Why the War Hawks Fail to Persuade

Posted by Damozel | According to the AP, Ex-Iraq Commander Ricardo Sanchez will make the following remarks in tomorrow's weekly Democratic radio address (Small Wars Journal).   Coming from someone who has recently been in the field, this announcement is likely to seem persuasive to a large segment of the public: "The improvements in security produced by the courage and blood of our troops have not been matched by a willingness on the part of Iraqi leaders to make the hard choices necessary to bring peace to their country...There is no evidence that the Iraqis will choose to do so in the near future or that we have an ability to force that result."  (AP)    

Sanchez is making these remarks in support of a House Bill that would set a deadline of December 15, 2008 for troop withdrawals. (AP)   

In a media advisory, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi notes that the keys to securing Iraq's future are "aggressive regional diplomacy, political reconciliation and economic hope."  That sounds right to me.  It also sounds more like a job for the UN than for our single efforts as a nation, and indeed the British Iraq Commission---unless I totally misunderstood the stories in the British press---said as much this summer.   Pelosi says that the bill calls for a "shift in the mission" of US troops that will permit us to reduce their numbers substantially.(Small Wars Journal)  That's also what Britain's Iraq Commission said would eventually need to happen (though---to be fair---they were averse to setting a deadline).

Pelosi, like Sanchez and like many individuals I know (including some Republicans), argues that the cost to the US and to US troops of ongoing and indefinite deployment significantly outweighs any benefits to be gained by our remaining there indefinitely. 

After all, is it possible that it  is time for Republicans and the White House to begin to count the human cost to our own people?

“Our Army and Marine Corps are struggling with changing deployment schedules that are disrupting combat readiness training and straining the patience and daily lives of military families. It will take the Army at least a decade to repair the damage done to its full spectrum readiness, which is at its lowest level since the Vietnam War. In the meantime, the ability of our military to fully execute our national security strategy will be called into doubt, producing what is, in my judgment, unacceptable strategic risk….(Small Wars Journal)

At the Small Wars Journal, you'll find a sampling of hawkish op-ed pieces responding to the push by the Dems for a withdrawal deadline.  I'd like to start and finish with Charles Krauthammer, who---after all---knows from denial.  In a piece called On Iraq, a State of Denial ,  Krauthammer accuses Pelosi and others of being in exactly that state.  But why does he behold the denial in his opponents' eye when he beholdeth not the cataract in his own? 

Here's Krauthammer responding to the assertion of Lt Gen. Raymond T. Ordierno, the No. 2 commander in Iraq.  Ordierno says that the Iraqi government "needs to seize the window provided by the surge to achieve political reconciliation...."(WaPo) After all, Ordierno is one of the very commanders straining every sinew to keep it open.  But Krauthammer---from his personal command center----snarks in reply:

We would all love to have the leaders of the various factions -- Kurd, Shiite and Sunni -- sign nice pieces of paper tying up all the knotty questions of federalism, de-Baathification and oil revenue. (WaPo)   

I can't speak for Krauthammer, but what I'd personally like  is to have some sign---any sign---that these leaders are strongly motivated to work together toward that end.  Significantly, Krauthammer seems to agree with Pelosi and others that political reconciliation ain't happening any time soon.   And of course he pretty much has to, since the Iraqi leaders themselves don't see it happening any time soon. 

Krauthammer loftily condescends to explain for anyone who is still reading his column why it ain't happening and also why we shouldn't care:

But it is not going to happen for the same reason it has not already happened: The Maliki government is too sectarian and paralyzed to be able to end the war in a stroke of reconciliation.

But does the absence of this deus ex machina invalidate our hard-won gains? Why does this mean that we cannot achieve success by other means?....

Sure, there is no oil law. But the central government is nonetheless distributing oil revenue to the provinces, where the funds are being used for reconstruction.

Sure, the de-Baathification law has not been modified. But the whole purpose of modification was to entice Sunni insurgents to give up the insurgency and join the new order. This is already happening on a widening scale all over the country in the absence of a relaxed de-Baathification law.

As for federalism, the Kurds are running their own region, the Sunni sheiks in Anbar and elsewhere are exercising not just autonomy but control of their own security, and the southern Shiites are essentially governing themselves, the British having withdrawn in all but name.

Yes, a provincial powers law would be nice because it would allow for provincial elections. We should push hard for it. But we already have effective provincial and tribal autonomy in pivotal regions of the country....

