A peacenik goes to war

My opposition to the war in Iraq has been a focal point of my political thinking since Bush started speeding the nation toward this conflict in 2002. Despite international and widespread domestic pressure to the contrary, Bush proceeded with the invasion and left us with a terrible mess. Frustration over the war, and Americans’ blind acceptance of Bush’s justifications and continued use of misinformation was a major reason Todd and I started this blog just over a year ago: we felt the need to do something to speak out.

Now, four years since the war-talk began in earnest and three and a half years after the invasion, America is at a crossroads. The national consensus is that the war was a mistake and that the government has committed a terrible blunder in its prosecution. Folks are angry and want change, but there is no greater clarity on what to actually do in Iraq than when our tanks first entered Baghdad. Democrats may capitalize on this frustration by winning elections this fall (and I hope they do), but ultimately they need to offer some solutions. And with a heavy heart, I have decided that “Bring the troops home now” is not the right solution.

To make myself clear, I offer a dozen well-documented reasons why Bush has been a disastrous president on this issue: His administration:

1. Decided in advance to invade Iraq before there was intelligence to justify such an invasion.
2. Exaggerated intelligence about WMD’s.
3. Exaggerated the connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
4. Are either liars or morons: If the intelligence was falsified or exaggerated, that’s inexcusable dishonesty; if the faulty intelligence was believed, that’s inexcusable incompetence.
5. Ruined our international reputation by promoting this faulty intelligence in the world community and then proceeded without genuine multilateral support.
6. Invaded Iraq without an adequate understanding of sectarian tensions within the country and assuming it would be a quick in-and-out operation.
7. Invaded without allocating enough manpower or equipment to properly secure the country, in direct defiance of the requests and advice of generals in charge on the ground.
8. Devoted untold resources to this invasion that should have been used in the struggle against Al Qaeda (and just where is Osama, anyway?).
9. Declared “Mission Accomplished” when the invasion was over, but long before the war was won.

10. Continues to insist on a connection between Iraq and 9/11, even though he admits Iraq had "nothing" to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
11. Uses the war in Iraq and the broader “war on terror” to defy the Constitution and restrict the very civil liberties that make America free.
12. Refuses to acknowledge any of these mistakes, or to articulate a viable strategy for actual victory in Iraq.

Liberals, libertarians, populists and independents may have allowed their anger over all these screw ups and acts of dishonesty to cloud clear thinking about the current reality of the situation. While the invasion may have been misguided and mishandled, I have become convinced that to pull out of Iraq would leave the Iraqi people in the midst of chaos, further destabilize the Middle East, and encourage actual terrorist organizations and activities. At the risk of having my liberal membership card revoked (and getting some serious grief from my friends), here are my arguments for fighting for a stable, free Iraq with a long-term, maybe permanent, US military presence:

1. This has been said so many times it’s a cliché, but it’s true nevertheless: if we leave Iraq the already near-civil war will turn into an all-out bloodbath. After wrecking the country’s infrastructure and wiping out its government, we have a humanitarian duty to help these people avoid total annihilation (liberals, after all, aren’t about taking a “screw ‘em” approach to disadvantaged peoples).
2. While there may have been no actual Iraq-Al Qaeda connection before the war, the Sunni insurgency, embodied in folks like the late terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, is clearly driven by the same ideology as the Islamic extremists who committed the 9/11 atrocities. Though not intentional, the war in Iraq has opened a new front against our actual enemies, and a post-American Iraq dominated by the Sunni insurgency will be a certain haven for real terrorists.
3. A three-state solution, while worthy of consideration, has to guard against Shi’a dominance. A post-American Iraq dominated by Shiites would be a haven for expanding Iranian influence in the Middle East. This, to me, is the sole argument for insisting on a unified Iraq.
4. Iran (especially a nuclear-armed Iran) and Syria pose serious threats to the region and to the international community because of their unabashed support for terrorism. The recent war in Southern Lebanon was a result of an emboldened Hezbollah, well-armed and supported by Syria and Iran. And while I’m pleased the fighting has ended, Hezbollah has reason to claim victory in the conflict because they have survived to fight another day.
5. The greatest threat to freedom in the world is religious extremism, whether it is Islamic extremism in the Middle East or Christian extremism at home. Just as we need to fight for changes in political leadership within the US, we must be prepared to fight against organizations and regimes worldwide that use their extremist ideologies to attack innocents and threaten governments. This is no phantom threat, and it will not be defeated quickly. A semi-permanent military presence in the Middle East might offer us some advantage in influencing the region and provide a degree of deterrence against Iran, Syria and other legitimate threats.

So, how do we actually “win” in Iraq, when the situation seems so un-winnable? I think at least three broad responses point the way. First, we need to abandon the idea that we’re getting out anytime soon. If Iraq has any hope for becoming a semi-stable, semi-free nation, it will take a long time. Our desperate, well-intentioned effort to get the country back on its feet and set up a government before the government was secure may have actually encouraged the insurgency. They saw a great opening in the instability.

Secondly, we are going to need a much larger commitment of troops and resources to secure Baghdad and Anbar province. Michael Gordon, interviewed on Fresh Air last week, is co-author of Cobra II, considered “the definitive history” of the Iraqi invasion. Gordon carefully documents how the Bush administration defied the wisdom and advice of military generals in carrying out the war, and expresses his hope that the war can eventually be won by making a long-term effort to provide security, nurture democracy, and eventually support the government in taking care of itself. I might add that this will be more than a military commitment. Major humanitarian efforts need to be enhanced to rebuild the country’s civic and social institutions and especially its economy.

Finally, we need a regime change here at home. Rumsfeld and Rice should be fired for their arrogance and incompetence in deciding to go to war and in prosecuting it, and Bush should be impeached for his failure of leadership. This won’t happen, of course, and so the most realistic thing we can hope for is a change in Congress, which by controlling purse strings and acting as a check on the Executive branch may influence the direction of the war. To do this, though, Democrats will need a unified and coherent strategy on the war, something a little more substantive than “Stay the course” or “Bring them home.” So far, they have not put forth such a strategy. America and Iraq can’t wait much longer.

The argument, of course, is that the extremist ideologies and sectarian violence runs so deeply in Iraq that they will never make peace with themselves, will never tolerate our presence and will never open up to democratic or economic reform. I think liberals should be careful using these kinds of generalizations about whole groups people (I have been guilty of this myself), and also careful about self-fulfilling prophesies. Americans may not have the political will for the long-term fight involved in securing and supporting Iraq (and this is largely because of the failures of the Bush administration in the invasion and occupation), and so I recognize the most likely outcome here is an eventual pull-out of Iraq before the nation is secure. The result will be just as we have predicted: violence, destabilization and more terrorism. We can blame this on Bush, and that may make us feel better, but the truth is that we will make it happen if we get out now.

So, against all odds, I am staking out a new position on the war. It was wrong, it was handled wrongly, and to simply leave now without a post-war plan would be wronger still. Liberals, libertarians, independents, populists, and conservatives need to pick up the pieces the Bush administration has left and try to make something positive, productive and peaceful from the results.