“the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory.” –george orwell
i’ve said previously that rep. murtha should not be subject to personal attacks on his reputation and character just because he dared to question the bush administration’s iraq strategy. i still believe that. however, there are some major flaws in his public statements and his suggestion for immediate troop withdrawal from iraq, as bill kristol and robert kagan point out in this weekly standard article.
according to that article:
Murtha, of course, claims that the U.S. occupation is the primary problem in Iraq and that “our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence.” This is nonsense. For many months now, the insurgents have been shifting their attacks away from U.S. and coalition forces and directing them at Iraqis instead. Iraqis now make up the overwhelming majority of casualties resulting from insurgent attacks. This shift is evidence not only of the effectiveness of our protective measures, but also of the growing vitality of the Iraqi political process, which the insurgents, according to their own statements, fear and hate more than the U.S. military presence. As for the rise in the number of “incidents” against U.S. forces to which Murtha points, those numbers do not distinguish between incidents initiated by insurgents and those initiated by Americans. Recent U.S. operations have generated a large number of incidents, indeed–almost all of them supporting the coalition’s goals and harming the insurgents.
there are some areas where our iraq strategy needs to be improved. i don’t think it is unreasonable to suggest such a thing. but as kagan and kristol point out, we can succeed in iraq if we have the patience to see the mission to completion. at this point, i can’t say i believe that the american people are convinced that we can win in iraq. that’s what the polls seem to suggest. it is discouraging to me, as i’m sure it is to many other americans, that complete victory in iraq may take longer than we thought that it would.
an article by james fallows in the current atlantic monthly has a sobering look at post-war iraq strategy. the following quotes are from that article.
Let me suggest a standard for judging endgame strategies in Iraq, given the commitment the United States has already made. It begins with the recognition that even if it were possible to rebuild and fully democratize Iraq, as a matter of political reality the United States will not stay to see it through. (In Japan, Germany, and South Korea we did see it through. But while there were postwar difficulties in all those countries, none had an insurgency aimed at Americans.) But perhaps we could stay long enough to meet a more modest standard.
What is needed for an honorable departure is, at a minimum, a country that will not go to war with itself, and citizens who will not turn to large-scale murder. This requires Iraqi security forces that are working on a couple of levels: a national army strong enough to deter militias from any region and loyal enough to the new Iraq to resist becoming the tool of any faction; policemen who are sufficiently competent, brave, and honest to keep civilians safe. If the United States leaves Iraq knowing that non-American forces are sufficient to keep order, it can leave with a clear conscienceno matter what might happen a year or two later.
the whole article is brilliant. it’s worth getting a trial subscription to read more than the provided excerpt. the idea is that in order to get the iraqi army to the level of readiness it needs to keep the peace in iraq, it will require a longer commitment than the american people will support. unfortunately, i think this analysis is dead-on. the polls are already bruising the president on the iraq war. while i don’t believe any president should navigate by polls, i’m not sure that this war can succeed without the support of the american people. timetables are misguided, as i’ve said before, but the bush administration will continue to lose support for the war unless they can point to successful operations that resonate with the non-politicos in this country.
for the non-political blog post, please scroll down and enjoy the pandas. 🙂