Iraq is a quagmire, and that leaves little room for serious debate about what the US interests really are in the Middle East. Everything distills to either “pull the troops out” or “add more troops to win it.” There are a few blogs out there that dissect the real issues in blunt terms that reflect the actual reality of the precarious position of not only our military, our foreign policy and our role in the middle east and a few of them are Belgravia Dispatch and Juan Cole and Steven Clemons. Today’s WashingPost Op-Ed by Joe Lieberman has certainly ignited the blogsphere to rehash arguments that have been hashed and hashed and hashed.
I don’t seem much point in the relentless criticisms levied against those that supported the war in the first place. It’s not that I don’t agree that the war hawks, neocons and jingoistic supporters tragically levelled treasonous accusations towards early opponents, and that some payback is due. It’s just that it’s more apparent now that this administration just doesn’t care what anyone thinks. They don’t care what the American public thinks, the congress thinks, the military thinks, the Iraqis think and the rest of the world. They just don’t care. And when you strip away all the theater that accompanies politics, and realize that facts, science, expert advice and military history all have been discarded by this administration, you end with the realization that there is no debate about what Commander in Chief George Bush will do. Bush has said that he will not withdraw troops from Iraq. So it’s not a question of ending the occupation or escalating the occupation. The real context is whether we keep doing what we are doing now, which is to say losing, or doing something differently within the narrow confines of what Bush is willing to do, which is nothing or more troops.
The larger issue, the one that has now been aggravated by our occupation of Iraq is what to do with the Middle East. America’s addiction to a cheap oil based economy is what is ultimately driving all decisions in the region, and that is the context of the real debate. There’s no question that ultimately the Middle East will become untenable and our military occupation will end with no peace and no security in the region whether we add more troops, reduce troops or leave completely. It’s just a matter of when and how that will affect the price of oil.
Lieberman makes a different argument, he claims that Al-Qaeda will take advantage of the region should we fail in Iraq. I think we’ve already failed in Iraq. And no looming threat of Al-Qaeda exists. In many ways the problems of the Middle East are the same old problems, that gave rise to to Al-Qaeda in the first place. Lieberman talks about that long term strategy, but isn’t honest about what it means. It’s about cheap oil. But here’s his own words:
Why We Need More Troops in Iraq
By Joseph Lieberman
Friday, December 29, 2006; A27
I’ve just spent 10 days traveling in the Middle East and speaking to leaders there, all of which has made one thing clearer to me than ever: While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.
Because of the bravery of many Iraqi and coalition military personnel and the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad, the war is winnable. We and our Iraqi allies must do what is necessary to win it.
The American people are justifiably frustrated by the lack of progress, and the price paid by our heroic troops and their families has been heavy. But what is needed now, especially in Washington and Baghdad, is not despair but decisive action — and soon.
The most pressing problem we face in Iraq is not an absence of Iraqi political will or American diplomatic initiative, both of which are increasing and improving; it is a lack of basic security. As long as insurgents and death squads terrorize Baghdad, Iraq’s nascent democratic institutions cannot be expected to function, much less win the trust of the people. The fear created by gang murders and mass abductions ensures that power will continue to flow to the very thugs and extremists who have the least interest in peace and reconciliation.
This bloodshed, moreover, is not the inevitable product of ancient hatreds. It is the predictable consequence of a failure to ensure basic security and, equally important, of a conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran, which have systematically aimed to undermine Iraq’s fragile political center. By ruthlessly attacking the Shiites in particular over the past three years, al-Qaeda has sought to provoke precisely the dynamic of reciprocal violence that threatens to consume the country.
On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism.
To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces in the national government. After speaking with our military commanders and soldiers there, I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad and Anbar province — an increase that will at last allow us to establish security throughout the Iraqi capital, hold critical central neighborhoods in the city, clamp down on the insurgency and defeat al-Qaeda in that province.
In Baghdad and Ramadi, I found that it was the American colonels, even more than the generals, who were asking for more troops. In both places these soldiers showed a strong commitment to the cause of stopping the extremists. One colonel followed me out of the meeting with our military leaders in Ramadi and said with great emotion, “Sir, I regret that I did not have the chance to speak in the meeting, but I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here and we want to finish this fight. We know we can win it.”
In nearly four years of war, there have never been sufficient troops dispatched to accomplish our vital mission. The troop surge should be militarily meaningful in size, with a clearly defined mission.
More U.S. forces might not be a guarantee of success in this fight, but they are certainly its prerequisite. Just as the continuing carnage in Baghdad empowers extremists on all sides, establishing security there will open possibilities for compromise and cooperation on the Iraqi political front — possibilities that simply do not exist today because of the fear gripping all sides.
I saw firsthand evidence in Iraq of the development of a multiethnic, moderate coalition against the extremists of al-Qaeda and against the Mahdi Army, which is sponsored and armed by Iran and has inflamed the sectarian violence. We cannot abandon these brave Iraqi patriots who have stood up and fought the extremists and terrorists.
The addition of more troops must be linked to a comprehensive new military, political and economic strategy that provides security for the population so that training of Iraqi troops and the development of a democratic government can move forward.
In particular we must provide the vital breathing space for moderate Shiites and Sunnis to turn back the radicals in their communities. There are Iraqi political leaders who understand their responsibility to do this. In Anbar province we have made encouraging progress in winning over local Sunni tribal leaders in the fight against al-Qaeda and other terrorists. With more troops to support them, our forces in Anbar and their Sunni allies can achieve a major victory over al-Qaeda.
As the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria appreciate — at times, it seems, more keenly than we do — failure in Iraq would be a strategic and moral catastrophe for the United States and its allies. Radical Islamist terrorist groups, both Sunni and Shiite, would reap victories simultaneously symbolic and tangible, as Iraq became a safe haven in which to train and strengthen their foot soldiers and Iran’s terrorist agents. Hezbollah and Hamas would be greatly strengthened against their moderate opponents. One moderate Palestinian leader told me that a premature U.S. exit from Iraq would be a victory for Iran and the groups it is supporting in the region. Meanwhile, the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have bravely stood with us in the hope of a democratic future would face the killing fields.
In Iraq today we have a responsibility to do what is strategically and morally right for our nation over the long term — not what appears easier in the short term. The daily scenes of death and destruction are heartbreaking and infuriating. But there is no better strategic and moral alternative for America than standing with the moderate Iraqis until the country is stable and they can take over their security. Rather than engaging in hand-wringing, carping or calls for withdrawal, we must summon the vision, will and courage to take the difficult and decisive steps needed for success and, yes, victory in Iraq. That will greatly advance the cause of moderation and freedom throughout the Middle East and protect our security at home.
The writer is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.
