Or why I still will not drink the kool-aid about Iraq.
Several days ago, there was a bit of a dust up over at Lex’s concerning the President’s recent news conference. Seems GWB does not like the it when reporters have the temerity to point out that Bush has been all over the map in terms of justifying his war policies to the people:
Hooray! The man is tough. He’s forceful. He stuck it to a liberal left leaning reporter. How can you not see that this is a tough fight we need to win? These are thugs and killers-we don’t make deals with them. Don’t you know that?
A Lex commenter felt that way:
Her question was, more or less verbatim: “You said in 2006 about Iraq that we were winning . . . How can we believe what you say about Afghanistan?” And what she meant was: You lied or were stupid about Iraq, so maybe you’re lying again….
SO: To people of the mindset of Flit* and Skippy* – how can you support her question so vociferously? Given where we are today in Iraq…where good progress has in fact been made in an effort that this administration, and this President said from Day One would be long, hard, and in which we would suffer setbacks, how can she use Iraq to basically say Bush was wrong? The evidence is that we’ve made great progress…you all want to ignore that? And Afghanistan is, like Iraq, a long term project – as is the entire region.
Puts me in my place, eh what?
Ummmmm…………NO.
With Bush, it is always important to look at what he does-not what he says. What he did was very different than what he said in the video.
1) In Afghanistan, he allowed his adviser to outsource the war to another group of thugs and killers-you know, the type of people we are seeking to kill. Who by the way, had a different agenda than ours-but were conveniently opposed to the Taliban. At the time it was hailed as a great success and “proof” that so called transformational military thinking works.
The US also still continues to outsource the war-this time to NATO. Remember why? Because we could not afford the level of effort required because we had a commitment to Iraq of over 200,000 personnel. (you have to include the entire tail when you think about level of effort.).
Problem was it did not reckon with the character of the Afghani people. So where is Afghanistan now? Better than before 2001-but still not able to step up to the plate. The popular perception is that the US needs to re-Americanize the war. Bush is pretty much saying so as are the other candidates. Sounds good.
Except it does not really solve the problem:
With this in mind, this blogger cannot support the popular criticism that Afghanistan suffers from a dramatic shortage of troops. Indeed, one of the main tenets of US strategy has been a small force, which by the way, did accomplish its tasks. While small increases in troop numbers may make a difference in certain areas, any large increase would ultimately harm our efforts. Our goal should not be more, but rather smarter. This includes more coordination with international NGOs and pressure for partner countries to fulfill their promises such as Germany training the Afghan police, Italy helping build their judicial system and the UK fighting drugs. The US cannot be the fallback for every lazy partner. In addition, success stories such as the training and now active operations of US-trained Afghan commando units. Threat’s Watch notes that:
[…] the development of the Afghan commando force must continue apace if it is to demonstrate the level of operational efficacy and, equally important, sustainability to permit a draw-down of US Special Forces units. Still, the Afghanis and their Green Beret mentors appear to be off to an auspicious start, and if ultimately successful, the entire Western world will reap the benefits of a counterinsurgency force equipped with the technical know-how and linguistic and cultural sensitivity to disrupt insurgent networks in an immeasurably pivotal theater.
Indeed. Additional US forces would largely foster continued dependence on foreigners and create a larger footprint leading to more resentment and incidents. While more boots on the ground may indeed help in certain areas or situations, they are not the answer. A smarter, more resilient and better coordinated strategy must be be adopted by all of the coalition partners in order to make any headway on these deeply rooted historical problems and most important of all, it must be communicated clearly and realistically to locals, partners and the world.
Then there is Iraq. Before Steve gets too high on his horse about the consistent, principled stance that the decider has taken on Iraq-it would be well to consider the objective that Bush set when he started the war in 2003:
We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
Specifically at that time-Bush defined victory as the accomplishment of the following:
The objectives were to end Saddam Hussein’s regime, identify, isolate and eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, search, capture and drive out terrorists, obtain intelligence related to terrorist networks, accumulate intelligence that is related to the illicit network of weapons of mass destruction, end sanctions and distribute humanitarian aid to those in need, secure Iraq’s oil fields and other resources, and to assist the Iraqi people in transitioning to a representative government.
And as is now clear from released Administration documents, it was expected to take no more than 3 years to accomplish these objectives:
Its taken a little longer than projected. About 10 years to be precise. ( based on current projections, if Bush policy is followed, troop levels will never get to 5000). And you can make the argument that each of those objectives has been accomplished. That is my main point-so why are we staying?
Because Bush is determined not to “lose” Iraq on his watch. And he clearly underestimated the level of difficulty and the character of the Iraqi people when he undertook this little adventure-although there were plenty who warned us not to do this.
No matter what you think about Iraq-it seems to me that the architect of that policy should be made to take responsibility for it. He should not get a free pass when those policies go wrong. Bush, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfwitz, Cheney and the rest bear responsibility for their actions.
And that was what Martha Raddatz was trying to say.
So yea, I’ll pass on the kool-aid, thank you very much.