Is nine months too soon to make a judgment on the effectiveness of the Democrat-controlled Congress? Not if you expected the new majority to act in a forceful manner and force a national debate on the Iraq war and other issues — as Derrick Z. Jackson points out today.
The Democrats have failed to do so, allowing the debate on Iraq to center on smaller side issues and not on the basic questions that need to be answered. Yes, it is important to determine how much more (if anything at all) should be spent on this foreign-policy failure, and on what to use the money, but the basic questions remain the same today as they were when Democrats claimed a majority in both houses of Congress:
- Are we maintaining order or are we acting as fuel to a fire that is burning out of control?
- Is the region more stable than before?
- Is our presence in Iraq acting as a prod to Iran, forcing it to act in a more bellicose fashion than it otherwise might and keeping it from sitting down to discuss its nuclear ambitions?
- Are we safer as a nation now than we were in February 2003, the month before the war began?
The answers may seem complex, but really aren’t. There is little order in Iraq and plenty of evidence that the presence of American troops is only making things worse. While Gen. David Petraeus may have offered some positives, saying the surge has made a difference, the reality appears far different. As The Nation wrote in an editorial recently:
The stated purpose of the surge was to create enough security in and around Baghdad to give Iraqi politicians breathing room to pursue reconciliation. But with the exception of some very minor recent concessions on de-Baathification, the Shiite-led government has stuck to positions that have prevented most Sunnis from participating in the government. Moreover, it is increasingly difficult to speak of an Iraqi government that has power or authority outside Baghdad’s Green Zone. Real power resides with the militias on the ground, which are competing for resources and influence throughout much of Iraq. Even within the Green Zone, some seventeen ministries have withdrawn their support from the government and increasingly act as independent fiefdoms handing out resources to loyal constituents.
Not exactly the best way to create a stable government or establish order.
As for regional stability, the Palestinians are at war with themselves and Israel, Lebanon is in the same boat, there have been terror attacks in Saudi Arabia and Iran wants the bomb. Much of this, of course, follows the historical chain of events in the region, but in the past American presidents have been able to insert themselves into the diplomatic discussions, to have an impact and potentially calm things. Now, with the administration bogged down in a disastrous war, with many of the Muslim nations suspicious of our motivations, we have lost credibility. Plus, our belligerence in Iraq is only exacerbating the situation in Iran.
As for our safety, well, what can you say? Are we safer? How can we know? The Republicans — in particular, their presidential candidates — say yes. Their evidence? That there have been no attacks in the last six years and that there have been a handful of plots foiled. Does this mean we are safer? Or does it mean we’ve been lucky? Remember, there were no foreign threats on American soil between 1993, the first attack on the World Trade Center, and 2001. There were attacks on American interests overseas, but that’s really no different than what we’ve witnessed in the last six, with terror attacks occurring around the globe.
I want to end with more from that Nation editorial, because it is the best summary of why we must bring the troops home that I’ve read:
The question before Congress and the nation should not be whether to give the surge more time but how best to end the occupation. So far the Administration has been able to thwart Congressional efforts to force a withdrawal–first with the surge and now with its dire warnings of a disaster in store for Iraq, the region and US interests if we withdraw. Also troubling, several Democratic presidential candidates seem to have bought into these worst-case scenarios and have begun to slow their timetable for withdrawal, adding new conditions for a pullout. Some are even calling for keeping a sizable residual force in Iraq or neighboring countries indefinitely. Congress must resist White House claims about the surge’s “success” and deny additional funds for the occupation, instead pursuing reconciliation and reconstruction, at home and abroad. As the Administration presses its PR offensive for an extended surge and open-ended occupation, it is critically important that we let our representatives know we’re fed up with the war and want the troops home–now. Otherwise, Congress is unlikely to buck White House pressure.
Those who support a residual US force in Iraq argue that a complete withdrawal would hamper our ability to deter Al Qaeda attacks, sectarian atrocities and regional war. We believe that any good accomplished by a residual US force would be outweighed by the harm it would do.
Consider the question of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, which at most has a few thousand fighters. Local Sunni groups tolerated them in the past because they were allies against the occupation. Now that the Sunni tribes expect a US withdrawal, they have begun to turn against Al Qaeda. And if the Sunnis aren’t able to eliminate the jihadis, the Shiites and the Kurds will, with the blessing if not the outright help of neighboring countries like Syria, Turkey and Iran, which do not want Al Qaeda to gain a foothold in the area. And as regional expert Flynt Leverett has pointed out, conventional ground troops are useless for counterterrorism missions. A residual force in Iraq (or in neighboring Kuwait) would further inflame popular opinion against the United States in the Arab and Muslim worlds and be a boon to jihadi recruitment.
As for intervening to stop sectarian atrocities, US military forces in much larger numbers have not been able to stop the violence that has claimed nearly 2,000 Iraqis a month or to prevent the ethnic cleansing that has displaced millions. It is not clear why a smaller force would be any more effective. The sad fact is that much of the ethnic cleansing has already taken place–on our watch. To be sure, a US withdrawal may lead to an intensification of the civil war, as different factions make a grab for power. But stability among these factions can be established only after a US withdrawal. Indeed, any US forces will be destabilizing because one group or another will try to draw them into the battle on their side. Only after we commit to a complete withdrawal will there be any hope of international mediation and a lasting settlement based on a balance of forces not subject to US favoritism and power maneuvers, suspected or real.
As to the concern that a complete withdrawal will lead to regional war, as different countries intervene in Iraq’s civil war: This is a naïvely self-centered view of the Middle East and its problems. For all its democratic and human rights shortcomings, the region is resilient and capable of managing conflict. It survived fifteen years of civil war in Lebanon and almost a decade of brutal war between Iran and Iraq. It will survive the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. It was the Saudis and Syrians who in 1989 brokered an end to the war in Lebanon, not us. And Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia have the greatest stake in keeping the Iraqi conflict contained and therefore can be counted on to control their allies in Iraq once US forces withdraw.
More important, a commitment to a complete US withdrawal would open the way for international mediation and peacekeeping efforts, under the auspices of the United Nations, the Arab League or the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Indeed, it may be the only way to develop a regional concert of powers that can work with Iraqis to stabilize the country and control the conflict. Only by removing US forces and ending all claims to permanent bases can Washington increase the possibility that other countries will assist Iraq. The best way to prevent regional destabilization is to refocus our regional efforts and help Iraq and its neighbors cope with the humanitarian crisis we helped create. We can begin by helping to organize assistance for Syria, Jordan and Lebanon to resettle their Iraqi refugees. We can press Gulf countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia not to buy US weapons and host US troops but to open their doors to their Iraqi neighbors. And we can talk with Syria and Iran about our common interest in an Al Qaeda-free region instead of threatening to overthrow their governments.
Not only is withdrawing from Iraq in our national interest; it is also the moral, responsible thing to do. There is one way to atone for our illegal invasion and reckon with the human catastrophe our occupation has caused: End the occupation and abandon the pretense that only American power can bring order and democracy to the region. Then there will be a fair test of the Iraqis’ willingness to settle their differences and of the international community’s ability to assist them. And then we will be able to prove our nonimperial claims and play a constructive role in the region and world.
Bring ’em home.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 