An Iraq Policy with Some Guts

In honor of Jack Murtha's effort, but trying to bring in some reason.

Back to the Elephant

I was working on a scathing condemnation of Cheneyan hypocrisy on Iraq, but I found it all in the Times by Sunday. The first of two pieces was the simple and direct challenge through letter to editor from Thomas Czarnowski last Wednesday asking Cheney "who's the Revisionist?":
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/opinion/l23cheney.html,
and the second Sunday's Frank Rich broadside branding them as liars (footnoted below for the Times Select-less).*

So let's move on to the real topic: what is the best timing for the withdrawal of the coalition forces, and why?

Let's go over a few pieces of relevant data:
1) the U.N. has authorized continued occupation for one more year, roughly. For that period of time, at least, the occupation is not illegal by international standards (though the invasion was).
2) readiness levels of the Iraq forces to defend the federalist, democratically-elected government which could emerge from the elections are terrible.
3) some individuals are kidnapping, torturing, and killing Sunnis, apparently taking advantage of being able now to settle scores from Saddam's times. The connection with Iraq's "government" and "military" will not be publicly forthcoming on these, but it seems their readiness to take over is pretty advanced in this particular dimension. Once again, the parallels with the Vietnamization experience seem to be surprising us.
4) Thus, the Bushite claim to have prioritized rebuilding the Iraqi self-defense capability (which is not new by any means) is seen to be hollow, further proof of ineptitude, and/or terribly cynical.
5) The Bushites choose not to discuss the question of permanent or ongoing basing of American forces but hide behind the lack of readiness of the Iraqi forces.

Political Calculations

I have to own up to the fact that, in the key moments leading up to the invasion, I was more interested in moving my family back to the country than the arguments for or against some immediate military action: I was concerned the invasion would disrupt our move. Thankfully, that didn't happen.

I was aware of the games that were being played with the weapons inspectors by Bushites and Saddamites and the fact the inspections were not allowed to run their course. I was aware the forces were in place. I was aware the Turks had denied us permission to use their country to stage attacks on central and northern Iraq. I was aware that the key Congressional votes to back up Bushite threats to invade Iraq were conveniently scheduled for October, 2002, so that those who dared vote against could be bashed for the anti-patriotism evident in any vote against aggressive military action, for whatever reason. What I missed was, "What's the frickin' hurry?"

My answer to that question was, and is, that political timetables were the one thing that was thoroughly planned in the invasion. The vote had to be at X date, the invasion had to be when it was, so it could be over by Y date, so that Bush could gain any benefit for "doing something" about 9/11 in 2004. Cheney's most hypocritical charge (OK, I couldn't lay off) is the accusation that his critics have politicized these issues of national security.

My point being, those who advocate a timetable for withdrawal have every right to bring political calculations into this argument. Nobody being hypocritical here: domestically, the Iraq Issue is more a political football than a serious debate about our foreign and security policy, and there's no rule in the game that says you can only punt on fourth down.

Bottom-line requirements for a bipartisan Iraq policy (even now):

1) Cease to offensive maneuvers beginning now.
2) Active policing actions by coalition forces end after the elections.
3) Six months to put up or shut up on training Iraqi forces, if and only if the atrocities against captured Iraqis cease. We are much in the position of the PLO being told to be responsible for stopping terrorism in the West Bank on this one, but we must insist upon it.
4) July 1, 2006, a balanced panel of pro-and anti-Bushite Congressmen will receive report from the military on the training progress (executive session OK). The choices are whether to give them 0, 3, or 6 more months to train.
5) Regardless, coalition forces should be drawn down to 25,000 by end of September, 2006. Whether that goes to 0 by end of year depends on continued U.N. authorization.
6) The U.S. publicly disavows any intention to have permanent bases in Iraq. Now, before the Iraqi elections. No "squirm now, sleaze later" approach this time.

If any of these are not agreeable, we stick with Plan B--we hammer the Enemy on these points:
1) We would not have invaded the way they did;
2) We would not have occupied the way they did; and
3) When we get control of the government we will move promptly to withdraw the forces.

http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com

* The operative phrase in Frank Rich's editorial: "The more we learn about the road to Iraq, the more we realize that it's a losing game to ask what lies the White House told along the way. A simpler question might be: What was not a lie?" Rich recalls a Dick Cavett story, dishing Lillian Hellman: "'Every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'". Can't top that for breadth, though it could be a bit more direct. A calling-out, nevertheless. Amen, Frank.