WASHINGTON — More news from the beltway. Things in Iraq are
going well. Well, pretty well, I mean. Not bad. Well, bad. But not
really bad. Kinda bad?
At least, that’s the professional diagnosis, which is worth
exactly what you pay to hear it. This can be gleaned by reading the
slightly (again, kinda) more optimistic reporting stating that
General Petraeus is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It would
be fair to add that journalists would qualify that: if you’re into
sliced bread.
There’s no point in discussing Iraq anymore because the most
critical people are those who don’t really care what news there is
— aside from the most recent body counts. Even if Iraq isn’t a
quagmire, the conversation about it will be. And now, it seems,
even those with a degree of knowledge on the subject are finding
ways to skirt contributing anything meaningful without backing away
from it.
Take this op-ed
in the New York Times by Iraq war “critics”
Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack. “Here is the most important
thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting
somewhere in Iraq…”
Wait for it.
“…At least in military terms.”
O’Hanlon and Pollack visited Iraq to discuss the progress with
soldiers, and see firsthand the results of the surge to be reported
on later this year. Their article has been lauded by conservatives
as the harbinger of doom for the Iraq naysayers. Sure, O’Hanlon and
Pollack go on to explain the integration of Iraqi forces and
cultures, the high morale among troops, and the economic viability
of areas once thought entirely lost. But it spoils the sweetness
when they close with a line like this:
How much longer should American troops keep fighting
and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their
part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this
mission?
Such is the bizarre way that these two Brookings scholars make sure
their invitations to liberal garden parties aren’t fully revoked.
The latter half first. If we’re seeing military success, are we
really wearing down our forces? Should we pretend that our forces
are being worn down anyway by a crushing, terrible, unproductive
military success, whatever that may be?
Let’s not forget the authors’ embrace of unreasonable
expectations. Today, “Iraqi leader” is synonymous with idling fat
cat, or worse, terrorist abettor. They have earned the ire of any
person with an interest in dodging accusations of giving up on a
winnable war. But there’s only so much a politician can do when the
country is teetering on the brink of chaos (at least, according to
the American press) and might sink deeper once the Americans
finally leave (at least, if Democratic calls for withdrawal are to
be believed).
The ease with which criticism can be lodged against the Iraqi
politicians should immediately draw skepticism. Why?
First, because Iraqi politicians aren’t being called out by
name. They are a mass of people unknown to Americans, who have
trouble enough understanding the finer points of their own
government. Iraqi politicians could be French politicians — what
they legislate is foreign, and if no single person is mentioned, we
just assume they’re all alike anyway.
Second, Iraqi politicians are unlikely to issue their own press
releases, explaining their votes to a constituency they do not
serve. Americans have sacrificed men and treasure to a cause
benefiting Iraqi politicians. How that entitles American
politicians to impose failure on them is unclear. Even more unclear
is how closely American politicians are watching anyway — are
Democrats going to carefully scrutinize every Iraqi farm bill?
Finally, Iraqi politicians are not the reason cited for a need
to withdraw in the first place. The idea of “Iraq as Quagmire”
resonates because of the perceived hopelessness of the effort. One
questioner in last week’s YouTube debate
noted the three flags of his family’s military service, the
most recent one belonging to his son, dead from the current war. “I
do not want to see my youngest sons joining them,” he demanded,
asking, “By what date after January 21st, 2009, will all U.S.
troops be out of Iraq?”
Based on O’Hanlon and Pollack’s assessment? If we’re seeing
success, militarily, then the questioner’s youngest sons will be
safe and no date would need to be established. (Of course another
solution would be to provide his youngest sons with alternatives to
the lives of soldiers. Might I suggest conservative journalism?
Then
again,
maybe
not.)
THE GOAL of the surge was to provide a setting in which the
political situation would improve. Thus, as military successes
mount, so might the possibilities for improvement overall. But to
suggest that Iraqi politicians are going to pull Iraq out of the
mud is silly, much like the old myth about Franklin Delano
Roosevelt pulling America out of the Great Depression.
Iraqis are going to be the ones for the job of cleaning up. With
any luck, our guns will be the ones giving them cover while they do
it.
