One of the questions that early war critics asked in the lead-up to OIF was, “why now?” It was a fair question: Of the many several reasons to go to war in Iraq, Saddam’s WMD programs - the one rational which all branches of government were able to equally embrace - was assessed to be an emerging threat but never - contra strawman manufacturers throughout the land - an imminent one.
The same question ought be asked as we seek to extract ourselves in time from Iraq. The New York Times tinkers with the subject in their op-ed today, but doesn’t quite hammer it flat:
It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.
Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.
Let us lay aside for the moment the Times recent revelation with respect to the prospects for victory in Iraq, as well as the temptation to be the very first reward the paper’s courageous but newly outworn reluctance to pass judgment. Their time line for withdrawal seems driven as much by the editors’ loathing of President Bush and their determination to see the consequences of defeat hung around his neck while still in office - no surprise that, but it is nevertheless a little shocking to see how blithely the paper attends to those consequences themselves:
Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.
Think of it this way: If genocide and terrorist activity the paper predicts will happen were occurring absent US involvement, would it be hard to imagine the Times agitating for a full-scale insertion of American military power to prevent the same catastrophe for which they now agitate? But no: In order to arrive at the logical extension of an innate partisan animus, the paper is willing to wave away the deaths of all them furren wogs on the way to creating a new terrorist stronghold - picture the Hamas takeover in Gaza written on an industrial scale. Left unexplained to the reader is why this course is in any way superior to the presidential alternative.
The surge cannot in any case last longer than next March at current force levels. All of the paper’s recommendations for mitigation of the predicted disaster - international pressure, and dialogue with Iran, for example - are just the sorts of things that have been proven not to work throughout the world, most recently in the case of Iranian nukes. This is doubly astonishing when the paper’s own John Burns devotes an article to the “astonishing success” of coalition efforts in the heretofore rebellious Anbar province.
The ostensible reasons for withdrawal now are that the enterprise is costing too much - and how much, I wonder, is one genocide worth? - and that the Army is too preoccupied with killing terrorists in Iraq to prepare for the consequential act of preparing to fight terror. That we should decide to lose a war based on nothing more than a domestic political cycle makes no sense to me, but then again I’m only a war fighter, not a politician.
And so as we contemplate losing a war that the war’s critics thought we shouldn’t enter into, with all of the loss of innocent human life, strategic access, national prestige and security that such a defeat will entail, I’ll ask the question again that the war critics themselves asked: Why now?
Update: Jules is more patient. Or, in any case, more thoroughgoing.
13 responses so far ↓
1
AW1 Tim
// Jul 8, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Cap’n,
Why Now? Because the Democrat Party, and those teeming masses of leftists and limousine liberals suffering from BDS, have only this to fall back upon. The only platform, the only solution they have for any and all problems is: “It’s Bush’s Fault”.
Lookit here. The Dems, in their first 100 days in office, have undertaken 300 investigations. They have passed nothing of any substance, nor done virtually anything since taking charge of the legislative branch.
All they can do is threaten and bluster and twist facts, raise scurrilous charges, and generally bloviate about things they know little to nothing about. And why? because they HAVE nothing else to offer. Nothing.
The NYT and LAT can only cover for them for so long. They hope to destroy IOraq through a US and Coalition withdrawal in order to divert attention from their own inabilities. They are like the story of the “Emperor’s New Clothes”. The real tragedy, however, are the countless millions condemned to death or worse if those plans go into effect.
These politicians are akin to children playing with matches, except that here, they will set the whole world on fire if left alone.
Respects,
2
MissBirdlegs in AL
// Jul 8, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Because things are looking up a bit? Because we MIGHT have some sort of victory on which they’d HAVE to report? Because that goes against every scenario they’ve been pushing for so long? Doesn’t it sound a bit like PANIC?
Questions, questions…
3
Babs
// Jul 8, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Beacuse a sitcom is 22 minutes long plus commercials and this has gone on for 4 years… Way too long…
4
Casca
// Jul 8, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I pulled into Costco behind an SUV with a bumper sticker reading “Stop Endless War” with the “Endless” lined out, and “This” printed above it, yesterday. After parking a dozen spots up the row, I walked down and peeled the sticker off, all the while resisting the impulse to carve something appropriate into the tailgate. Direct action is always more effective than legislative process. That’s why we win.
5
Babs
// Jul 8, 2007 at 5:39 pm
OT but, I just have to tell the readers that John Smeaton’s pint donations are now up to 1,400!!!
He says he may donate some to the soliers in Iraq. But really, have you ever seen anything like this? He is now called the “Smeatonator”!
I love it!
There is some video up at Hot Air and he looks totally bagged!
6
RPL
// Jul 8, 2007 at 5:47 pm
The New York Times is in the process of putting itself out of business. Hardly anyone reads the damned rag anymore outside of NYC (I subscribe because my wife wants it), and those who do know what a waste of paper it really is.
