Losing the PR War, Cont.

The disappointing but not surprising international backlash over the execution of Saddam Hussein continues and expands. In the former case, US lack of sway in Baghdad and the ham-handed handling of the trial and execution impinges on one of our more promising international partnerships and portends continued difficulties in the developing world:

There is even criticism, from both the right and the left, of the Indian government's muted response to the execution, New Delhi's stance dictated by the increasingly close relations with the U.S., exemplified by the controversial nuclear co-operation agreement.If India is a key barometer of the non-Western world, and it often is, Saddam's hanging will come to haunt George W. Bush.

In the latter, "a few drugged-up good timers" may be the only ones out protesting, but our good pals in "Old" Europe are making hay by turning the debacle into a referendum on the "barbarous" American practice of using the death penalty.

Rome lit up the arches of its ancient Colosseum at dusk on Saturday to protest against the death penalty after Saddam Hussein's hanging, with the mayor calling it the city's symbol to the world for human rights..."The Colosseum originally was a place of persecution and unspeakable violence," Mayor Walter Veltroni said. "But now it is a symbol of peace and reconciliation." The hanging of the former Iraqi dictator has touched a nerve in Italy, setting off a wave of appeals against the death penalty and prompting a hunger strike from Radical Party leader Marco Pannella, who thanked the mayor from his hospital bed for lighting up the Colosseum.

These developments say a great deal about the status of the American project in Iraq. Our political position is so weakend by this albatross that there is no choice but to leave. And day by day, the international bullseye on the US grows larger as a result of not acknowledging this fact. Bush's stubborness in facing the music assures us of being the punchline to ill-premised witticisms emanating from the morally bankrupt and largely ignorant peanut gallery. I never said we should leave because we are losing the battle on the ground or that our troops don't have good morale, strong capabilities or inflict more damage on the enemy than is inflicted upon them. What I said is that there is no longer the political will to win this war. These are two very different issues.

Congress, the media, our European and Middle Eastern allies, the Maliki government, our enemies and many others are hostile to our presence in Iraq and the president's policies because it is in their crass self-interest to be so. Global public opinion is largely swayed by these interests and in many cases doesn't know any better. In the face of this reality, the war is lost. As in Vietnam, we ceded not one acre of territory to the enemy in battle. But the PR war and the political battle have left this administration thoroughly trounced. It's over, and Bush and a few stragglers are the only ones who don't recognize it.

The longer this nation refuses to acknowledge this reality, the deeper the hole we dig in terms of our credibility and our ability to influence events elsewhere. As I suggested in my original post on this subject, our inability to shape events with regard to this project suggests that there is nothing to win, and consequently, no reason to stay. I still believe Iraq was a just war and that the policy of ousting Saddam and planting the seeds of democracy in that country was a noble endeavor. I do believe we had it within our grasp to succeed. But the bumbling of this administration in the aftermath of the invasion gave rise to the coalition of forces which ultimately have cleaned our clocks on the political front. Staying gains us nothing. Leaving at least has the advantage of removing our folks from harm's way and gives us the chance to change the subject. And changing the subject is critical to striking a reasonable balance between hard power (military) and soft power (economics, culture, international institutions and public diplomacy). That means winning the War on Terror, repairing damaged relationships and reclaiming our status as Madeleine Albright's "indispensible nation."

While urging withdrawal may seem weak and spineless to some, it is quite the opposite. It is bold in terms of facing up to a hard reality. It stings and it is in some respects, unfair. But it is; unfortunately, the truth.