The Surge: Point Counter-Point

Loyal reader Paul Hogue posted an interesting comment relating to my entry from yesterday:

From Scripps-Howard columnist Ann McFeatters' Monday Jan 29 '07 column:When asked about the possibility that Iraq may refuse to be a U.S. ally, Cheney insisted that won't happen and retorted, “That we don't have the stomach for the fight. That's the biggest threat.”Cheney's statement is amazing. Americans have given the administration a virtual blank check for four years in Iraq. The price tag has included the loss of 3,000 sons and daughters, the disabling of thousands more, the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars and lost prestige around the globe.No stomach for the fight?That's right Ann...no stomach for the fight. Courtesy of folks like yourselves who've been telling us all for 3 years how hopeless and lost this fight is and eschewing any and all attempts at and calls for any sort of reasonable perspective about the larger picture.Thank you Professor Stoker for the historical perspective and to Sim for taking the opportunity to discuss it.

Thanks, Paul for your comment and your continued readership. You are most welcome with regard to the post. However, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to your comment by elaborating on Stoker's article and my position with regard to the surge debate:

Let's not lay all of the blame at the feet of a particularly unhelpful media. The Administration at least partially finds itself in this position because it did not do its due diligence in building the case for the war and making clear to the American public the realistic stakes and costs associated with its conduct. It was politically expedient to speak of kisses and candies and oil revenues paying for things at the same time that it didn't send enough troops, didn't take and hold territory and chose not to engage the Battle of Baghdad (which we are now preparing to fight some four years later, it would appear).

I also have some problem with the notion that we, as a nation, have no stomach for a fight which, in fact, has left 18,000 young men and women permanently scarred. That on top of the 3000 deaths. No small drop in the bucket.

But it is clear to me that there is a misalignment between the requirements needed to win this fight and the American public's appetite in meeting them. Some of the blame clearly rests with a media that after cheerleading during the run-up, immediately turned adversarial once the conflict began. Some of the blame rests with an American public which has a "microwave" mentality and probably didn't appreciate the downside risks. But most of the blame must rest with Bush and his team. Not only did they not build a solid foundation for public support, their incompetence in prematurely proclaiming victory (I shuddered during that aircraft carrier moment because I knew that another shoe was yet to fall) and in the nation-building phase have not inspired confidence as to the wisdom of the mission nor in the quality of its execution.

Now we find ourselves in the worst of all possible worlds: having victory within our grasp if only we had the intestinal fortitude to stay. But we don't have the cajones because political support has almost completely collapsed. At the end of the day, George W. Bush has only George W. Bush to blame. Although it pains me greatly to say it, the only viable strategy is to withdraw in some manner which provides the Iraqis with the best chance for success and to hope that our exit will relieve some pressure from the situation. The alternative is sending more of our kids into harm's way without sufficient backing at home and that should never be something we ponder.

Non-binding resolutions against the surge already have strong bipartisan support. Should they pass, this nation will find itself hamstrung in a way that it hasn't been since Vietnam. Imagine newspaper headlines in Amman, Cairo, Riyadh, London, Paris and Berlin. What credibility would American-style democracy have when an embattled president simply exercises fiat power to pursue a military adventure that many around the world believe is tied to crass concerns (Halliburton, Big Oil, PNAC, etc.)? Bush's Democracy Project, a worthwhile endeavor, is already on the rocks. The perceived hypocrisy of "defying" Congress would almost certainly doom it. What impact would this have on the anti-war movement? I think it is fair to say that the scattered protests would turn to a cacophony. What would become of our political culture? You can be sure that the polarization we have seen to-date is nothing compared to what we are about to see. What impact would this have on our troops on the ground? Not only would the insurgents and meddlers like Iran be emboldened by the decaying political support on the homefront, one can imagine that US soldiers might be operating in an environment in which funding for their activities would be held hostage by Paygo schemes, acrimonious tax battles, etc. What impact would this have on our foreign policy? Already viewed as a lame-duck, Bush would be further weakened in dealing with Iran and North Korea and would have little muscle to stand up to challengers like Russia and China who seek to take advantage of the power vacuum created by the US being pinned down in the Middle East.

A withdrawal from Iraq is certainly not a promising notion. Civil war, ethnic violence, the possible influx of terrorists and terrorist training camps, increased influence of Iran, a regional Sunni-Shi'ite struggle, etc are all things to consider. But many of these outcomes can be managed and influenced from afar. The question is whether a strategic retreat has the best potential to defuse the bigger bills that are to come due and to allow us greater freedom of action in addressing the myriad other foreign policy challenges that await. There are no easy answers. And while one can take solace in the fact that insurgencies typically fail, I wouldn't bet on this one failing given the dearth of political support on the homefront and the impending political paralysis that will likely ensue if the President plows forward. Buckle up. We're about to hit a serious pocket of turbulence.