George Bush Admit He's Made A Mistake?
Not gonna happen. But George McGovern and his son are still right:
We were early opponents of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Nonetheless, once American forces were committed, we hoped that our concerns would be proved wrong. That has not been the case.
The United States must now begin an orderly withdrawal of American forces from this mistaken foreign venture.
The justification for the war was based on false or falsified information. What had been initially characterized by the Bush administration as an uncomplicated military operation has turned into a violent quagmire. America's leaders underestimated not only the insurgency, but also the deep-rooted ethnic divisions in Iraqi society.
There are no clear answers from the administration or Congress on how long U.S. forces will need to stay in Iraq, what the anticipated costs in human life and treasure will be, or even what would constitute success.
Instead, many U.S. policy makers seem resigned to an open-ended occupation. The former deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz has told Congress that America will be there for at least another 10 years. It is common to hear even some who voted against the war say, "Now that we're there, we have no choice but to stay."
We very much disagree. Calls to maintain the status quo echo the same rationale used to keep American forces in Vietnam. To those who contend that America would weaken its credibility if it withdrew, we say that the standing of the United States would greatly improve if it demonstrated the good judgment to terminate an unwise course.
The continuing U.S. presence in Iraq feeds the insurgency and gives the insurgents a certain legitimacy in the eyes of much of the world. Americans know from their own history that armies of occupation are seldom welcome.
There have been elections in Iraq, and yet it remains unclear whether the different political, ethnic, and religious factions want to work together.
One thing, however, is clear: Washington cannot determine Iraq's destiny. It doesn't matter how many times Condoleezza Rice or Donald Rumsfeld visit. It doesn't matter how many soldiers America deploys. Iraq's myriad factions themselves must display the political will to demand a system of government that respects the country's diversity.
There are no easy answers in Iraq. But we are convinced that the United States should now set a dramatically different course - one that anticipates U.S. military withdrawal sooner rather than later. America should begin the discussions now as to how it can bring its troops home.
The United States should accelerate and pay for the training of Iraqi security forces with the help of Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab allies. America can begin drawing down its forces to coincide with the number of trained Iraqi forces. By that measure, 30,000 U.S. troops should be brought home now.
My opinion, like many people's, is that we broke it, we have to stay and fix it. But, how will it be "better" if we stay?
One would do well to examine the history of US occupations of Japan and Germany after WW2. Americans remained for years after near-total annihilation of the infrastructure of entire nations; just like in Iraq, we had a hand in rebuilding the nations for their new management. Though Iraq is a "restricted" war, in which great care is taken to let the "innocent" live, there is precedent. Unlike Vietnam, there is no outside influence opposing us which is clearly identified with another nation; China sent perhaps a million to die in Vietnam.
Thus, Iraq is flatly not Vietnam, despite efforts of some to suggest so. Though, at this point, I think perhaps Saddam's death was all that was necessary to delay the tendency of Iraq to bully others, I see one thing standing out about "withdrawal" advocates: They don't have an "exit strategy" even as they call on their political opponents to produce one.
I found a newpaper from 1946 on a stand at a gun show in Columbia, SC. The topic was Iraq, and whether we were doing enough, legally, to restore that nation after action there... it seems every generation thinks they have the solution to a wholly-new problem, which is the same old thing.
Radwaste at June 11, 2005 11:44 AM
I don't know if you can make the analogy to Japan and Germany. Both were unified countries with societies based upon discipline and order. Neither country was divided by ethnic division, as Iraq is. There was a clear and unconditional victory/surrender in both cases after a defined period of conflict. Mostly, though, the male population of both countries was decimated.
Iraq is no Vietnam, but there are similarities that should not be ignored. The American disenchantment with this war can be viewed weekly in the polling numbers.
