Leadership and the Road Ahead in Iraq
The war in Iraq is finally proving to be a liability for President Bush.
I say “finally” because the facts do seem to be clear: the war was based on a false pretense (with the “Downing Street Memo”, one might even say “lie”), and the occupation was poorly (if at all) planned; this has resulted in over 1700 U.S. casualties and rising, an overstretched U.S. military now facing recruiting problems, significant charges to American taxpayers, and damaged international relations, with no relief in sight. The Left turned out to be correct about all these things; it appears that they may have an opportunity to regain their political voice as a result.
They won’t pull it off, though, because they still lack the ability to lead.The Bush administration is absolutely right in refusing to consider pulling out or setting any deadlines in Iraq. While the decision to go to war as the U.S. did was wrong, it is now historical fact. The U.S. cannot unmake the decision by pulling out any more than one could unbreak a window by retrieving his ball. The only reasonable course of action now is to remain in Iraq until it can stand on its own as a democratic society.
This does not mean that those who led the push for this war should not be held accountable, nor does it mean that the warnings of those who opposed it should be forgotten. It does mean that it must be recognized that the insurgents do not have the best interests of Iraqis in mind and do not have the support of the Iraqi people; recognizing this also means recognizing that a deadline will only embolden the enemies of the Iraqi people. It means that the U.S. is responsible for the turmoil created, and must bear the burden of reconstruction.
The anti-war left needs to recognize these facts and accept that a war is now ongoing. Given the options of leaving the Iraqis to chaos or helping establish a system of government that protects civil liberties, any liberal not blinded by hatred of the Bush administration should be supporting the war effort. If the left is truly concerned about the image of the U.S. in the international community, it should ponder the public relations consequences of leaving a war-torn country in failure versus success, even at a cost.
The left is still burdened by aging hippies who have resisted every combat operation since Vietnam– the war in Afghanistan was predicted by some to be the debacle that Iraq is becoming. Their calls to pull out are simply immature– would they ever answer differently?
Others are obviously using the issue to try to win moderate support away from the Republican party. This play may work in the short run, but to move the nation forward, a vision is required that goes beyond opposition to the status quo. This vision, so necessary to effective leadership, is what the Left still lacks.
Those in power have displayed major failures in leadership, and it’s a good time to offer a competing vision. The basic outline of this vision is already clear. It is a given that the U.S. needs to complete its mission, and that setting deadlines for withdrawl will not advance this goal. What would advance this goal is an admittance that preparations for the post-war scenario, including troop allocations, were insufficent; such an admittance would obviously have to be coupled with appropriate increases in troop levels to ensure that insurgents are not able to effectively regroup after being rooted out of an area.
Escalating the deployment in Iraq when our forces are already thinly spread may af first seem unwise, but if approached as a short-term measure, it could prove highly effective. Our current deployment levels have not yet proved effective at breaking the insurgency; while this may occur in the long run, additional troops to aid in securing the borders and performing patrols in relatively peaceful areas may help accelerate the process. There are significant limits to how much U.S. force levels can be adjusted, but the extra troops will no doubt make a difference– particularly if they are used to help secure Iraq’s long and porous borders, over which are crossing the majority of the insurgents currently fighting in Iraq. If the war in Iraq is to be won, it won’t be by winning over the Iraqis alone; the foreigners who do not care about the Iraqis must be taken out of the picture.
Active engagement with the international community, acknowledging the mistakes made in Iraq, could also help in the rebuilding effort, as they may prove willing to provide non-military support in exchange for other favors. This support would be invaluable, as military might isn’t the only key to winning the battle. A redoubled effort to deliver reliable infrastructure to Iraqis would go a long way in creating an investment on their part in the stability of their country. At the same time, many of the incentives the U.S. can offer, such as increased access to American markets, can be good simply from a free-trade standpoint.
Finally, an acceleration of spending on reconstruction, as much of the money already allocated to reconstruction has been diverted to security, could, at a relatively high up-front cost, help move forward the date at which the U.S. can withdraw having secured Iraq for its people. While such an accelerated expenditure would prove politically unpopular, this should be balanced by the prospect of the unpopularity of a longer military campaign– neither may be as politically attractive as leaving, but foreign policy cannot be dictated by opinion polls alone. Further, the higher up-front cost should be balanced against the costs imposed by a longer occupation– an escalation of our efforts may well prove to be the best option from a practical standpoint.
In addition to the practical considerations outlined above, it’s important to stress the great moral obligation that the United States has to the people of Iraq. While the U.S. did remove a genocidal dictator, Iraq is currently a more dangerous place to live in today than it was under Saddam’s rule, and the basic infrastructure that sustains civilian life is in worse condition. If the job is left unfinished, civil war is likely, and many will suffer– many who would not have suffered had Saddam remained in power. At the same time, Saddam was a genocidal dictator, and despite the muddled thinking of those who led the campaign for war, a definite good was acheived by removing him from power. By finishing the reconstruction in Iraq, further goods could be acheived: further suffering resulting from the U.S.-led war could be avoided, and millions of people could finally live freely and without fear.
These goals, while a tough sell politically, are in total alignment with liberal principles– and indeed, the principles of most Americans. The current administration has failed in its leadership, as the country, seeing the current situation for what it is, is no longer accepting the administration line. It is time that the opposition define themselves as leaders, rather than as mere opposition. Embracing the few positions the administration has gotten right and carrying them forward would be an ideal opening move.