7
david foster
// Jul 8, 2007 at 7:51 pm
“reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide”…in 1938, after the sellout at Munich, the following message was read in churches throughout Czechoslovakia:
The land of St Wencelas has just been invaded by foreigh armies and the thousand-year frontier has been violated. This sacrifice has been imposed upon us by our ally, France, and our friend, Britain. The Primate of the ancient Kingdom of Bohemia is praying to God Almighty that the peace efforts prompting this terrible sacrifice will be crowned with permanant success, and should they not, he is praying to the Almighty to forgie all those who imposed this injustice on the people of Czechoslovakia.
The above is from “Nineteen Weeks,” by Norman Moss, which continues:
Hitler was strengthened. The Hungarian-born historian John Lukacs recalls that Germans were transformed by their country’s expansion. “From Podolian illages to the avenues of great cities such as Budapest or Trieste or Prague, Germans, whether tourist visitors or white-stockinged youth, walked or marched with an arrogance and self-confidence that had never been their before.
8
fliterman
// Jul 8, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Like beauty, “innate partisan animus” is obviously in the eye of the beholder.
While I may not necessarily agree with all the NYT’s editorial points, I found it to be an interesting and intelligent discussion of facts and options.
But what to me may be even more interesting and ironic is the negative reaction to it by some unlikely sorts who surprisingly raise the “genocide” flag. (Heretofore, where have they been?)
While the potential of genocide is certainly real - whether we “leave” today, or even decades from now - some writers and bloggers (not necessarily lex) who raise the genocide issue sadly do so for political, rather than humanitarian reasons. Some ignore Darfur and other venues where genocide is actually occurring now, and not just a possibility in the future. ?¢‚Ǩ¬¶Which somewhat belies their purported outrage at the NYT, doesn’t it?
Re, “Why now ?”
Answer: Because it appears like we are just about to leave in the near future, regardless. (Although I personally don’t support withdrawal now) The writing is on the wall:
A sizable majority of Americans want us out of Iraq now.
More GOP leaders have now changed and support a pullout.
“There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare.” (Sun Tzu)
Our plans have not worked; there has been no effective alternate plan; our goals are uncertain if not unattainable.
Without national popular support, no war, no matter how necessary can be waged for long, much less won.
We have yet to correct many of our earlier mistakes.
Our Army and National Guard are broken; given another crisis or conflict, our national security is seriously threatened if not overwhelmed.
We do not have enough in-country troops to effect a positive outcome.
We still lack many of the necessary personnel - other than military - in place in Iraq to effect a positive outcome.
$500 billion, and the costs are escalating rapidly - perhaps over a trillion!
We are odd man out in the middle of a civil war.
Bin Laden is still alive; Al Queda is more of a threat.
“Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare. Therefore, a general who understands warfare is the guardian of people’s lives, and the ruler of the nation’s security.” (Sun Tzu)
Given a Hobson’s choice, the easiest option ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú quitting in this instance ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú is the most often chosen, even if not the more correct one.
Too many lives have already been lost, our national prestige is already in the toilet, our national security is ever more threatened today ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú so a ‘defeat’ (whatever that means), is a belated observation and somewhat irrelevant to those points.
However, we did indeed win the war long ago; but we failed to ‘win’ the occupation, and are still failing. If past is prologue, without major changes (far beyond any “surge”) we will continue to fail, and continue to lose the lives and limbs of our finest. Therefore, we will likely quit rather than continuing to fail.
Furthermore, rightly or wrongly, we will not think too much about those who will surely die in the continuing Iraqi civil war, much like after our retreat from Vietnam . . . . or our general indifference to a number of other human rights violations and genocides of the past century.
A nation long in denial eventually wakes up and takes action?¢‚Ǩ¬¶even if it may be an inappropriate action. And that is why it’s probably - “now” rather than later.
9
Casca
// Jul 8, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Dude, congratulations, you’ve got the specious conclusion market cornered!
10
Kris, in New England
// Jul 9, 2007 at 8:25 am
AW1 Tim said: “…The only platform, the only solution they have for any and all problems is: ?¢‚Ǩ?ìIt?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s Bush?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s Fault?¢‚Ǩ¬ù…”
In a microcosm - the CT Senatorial elections last fall - you can see how that worked for the candidate Ned Lamont. Took the Democratic nomination away from Joe Lieberman, based on one issue - the war. So Joe switched to an Independent ticket - and kept his Senatorial seat.
One can only hope that this small example will hold true on the larger political stage yet to come.
One issue does not make a President. I’m hopeful; not delusional, but hopeful that the American people will exercise the same self control for our country that the citizens of CT did for my state.
11
Jim C
// Jul 9, 2007 at 11:02 am
Why now? Because as Al Anbar proves; we’re winning. And the Dems cannot allow that.
Jim C
12
P-3W
// Jul 9, 2007 at 3:59 pm
There’s nothing like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory for the naysayers like the Dems and the NYT.
Mustn’t let Iraq become successful in any way, or Bush might be right after all, and can’t have that. Might mean they were wrong.
Two-faced sniveling weasels, that’s what they all are.
I agree with Jim C above.
Leave a Comment