How Much Clearer?

How much clearer could it get that we are making no progress in Iraq. On the one hand we have the Maliki government in Iraq purging its military of qualified commanders precisely because those commanders are effective at controlling Shite militias. But aren't the violent Shiite militias, the ones that would be aligned with Iran, one of our biggest problems? Certainly, according to reports, the Americans are not happy with this purge. This month is turning out to be the fourth deadliest month for the coalition. Sectarian violence in Baghdad goes on apace. What infrastructure rebuilding we did accomplish in the first years after the fall of Saddam are crumbling. The Bush administration itself is scaling back any talk of progress in Iraq.

Harry Reid is correct, George Bush's adventure in Iraq is a failure. We need to remove our forces from there as soon as is at all possible.

War Supplemental

Well the rhetoric only gets hotter over the war funding supplemental bill. The Administration is fighting hard, it is true, but the WaPo article also makes clear that the Democrats are fighting back as well. I continue to see the Administrations position as weak and that they know it. Bush again offers some non-negotiating negotiations in order to forestall his veto

In a somber statement on the South Lawn of the White House before leaving on a trip to New York, Bush said he was willing to meet with Democratic leaders "as many times as it takes to resolve our differences," but he signaled no intention to compromise with them on the funding bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But why tender an completely disingenuous offer of negotiations if you have no intention of compromising? And from past experience it is clear that he does not intend to compromise. Clearly he is still hoping that the Democrats will cave. That is because for he, and his party, it will be very bad for him to veto this bill. The Democrats are getting stronger and more confident every day. Bush's position is only weakening. These are the words of a desperate man.

The opinions of military leaders are also growing more and more to be in line with the Democrats and at odds with the President. Consider Lt. Gen. William E. Odom

However, a group of retired generals who have criticized Bush's conduct of the war released statements today applauding the supplemental appropriations bill, calling it the best way to show real support for U.S. troops.

"The bill gives the president a chance to pull back from a disastrous course, reorient U.S. strategy to achieve regional stability, and win help from many other countries -- the only way peace will eventually be achieved," said retired Army Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, a former director of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. His and other flag officers' statements on the congressional action were distributed by the National Security Network, a Washington-based group that advocates what it calls "progressive national security policy solutions."

or Maj. Gen. John Batiste

Among the retired generals who commended the war-funding bill was Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who formerly commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq.

"This important legislation sets a new direction for Iraq," Batiste said in a statement. "It acknowledges that America went to war without mobilizing the nation, that our strategy in Iraq has been tragically flawed since the invasion in March 2003, that our Army and Marine Corps are at the breaking point with little to show for it, and that our military alone will never establish representative government in Iraq. The administration got it terribly wrong, and I applaud our Congress for stepping up to their constitutional responsibilities."

or Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004, said, "The argument that this bill aides the enemy is simply not mature." He said it gives the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, "great leverage for moving the Iraqi government" toward political compromises aimed at undercutting the insurgency.

or Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr.

"We must commence a coordinated phased withdrawal of U.S. combat troops and condition our continuing support of the Iraqi government on its fulfilling the political commitments it has made to facilitate reconciliation of the contending secular factions," said retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr., a former senior Pentagon official. "Otherwise, we will continue to be entwined in a hopeless quagmire, with continuing American casualties, which will render our ground forces ineffective."

or Maj. Gen. Mel Montano

Retired Army National Guard Maj. Gen. Mel Montano, a former adjutant general of New Mexico, said the bill "not only reflects the thinking of the Iraq Study Group but puts teeth to the phrase 'Supporting the Troops.' " He said establishing timelines "returns the responsibility of self-preservation and regional sovereignty to the people of Iraq and their government."

Note that these are not half-hearted comments showing weak support for the lesser of two evils. The Generals see the current state of affairs as one that is decidedly not in the nations best interest from a military, national security, and foreign policy standpoint, and that beginning to withdraw from Iraq is a necessary move. While it is tragic that the nation has come to this crossroads, to move forward now in the best interests of the American people means to pull out from Iraq.

Iraq

According to the latest from McClatchy the US training of Iraqi forces is no longer a primary focus. Keep in mind that our current strategy, as far as it goes, is to send in an additional 20, 000 (or 40,ooo depending upon who is counting, the day of the week and the political climate) US troops to secure Baghdad while the Iraqi forces are brought up to speed and can take over. That was the surge, that was the plan to follow rather than the ISG recommendation that we negotiat with Iran and Syria while we start to pull out. That is what George Bush has been calling for.

There has been plenty of criticism of this plan, and there has already been plenty of reason to call it a failure already. US casualty rates are higher than they have been at any time during the war except for the first weeks of fighting. Indeed, the usual drop in casualty rates during February and March never materialized this year. Then this month the casualties have been unusually high throughout the month. Civilian casualties were down for awhile when the surge started, but are back up as high or higher than ever. Furthermore, that decrease occurred in Baghdad, but the attacks continued, or became worse, outside the city. In short, it has already become clear that the increase in forces that Bush put together has not been enough to bring the insurgency to heel so that Iraqi forces could take over.