Why is top-down national reconciliation as yet unattainable? Because decades of Saddam Hussein's totalitarianism followed by the brutality of the post-invasion insurgency destroyed much of Iraq's political infrastructure, causing Iraqis to revert to the most basic political attachment -- tribe and locality. Gen. David Petraeus's genius has been to adapt American strategy to capitalize on that development, encouraging the emergence of and allying ourselves with tribal and provincial leaders -- without waiting for cosmic national deliverance from the newly constructed and still dysfunctional constitutional apparatus in Baghdad. (WaPo) 

Right.  Personally, I can believe all or any of this.  In a way, I wish we could "stay the course."  Unfortunately, none of it is likely to cut much ice with average American taxpayers, who don't understand why rebuilding Iraq should go on being their problem.  The average American taxpayer has a very different set of priorities from neocons, Charles Krauthammer, or George W. Bush. 

If they really want to sell their argument to voters---who, after all, are ultimately in charge of yanking Congress's strings---they are going to have to find a way to make them see why rebuilding Iraq is everyone's business.

Which is exactly where William Kristol, Hitch and Krauthammer---whose arguments for staying the course I'd find quite reasonable if it wasn't my tax money and my compatriots' blood on the line---fail to persuade. 

Americans got behind the invasion of Iraq because 911 had made them jumpy and they believed that Saddam Hussein had the means to do them harm.  Many also believed (or, rather, assumed) that Iraqis were a single oppressed people who would be appropriately grateful for their liberation from Saddam.  This turned out not to be the case.  Even so, most people sulkily went along when it turned out that the "mission" that was "accomplished" was only the first bit and that the goalposts had been moved while they were busy cheering for the troops.  The whole "stay the course" argument is based on a massive reframe of the Iraq mission and a truly impressive revision of the whole original argument for invading it in the first place. 

But the American public's patience isn't inexhaustible and we really are not long-term thinkers.  If the neocons and hawks (in case there's a difference) want the war to continue, they need to show taxpayers how they will directly benefit, and they're going to have to point to something more tangible than "you will be safer over the long term IF stability can be achieved in Iraq even IF we have to take on Iran as well." 

That's just not an argument you're going to sell to a nation that can't stay on a diet, ,even when our doctors promise us that it will do us good over the long haul.  "Go hungry now; and you are less likely to die in 20 years' time"  doesn't work because it balances present loss and deprivation against the speculative benefit of avoiding a bad result that might happen anyway for a variety of reasons or might not happen at all.   Americans have a fatalistic streak when you confront us with possibilities over which we don't have much, or any, direct control. 

So it's understandable that many Americans are wondering how Iraq is still our problem.  Perhaps there simply are not enough members of the public who feel that the interests served by our remaining in the region----only one of which is "proving George W. Bush, Christopher Hitchens, Charles Krauthammer, and a host of hawks not as catastrophically wrong as might otherwise appear"---aren't outweighed anymore by the costs in American blood or tax dollars  (WaPo).   

Even I (originally inclined to favor sticking it out a bit longer) see no compelling argument for believing Charles Krauthammer over others who disagree with him (such as General Sanchez).  The arguments he is making all assume that most Americans see their own interests as closely tied to America's being the force that succeeds in stabilizing Iraq.  While I would like this to happen (for the sake of the Iraqi people), it seems to me that what's going to be required---I admit I'm influenced here by the Brits---is less military action by our government and more diplomacy and diplomatic pressure by the part of the rest of the world.  Why should we bear the whole burden on our backs?  Most Americans would never have invaded Iraq for the purpose of creating a democracy there.  That's strictly a neocon objective.  I'll be delighted if it happens, and I'd support chipping in, but I can't see the case for continuing to put the whole burden on America's back indefinitely. 

Besides---based on past evidence---I suspect Mr Krauthammer, other hawks and neocons, of motives connected to other agendas besides a free and democratic Iraq. At the end of the day, and in the absence of strong proof that they are more likely to be right than the opposition, the preponderance of evidence falls on the side of getting the troops out of there and looking for other means than American military presence to help the Iraqi people maintain stability (if stability is even possible for them).

Sadly, the unfortunate involvement of Iran in fomenting violence (which I believe) tends to suggest to many members of the public that the opposite is true:  that Iraq is in fact the proverbial "quagmire" and---in the words of Sanchez himself----a "nightmare" that won't quickly end.  And the good news out of Iraq, such as it is, may simply be too little and too late to overcome the public's disenchantment and exhaustion.

UPDATE:  According to The Real News  members of the Iraqi Parliament have demanded that Bush issue a deadline for troop withdrawal. Hmmmm.

