Gen. David Petraeus on the outlook for Iraq: "The situation in Iraq is, in sum, exceedingly complex and very tough. Success will take continued commitment, perseverance and sacrifice, all to make possible an opportunity for the all-important Iraqi political actions that are the key to long-term solutions to Iraq's many problems. Because we are operating in new areas and challenging elements in those areas, this effort may get harder before it gets easier. Success, in the end, will depend on Iraqi actions. As I noted during my confirmation hearing, military action is necessary but not sufficient. We can provide the Iraqis an opportunity but they will have to exploit it."
If congress were having an intelligent debate about redeployment, it would focus on more than the military aspect of the conflict. It would also consider the section I've put in bold above. If you don't believe that the people of the region are interested in creating a single, unified country in the area now known as Iraq, the surge is pointless. As Petraeus himself acknowledges, the entire purpose of the military escalation is to make possible a specific type of political solution. It is a means to a very specific end, one that many - myself included - do not believe is possible.
That said, even a consideration of the military aspect alone should be enough to demonstrate the folly of our current approach. We are, as one of Andrew Sulivan's readers reminds him today, pursuing a policy that at its core is based around a military occupation of sovereign state in a region about which we know little and understand less. What began as a mission to use military power to eliminate a possible terrorist safe haven (a claim that was always questionable at best) has devolved into a mission to use military force to prevent a region from spiraling out of control. But that new mission hinges on a contradiction: on the one had, it is argued that our presence is a stabilizing force; on the other hand, as an occupying power, our presence naturally breeds anger, resentment, and yes, instability. A counterinsurgency occupation can only work if a significant proportion of the native population wants your assistance.
The entire point of this mission has always been the global war on terror. The rationale used to justify it may have been a quickly moving target, but at bottom, it was always about terror. That was, is, and always will be the frame of reference the American people use to judge this war. And on this, Andrew Sullivan today makes a great point:
We are occupying a sovereign Muslim country indefinitely, against the wishes of a clear majority of Iraqis and Americans. That's the simple fact we have to remember. From everything we have discovered so far, that can't and won't work.
So we should leave. Soon. Let the Shia and tribal leaders and the Kurds confront al Qaeda. It's about time they did. And they have as good a reason as we do and far better knowledge of the enemy and the terrain. Until they own this war against Islamist terror, it won't be won. And by continuing to stay, we postpone the day when they have to fight for their own country and their own religion - and win the war we cannot win for them.
We cannot win this war alone. We need assistance from others, most importantly from others in the Middle East. But so long as we are occupying Iraq, we aren't going to get it. That should be self-evident at this point, but sadly it is not.
UPDATE: Want proof that the Iraqis aren't interested in a political solution? Here it is, buried in an article about the Senate's vote on war spending: the Iraqi parliament is about to leave for a 2 month summer recess.
Anyone want to explain to me why Americans are continuing to die in Iraq if the parliament isn't even willing to meet?
Subscribe to this blog's feed