Now we learn that there really aren't any substantial Iraqi forces to take over, nor are they being formed at any appreciable rate. With no reasonable expectation of Iraqi forces taking over in the immediate future, the mission is clearly a failure. We need to recognize that and move on.

I've said before that the mission in Iraq has long since taken on the character of the British at Gallipoli, a ill-conceived operation that has been executed so poorly as to be worse than useless. The interests of the United States, and I believe Iraq as well, would be far better served by withdrawing our forces from Iraq and deploying our resources elsewhere. No military force in history has ever achieved ultimate victory without experiencing setbacks and reverses along the way. Withdrawing from Iraq is no more surrendering to the terrorists than withdrawing from Gallipoli was surrendering to Turkey (Great Britain did go on to defeat the Turks you know. Look it up.)

Twelve Critical Days

With regard to the Iraq War funding bill there are upcoming 11 or 12 critical days, a window where we can have an opportunity, perhaps, to force Bush's hand and prevent the bill from being vetoed, or at least make the veto as costly and difficult as possible. To understand my idea here, first look at the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 7.

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

So my first point is that from the time the bill is delivered to Bush's desk, there are 11 or 12 days (depending on the day of the week when it arrives, how many Sundays get skipped before the ten days are up) for him to veto the bill, or it becomes law "in like manner as if he had signed it" providing we can keep the House and Senate in session for that time. I assume that keeping the Congress in session will not be a problem.

My next point is that we need to create media events and political pressure of all types to convey the messages that

1. if President Bush vetoes the bill, then he is defunding the troops in Iraq.
2. Please President Bush, do not defund the troops in Iraq.

By media events and political pressure I'm talking about

• letter writing campaigns to the press, to Congress and to the White House
• Speeches and rallies by Senators, Congressmen and women, Presidential Candidates
• Marches and rallies by citizens
• Whatever else we can think of
  

If we can do that we can make it as difficult as possible for him to veto the bill, certainly on the same day that such an event is going on.

My final point is that if we can keep this up for twelve days he will either have to veto the bill on the same day that these things are in the news, or it will become law.

Democrats, please pay attention

From Greg Sargent at TPM we see a report on a poll from the LA Times. The American people would support (or at worst opinion is essentially tied) the Democrats over Bush's proposed veto of the war funding bill. Yes the Democrats. People would prefer to have the Democrats fight for keeping the withdraw deadlines in the bill. Please, Democrats, pay attention to this. Do not cave. Like Social Security reform this is a winning issue where you are on the right side in all senses. Stick with your position.

Lost Iraq?

I think Matthew has a very good point here, both on substance and on the politics of how to describe the war. Clearly, we did defeat Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi army in 2003 and clearly we did install an elected government. We won the war, it is just that winning this war was no benefit to the United States.

For the politics of the issue, clearly it is better to be able to say the United States was not defeated. I have no interest in presenting this country as defeated, nor do others on the left. Furthermore, to describe the war, in its entirety, as a loss is unduly pessimistic and unnecessarily discouraging and demoralizing to the rest of the electorate. Clearly the performance of our armed forces was superlative during the invasion. Furthermore, at this point, if we withdraw, we will do so by choice, we have not been forced to. All together it is wrong to say that the United States lost this war.

Additionally, this just points up the utter failure of the Bush Administration leadership. As Matthew says, this was a victory, but a hollow victory. But given that, what level of incompetence does it take to launch a war of choice where victory is just a less bad outcome than defeat. Given the absence of any possible good outcome from the conservative policies, the ineptitude of those who would pursue those policies is staggering.

This ties in too with a point that was being made just after the elections regarding the use of force resolution, but of which I have not heard much for awhile. The point being that we invaded Iraq to

1. eliminate WMDs
2. remove Saddam
3. install a democratic government

Given that the first was never relevant that the other two have been completed, the use of force resolution no longer applies and we can come home. That was the gist, in any case. We accomplished everyting we set out to do and the situation sucks. That is lousy leadership.

Link to Matthew Yglesias / proudly eponymous since 2002

More on Withdraw from Iraq

Over at the Emerging Democratic Majority, Ruy Teixeira has an interesting post discussing polling data on Iraq and Katrina. Popular opinion has been shifting away from earlier support for the war toward a greater interest in withdraw based on the events in Iraq. But the Katrina aftermath is also leading people to feel that the resources being expend in Iraq might better be spent on needs here at home. As I've written elsewhere, I believe that one hallmark of this administration has been to direct resources away from where they are needed and into enterprises that are of very little value. Apparently, this sentiment is becoming more common.

This national desire to redirect resources to more local threats could also be used to help the nation view reductions in force in Iraq not as "cutting and running" but as a reallocation of resources and thus make the decision less demoralizing and therefore more politically acceptable.

Iraq withdraw

The ranks of those calling for the United States to withdraw from Iraq are growing in important circles, military leadership. The LA Times reports that

The U.S. generals running the war in Iraq presented a new assessment of the military situation in public comments and sworn testimony this week: The 149,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq are increasingly part of the problem.