More here:  Why the War Hawks Fail to Persuade (Part 2)

See Memeorandum here. Some of  these bloggers---though by no means all--- find CK persuasive.  Not that their views reflect the non-blogging average American anymore than his do.   Publius Endures, Doug Ross, TownHall Blog, RADAMISTO, Blue Crab Boulevard, The Newshoggers, FP Passport, Wake up America and Dr. Sanity.   To the Conservatives:  Dudes.  Step away from the Kool-Aid.  It's okay to learn from experience.

*BN-Politics does NOT own the rights to this Creative Commons photograph Before saving or using any photograph, follow the link to the owner's page and consult the terms of the license.  The use of the CC photograph does NOT indicate that its creator endorses any view expressed in this post.

MANY RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTINGS [we're just trying to understand, Mr. Krauthammer]

1. Bombs Kill 26 in Iraq: Has Violence Declined?

 

2. Former Army Gen. Supports Troop Withdrawal

 

3. Christopher Hitchens on the News from Iraq

 

4. Administration Officials Zigzag on the War

 

5. House Passes Bill: War Funds Tied to Troop Withdrawal

 

6. Senior Brass: Military Strike Against Iran Currently Unnecessary

 

7. Is Militia Group "Out of Baghdad"?

 

8. Experts Differ on Status of Iranian Weapons Program and Imminence of WWIII

 

9. Good News Out of Iraq & What It Means (& Doesn't)

 

10.  NewPoll: Majority of Republicans Support Strike Against Iran

 

11. Talk of Bombing: is Iran the New Iraq?

 

12. Jon Stewart to Gen. Ricardo Sanchez: "Now You Tell Us"

 

13. Is al Qaeda in Iraq Crippled? Officials Disagree

 

14. Aussie Contractors Shoot Two Iraqi Women; P.W. Singer on Blackwater et al.

 

15. Iraqi Leaders: Key Benchmark Not Attainable.

 

16.  New Poll & Breakdown -- Republicans Bombed re: War, Healthcare, Economy, Terrorism....

 

17. GAO Says Administration Should Give Congress Accurate & Timely Info on Iraq Violence (Duh)

 

18. Republicans Opposed Troop-Friendly Proposal

 

19. It Wasn't All About the Oil = It Was About the Oil.

 

20. The French Foreign Minister Tells the World to Prepare for War Against Iran.

 

21. Greenspan Admits Iraq War was About Oil [Updated and Clarified]

 

22. Chuck Hagel on Bill Maher: This is What a Republican is Supposed to Look Like.

 

23. Troop-Drawdown Dates Change Again

 

24. Petraeus & Crocker Report (Day 2): Even Republicans are Skeptical

 

25. Petraeus Report Compels Skepticism re: Iraq

 

26. Meanwhile, in the UK, One of the Iraq Commission Chairs Offers the PM This Guidance...

 

27. Note to Congress and Especially to My Fellow Democrats: There are No Easy Paths Out of Iraq.

 

28.  New Roadmaps Out of Iraq.

 

29. Britain pulls away; Bush presses forward---Democrats push back. Should Democrats Give War a Chance? (UPDATED)

 

30.  Iraq: Yet Another Surge of Deaths and Injuries

 

31.  Fourth Senior (Loyal) Republican Opposes Bush's Iraq-War Strategy

 

32.  Bush Losing Republican Support for Iraq War

 

33. Iraq: Conflicting Stories from the Front and at Home

 

34. Senators Didn't Read Intelligence Reports Before Voting for War

 

35. Please, Get Your Stories Straight on Iraq

 

36. Iraq War Will End - Someday

 

37. Iraq Vets: Risk Your Life but Shut Your Mouth?

 

38. Can Iraqi Parliament End U.S. Occupation?

 

39. Retired Lt. General Says We Can't Win in Iraq

 

40. Get with the Program: More Funds = Longer War

 

41. Mile-Long Memorial by Veterans for Peace (Gainesville, FL)

 

42. Declassified Pre-War Intelligence Report

 

43. President Bush Flip Flops on War Strategies

 

44. Senate Passess War-Funding Bill

 

45. House Okays Billions for War

 

LINKED

On Iraq, a State of Denial (Krauthammer at WaPo)

Ex-Iraq Commander Says Bring Troops Home (Associated Press)

Comments

[Mark]

I appreciate the link, but I should point out that I do NOT find Krauthammer at all persuasive. The point of my post was to take issue with the premise underlying his article that "top-down reconciliation" is even possible. My argument is that the idea of "top-down" reconciliation is in many ways an oxymoron....which makes continued attempts to seek top-down reconciliation well, moronic.

[Damozel]

Sorry, Mark. I didn't mean to imply that everyone in that list agreed with Krauthammer.