There’s a difference between being merely “interested” in something, a grizzled old senior chief once told me, and being “committed.” A chicken has an interest in your bacon and eggs breakfast. But the pig?
The pig is committed.
So it is with those in the chattering and political class who have bet the farm on the belief – I do not say hope – that the US-led coalition is beaten in Iraq, that defeat is inevitable, that all is lost. So it’s of “interest” to me anyway, when Kimberly Kagan asks an important question today on the op-ed pages of the WSJ on the topic of the surge. A topic which leads inadvertantly if not inevitably to the question of commitment:
In Washington perception is often mistaken for reality. And as Congress prepares for a fresh debate on Iraq, the perception many members have is that the new strategy has already failed.
This isn’t an accurate reflection of what is happening on the ground, as I saw during my visit to Iraq in May. Reports from the field show that remarkable progress is being made. Violence in Baghdad and Anbar Province is down dramatically, grassroots political movements have begun in the Sunni Arab community, and American and Iraqi forces are clearing al Qaeda fighters and Shiite militias out of long-established bases around the country.
This is remarkable because the military operation that is making these changes possible only began in full strength on June 15. To say that the surge is failing is absurd. Instead Congress should be asking this question: Can the current progress continue?
I suppose the answer to that will depend upon what you consider “progress,” and what kind of result you’re committed to.
Currently, and historically, the Democrats are committed to grasping for power, all other consequences be damned.
BTW, as one intimate with the Buckeye GOP, I can assure you that the R behind George Voinovich’s name has never been anything more than a figleaf.
Cap’n,
From my perspective, it would appear the now-ascendant anti-war crowd is driving the bus. Unfortunately, the driver(s) have no license to drive, using old, out of date manuals and lost the approval of the testing officer.
This being preparatory to an election year, I would hesitate to make a guess as to how the Lords and Ladies of the Congress would answer Ms. Kagen’s question. I believe it’s time for an experienced Adult to get in the driver’s seat.
Lex,
The way it was told to me was that the chicken “was involved”… I sometimes think back on all those I have had to deal with who were ‘involved’ in some great project or another.
Casca,
Which part(s) of Buckeye Land are you familiar with?
Unfortunately, the Democrats desire to acquire and maintain power trumps everything…even the safety of this great nation and its’ peoples. I would hazard to say that this insatiable desire, while debatable, borders on, if it does not exceed, the term “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
We need to change the terms of the Global War on Terror to the Peace Enforcement by Nations Indoctrinating Solidarity. Or maybe the Tactical War Against Terror.
Just to see who in the government/press is really paying attention.
Pardon the acronyms, Sir.
Lex, you are really playing with fire. You are talking about the commitment of the pig. How many of our leaders have that type of commitment? First, all of the Members of Congress and the Administration took an oath much like the one we took when we entered the Military. We promised to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. We took this oath without reservation and no intent to evade. Please remember when the Fathers of this Nation started this process coming from a monarchy. The one thing they wanted to do was to get away from the King as quickly as they could. The only way they could do this was to see all power emanating from the Constitution. READ THE CONSTITUTION FOR YOURSELF, DON’T TRUST ME! Read Article 1, section 8. Many of of the issues claimed by the President are actually stated by The Constitution to be in the realm of Congress. All of the discussion about Military policy are rightfully determined and decided by CONGRESS, NOT THE “GREAT DECIDER”. It is the President’s responsibility to carry out the policies of Congress.
No, I don’t like everything here either, but sometimes we need to go back to our roots. What should be the consequences in a situation like this? THIS IS THE REASON I WANTED YOU TO READ THE PORTION OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR YOURSELF.
No matter how you look at this, it will be a very long and tough situation. I am talking about many generations for both societies.
Grumpy
Grump,
All three branches of gov’t are co-equal. This is long established. Congress legislates, the presidential administration executes and the court interprets. That’s why the President doesn’t get to send the FBI rooting around in Congressional offices, and why he doesn’t allow them to paw through the presidential rubbish, and no one messes with the Supremes. When it comes to the issue of war, the Constitution is clear: POTUS is the commander-in-chief of the military, and Congress has the power of the purse.
If Congress really wants to bring the troops home, it’s in their power: Cut off all fund for further deployments. At that point, the president can either decide to leave the guys who are already there forever, knowing that Congress won’t defund soldiers in the field, or else he can bring the boys home when their time is up and blame the ensuing genocide on Congress.
Everything else is politics and the blame game. I don’t play that, I play “fight and win.”
We shouldn’t pick fights we don’t have to. Having picked a fight – no matter how wisely – we owe it to ourselves to win.
While the democrats are actively trying to make us lose the war for various reasons, it is the liberal left and the socialist liberals that are doing the most damage. Through their media (which is most media) they are misrepresenting, lying, slanting and omitting news and information at a rate that is alarming and unbelievable.
But no one but a few right wing blogs seems to care. They say ignorance is bliss, but ignorance through the malfeasance and hatred of the media, for the republicans and this administration, and the fact that their milk and honey socialist future is still being held hostage by the conservatives and republicans….
