslinger, courageous) of McCain and Company who support the surge. And by all statistical metrics the surge does seem to have worked. Deaths of troops, security folks and Iraqi civillians are down. But how much of that is actually US doing? And how long will this last? These are questions that even McCain acknowledges can make or break his run.
The fact is the successes of the surge will not lead to the 'Victory' the dittoheads envision. Regardless of when we finally leave Iraq, I can guarantee they'll be no surrender ceremonies, ticker-tape troop parades down Broadway, nor any chants of "USA! USA! USA!" Yes, things are better than they were at the moment, but it can be argued that little of that is due to our specific policies. Successful ethnic cleansing attacks and temporary arrangements between well-armed conflicting sects have created a lull. And indeed our current military leaders don't think that all of this progress is sustainable or inevitable. Sadr just called another Mahdi Army truce, which for him is wise since doing so keeps US pressure off of him, and he's already succeeded in marginalizing Sunni Baghdadis to de-populated ghettos and getting his minions established in power positions. Also from Slate.com, Mike Kinsley argues that the surge is in fact not working, rather that the US has so lowered its expectations for success to make it so.
Still, for McCain, Obama, and Clinton, none of the rhetoric of 'supporting the surge' may mean much very soon anyway. . . because its over.
Troops are being rotated home and there are no combat brigades replacing them. . . mainly because THERE ARE NONE available to do so. The surge was our last gasp. The Army and Marines are officially out of people to send to Iraq. With our other world commitments, rotation times that have already been increased to the breaking point, a fleeing junior officer corps, and increasingly-lame standards regarding violent criminals and lower IQ recruits, we simply can't maintain the numbers. So before November there will be 100-130,000 troops in Iraq. These are pre-surge or lower figures. With so much still in flux there are any number of outcomes that our president will not have a whole lot of say in determining. Stump speeches may win elections, but they don't really solve intractable world problems.
But I do agree with Mark Bowden about one thing: the candidates' messages should change. I'd be willing to accept something even resembling the truth. But that would mean it would have to sound something like this:
"The last administration misled our nation into a costly and unnecesessary war that distracted our attention from real problems both at home and abroad. The Iraq war planners displayed a combination of ignorance, hubris, and flawed ideological and tactical orthodoxy that has cost numerous lives and diminished our nation's image and trustworthiness for decades to come. Nevertheless, I must admit that we have a responsibilty to the country that we destabilized. As Colin Powell was reputed to have said of Iraq to GW Bush on the eve of the invasion, "its the Pottery Barn rule: If you break it, you bought it." Until Iraq is a reasonably stable nation we must continue to garrison troops there, knowing that they will be in harm's way and some will not come home. This is the course that the Bush administration and its pro-war supporters have navigated for us, and one we must sadly continue to chart as we attempt to undo the damage that has been done to us, and in our names, for the past eight years."
Comments:
Post a Comment
