Today’s Hartford Courant pits the current Lieberman position in the context of the recently released Rumsfeld memo(see link for full text). The key grafs:
Despite mounting pressure from both parties for a change in direction in Iraq, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday that withdrawing American forces would be a “statement of weakness.”“In the end, there has to be an Iraqi political settlement,” Lieberman told CBS’ “Face the Nation,” “but they can’t do it without security. And they can’t achieve security if we begin to withdraw.”
So we once more have Lieberman posturing on a sunday talk show, much to the annoyance of the the lefty blogs. There are legitimate issues as to what to do about Iraq. Unfortunately what is being debated is the short term tactical issues, and not what should have been thoroughly debated long before invasion and occupation, and certainly since, which is what exactly are the US interests in the middle east?
It’s simplistic to paint the ongoing occupation as disastrous, merely by referencing the costs both economically and in lives. This occupation is disastrous on so many levels, starting with the weakening of the US Armed Forces, the stoking of Islamist terrorism, and the stature the US once had around the world. There is the real concern that without the presence of a strong US military the access to middle eastern oil becomes problematic, and thus impacts the world’s economy. These arguments float, not by Bush administration officials, but by Saudi envoys who see the economic stability of not just Saudi Arabia but Europe, tightly intertwined with whether Iraq emerges as a weakened but stable nation, or as the rogue nation that fosters the islamist fundamentalist movements. Ironically, this is the same position that Afghanistan served following the Soviet withdrawal in the 1980’s. Talk about history repeating itself.
The Saudi position, outline by Nawaf Obaid in the Washington Post, speaks to the dynamics at play between Sunni and Shiite, which is at the heart of the civil war being waged.
Over the past year, a chorus of voices has called for Saudi Arabia to protect the Sunni community in Iraq and thwart Iranian influence there. Senior Iraqi tribal and religious figures, along with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and other Arab and Muslim countries, have petitioned the Saudi leadership to provide Iraqi Sunnis with weapons and financial support. Moreover, domestic pressure to intervene is intense. Major Saudi tribal confederations, which have extremely close historical and communal ties with their counterparts in Iraq, are demanding action. They are supported by a new generation of Saudi royals in strategic government positions who are eager to see the kingdom play a more muscular role in the region. … Just a few months ago it was unthinkable that President Bush would prematurely withdraw a significant number of American troops from Iraq. But it seems possible today, and therefore the Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy. Options now include providing Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance — funding, arms and logistical support — that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years.
Lieberman is wrong to state that we shouldn’t engage with Syria and Iran over Iraq. To dismiss the reality that those nations have stakes in supporting the Shiites to the extent of co-opting the region, is exactly why the civil war is being waged. The Reagan era diplomacy team realized this in the 1980’s, and backed Saddam Hussein in the first place. The Bush administration has never explained, truthfully, why we are in Iraq. Administration critics need to shift the debate to the larger stability issues in the region, instead of the tactical will we or won’t we.