During a trip to Washington, the generals said the presence of U.S. forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi armed forces and energizing terrorists across the Middle East.

For all these reasons, they said, a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops was imperative.

This has long been the view of numerous people on the political left, including both civilian and military voices. It has been primarily the civilian right wing in this country that have made the great mistake of calling for this war. It is becoming increasing clear that those who are calling for some sort of plan for gradual withdraw are correct. Those voices need to be listened to.

Gen. William Odom and withdraw from Iraq

The Lowell Sun is reporting that retired General William Odom has added his voice to calls for withdraw from Iraq. General Odom is a Vietnam vet, former director of the NSA and currently is a fellow at the Hudson Institute, a well known conservative Think Tank. This man is not some peacenik or liberal. To get a fuller picture of the man, see this post a Kos. Yet although his conservative, military credentials are unquestionable, he has come to believe a lot of what the anti Iraq-war crowd has been saying for some time now. For example

the invasion of Iraq alienated America's Middle East allies, making it harder to prosecute a war against terrorists.

or

The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history.

What struck me most, however, was the following

The U.S. should withdraw from Iraq, he said, and reposition its military forces along the Afghan-Pakistani border to capture Osama bin Laden and crush al Qaeda cells.

This is a proposal that I can agree with. This repositioning is a good idea not just because hunting bin Laden would be a more valuable use of our military than whatever it is they are doing in Iraq. It would also be a good move because the right-wing concerns about demoralization of the public and the military are not without merit. By 'repositioning' our forces, a great deal of the demoralizing affect of pulling out of Iraq could be reduced. While 'repositioning' our forces just to save face would be of no value, moving to Afghanistan does appear to have some merit.

Another Voice

Add Matt Yglasias to those who are coming to see the American military presence in Iraq as more likely to be a hindrance to creating a peaceful stable state than a help.

Worse not Better

Another, and more informed, voice saying that the presence of American troops is making the situation in Iraq worse not better. Juan Cole of Informed Comment argues that the US troops need to get out of Iraq now. His concluding paragraphs

The situation in the Sunni Arab areas was worse in summer of 2004 than it had been in summer of 2003. It is worse in the summer of 2005 than it had been in 2004. Even the Iraqi political groupings that had earlier been willing to cooperate with the US boycotted the Jan. 30 elections and are now assiduously working to defeat the new constitution.

Things in the Sunni Arab areas are getting worse, not better.

I conclude that the presence of the US ground troops is making things worse, not better.

Let's get them out, now, before they destroy any more cities, create any more hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons, provoke any more ethnic hatreds by installing Shiite police in Fallujah or Kurdish troops in Turkmen Tal Afar. They are sowing a vast whirlwind, a desert sandstorm of Martian proportions, which future generations of Americans and Iraqis will reap.

The ground troops must come out. Now. For the good of Iraq. For the good of America.

echo my earlier musings that perhaps our presence is more of a problem than a help.

Professor Cole is very familiar with the Middle East and quite knowledgeable of the situation in Iraq. His opinion on these issues counts for a lot. Considering further that Professor Cole has long been more in favor of the US staying in Iraq than have I, or many other left of center bloggers, I think that this most recent post is quite significant.

Iraq: Staying the Course?

We've been in Iraq now for two and one half years. The American casualties continue to mount and the insurgent attacks keep coming. We never managed to establish security in the country and while some in Iraq did initially greet us as liberators, little of that sentiment seems to remain. We are now staying in the country because we need "to get the job done." However, one must wonder if the major impediment to getting the job done is our presence. Is it not possible animosity towards the American presence is a major cause of the civil strife in Iraq. This article would seem to indicate that this may well be the case.

Well known as an insurgent stronghold and the site of attacks and bombings, this town 25 kilometres northeast of Baquba has enjoyed several months of calm. Police, residents and insurgents here all say the reason for this is clear: Iraqi security forces are patrolling the streets, not the Americans.

“Because there are no Americans, nothing will happen. But if they come in, the mujahedin will flow out to confront them and run them out of town,” said Fahad al-Kabi, an elderly man sitting outside a café. “It’s better that the people of the town and the Iraqi forces are in control.”

The article describes the situation in Buhruz, a small Iraqi town. It would appear that in Buhruz at least the absence of American forces are an essential element to maintaining the peace.

Falah Rashid, a farmer, said the townspeople support the security forces, so long as the Americans aren’t involved.

“It’s fine for Iraqi forces to restore stability in our town. They are our children and relatives and we help them by offering them what they need,”said Rashid. “We like peace, but we don’t want the occupier to come, arresting our women and children. We are a conservative people. We have our tribal traditions and we don’t like the Americans.”

It has been argued that we really ought to consider declaring a plan to pull out of Iraq as a means of pushing the Iraqis to take seriously the job of developing an effective police force and army. This article would indicate that starting to withdraw will actually help the Iraqis in this mission. The Bush Administration continues to suggest that any plan to withdraw will be "cutting and running" which will result in the collapse of Iraq into civil war. However, it seems that in the first place Iraq is already descending into civil war and secondly our departure might well help stabilize the country.