And the responsibility for an exit strategy rests upon those who got us into this mess, but clearly all sides will have to work together.
eric at June 11, 2005 4:03 PM
PS- Last week Crid, Patrick and I had a little go-around in which I told Crid to post a reciept to Amy for flowers to a recently fallen soldiers funeral. Crid did indeed send me a copy of the reciept for a very generous memorial, so I applaud him as a man of his word.
eric at June 11, 2005 4:31 PM
Thanx Eric, you Kayak-moistened antagonist you.
Raddy, I think you understate the error of the "exit strategy" enthusiasts. The quagmire in Europe has been going on for half a century. It's only a quagmire if you didn't belong there in the first place. When you're on a blind date with a woman you loathe, every moment is a fresh annoyance. But when you're married to a woman you love, the rough parts aren't as scary... Because it's not a quagmire, it's a committment.
> Mostly, though, the male population of both
> countries was decimated.
Den Beste used to agree with Eric, worrying that our war in Iraq wasn't violent enough: Some people are going to need more time to realize that it's a new day over there.
Crid at June 11, 2005 5:17 PM
I luv ya buddy.
-urrrrppp-
Did I say we WEREN'T violent enough? I thought I was citing differences between 1945 Japan and 2005 Iraq. - urrrp-
eric at June 11, 2005 6:30 PM
I don't want an "exit strategy". I want a "victory strategy".
Any true "exit strategy" is a strategy for failure. Those who talk about "exit strategies" do so because they want us to fail. And that's why we don't have an exit strategy -- and why we shouldn't have one.
Steven Den Beste at June 11, 2005 8:34 PM
I agree with Steven!
So what's your plan, Steve?
eric at June 11, 2005 9:20 PM
It's described in the link I provided.
Let's make sure we understand something: there will be terrorist violence in Iraq for the next 25 years. That doesn't mean we're losing there. The real question is whether we're achieving the strategic objectives we require in order to win the war -- and so far, we are, and there's every reason to believe we will continue to do so, as long as we don't give up and ignominiously retreat.
The biggest danger facing us is that we'll lose heart and defeat ourselves.
Steven Den Beste at June 11, 2005 9:49 PM
I still worry that the flaw I've always seen in the Neocon theory that democratic Arab countries will make America safer, is proven to be true-that the populaces are much more hostile to America and Israel than the dictatorial leadership would ever be. Hezbollah just won the Lebanese elections, which doesn't bode well for the Prince of Darkness and others. Again, now that the die is cast, I hope to God I'm wrong.
We'll know in 2023.
Little ted at June 12, 2005 11:09 AM
If there's anything worse than racial war, it's religious war. Iraq has had both and profound resentment for the meddlers who, having shot up the place, took root rather than going home. If you don't like the term exit strategy fine. The Irish kept civil war on the go for 4 centuries. How patient are you ? And is the nature of the problem one that can be dealt with militarily ? Do you understand the cultural divide ? Hint : we're talking Babylon and Armageddon here .... local place names.
opit at June 12, 2005 6:39 PM
Sorry, Steve. Should have followed the link first. That's my idea of an honest appraisal of the difficulty of the strategy necessary for a positive outcome. If Bush had been anything like as forthright he wouldn't be taking near as much flak. How do any of us know the strategy you're talking about is the one on the table ? Please note current shortage of new enlistment in forces and missing billions for reconstruction. Hope your faith is not misplaced.
opit at June 12, 2005 8:00 PM
I find it amusing that Bush's critics among the Saddam-tolerant left like to blame him for the poor intelligence he got from the CIA.
Let's remember, boys and girls, that we've all been castrating the CIA ever since the Carter administration because they were too powerful and effective. We're left now with a token intelligence-gathering operation that's going to make big-assed mistakes routinely, so let's put the blame where it belongs, even if that means admitting that *we* were wrong to gut the CIA.
Richard Bennett at June 14, 2005 2:09 PM
Either way Richard, they can't be trusted. Let's fire them outright: They won't be missed.
Rumsfeld's moved all the action to the Pentagon anyway.
Crid at June 14, 2005 9:29 PM
Leave a comment