Well, let?
While the democrats are actively trying to make us lose the war for various reasons, it is the liberal left and the socialist liberals that are doing the most damage. Through their media (which is most media) they are misrepresenting, lying, slanting and omitting news and information at a rate that is alarming and unbelievable.
But no one but a few right wing blogs seems to care. They say ignorance is bliss, but ignorance through the malfeasance and hatred of the media, for the republicans and this administration, and the fact that their milk and honey socialist future is still being held hostage by the conservatives and republicans….
Well, let’s just say that they have decided, and are at war with the right, and that the right is too busy doing other things to even notice.
Except for a few, of course, but their warnings and writings are unread by the majority of Americans, who only watch the liberal media in-between watching their favorite TV shows,
And not even very often. Americans get their information somewhat like the rest of the world,
The media, the rumor, the talk at work (usually led by a liberal socialist).
So, Americans, or at least most of them, do not even know that they are being hoodwinked, tricked and deceived.
Ignorance is bliss…
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
I saw the name Kagan and knew right away what the article was going to say. Sure enough she is the wife of Fred Kagan author of the misnamed “surge” strategy. ( If it was really a surge-it would have taken less than six months to get the forces moved-but that is another commentary on our flawed logistics infrastructure..and the fact that none of the armed services is large enough).
She hardly constitutes an objective observer-academic credentials or not. And its interesting that her article pointedly ignores the key issue at hand here-which is the about to be documented failure of the Iraqis do any of the things they signed up to do and that the so called “time” that has been bought for them has been wasted by the Iraqis and their leadership.
Old Fred has enlisted the whole family in justifying his historical record. His brother wrote a similar piece 3 months ago that is virutally the same as this WSJ piece.
In both articles neither one could show when the Iraqis would not need US assistance-simply that they needed yet again more time-after 4 years of investment by the US in their nation.
What is especially troubling about all the Kagan’s is that they never really come out and define what winning really means-just that their plan is far superior to any of the other alternatives offered and that it may take year after year of continued American sacrifice matters not a wit. Perhaps they need to take a hard look at a different point of view like this and then try to convince the already convinced.
Lex, I respectfully disagree. I understand High School Civics, but that is not all that the Constitution says, EVEN IN THE TIME OF WAR!
About this war, I know we’ll win it over time. My really big argument with people is they compare apples with wrenches. Right, there is no comparison. I came out of the Viet Nam era, they wanted more troops, they drafted them. We need to make very serious changes. I figure when Petraeus comes back, he’ll have laundry list changes to be made.
Let’s wait and see what’s on the list.
Grumpy
Yak, Northeastern, but went to school in Columbus at a small Midwestern university. Actually, I know the state pretty well politically.
they never really come out and define what winning really means…
Frankly, if all ‘winning’ means is not losing through an unneccesary and dishonorable politically expedient retreat, then that’s just fine by me. We all know what losing means, or should.
the key issue at hand here-which is the about to be documented failure of the Iraqis do any of the things they signed up to do and that the so called ?
they never really come out and define what winning really means…
Frankly, if all ‘winning’ means is not losing through an unneccesary and dishonorable politically expedient retreat, then that’s just fine by me. We all know what losing means, or should.
the key issue at hand here-which is the about to be documented failure of the Iraqis do any of the things they signed up to do and that the so called “time” that has been bought for them has been wasted by the Iraqis and their leadership.
Yes, and for their failure to solve an incredibly complex problem in synch with our embarassingly short four year attention span, they should be left to the mercy of genocidal maniacs. Seems fair.
Lex, let”s take a look at what the Constitution actually says under Article I, Section VIII “Powers vested in Congress”.
9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.
10. To define and Punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.
11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (Private note: These letters wero only given to private citizens ONLY. They were not to given to public officials, elected or appointed, nor military on any level active duty, retired nor veterans. These were for private citizens only.) and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.
12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than 2 years.
13. To provide and maintain a Navy.
14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.
15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurections, and repel Invasions.
(Note: There are additional powers and provisions in the Constitution for Congressional authority over the use military.
My personal view, these are powers and responsibilities are in the Constitutional Congress. The question is do we want Congress to use them? My answer is NO! But the Congress is discussing things which are well within their Constitutional scope on POLICY, NOT JUST FUNDING! Is Iraq the central issue? It is actually an outgrowth of ignorant arrogance of the President. He would be much wiser to stop the stonewalling with both sides. Even the Commander in Chief must obey his orders, “separation of powers” does not protect him. This is true of all the Constitutional branches of Government. His choices cannot prevent other branches from fulfilling their mission, this is not a separation, but an obstruction. I would hope we should work together. I believe this was the goal of our founding fathers.
Grumpy
While you’re quoting to me the document we both swore an oath to support and defend, go back and re-read Article II. There is an operational military chain of command and the President sits at the top of it all by himself. There are no provisions for a 535-member council of war.
Everything you’ve quoted outlines Congress’ power of the purse and to legislate the laws around which the military is internally organized. That and the authorization to use military force in Iraq, which they also approved.
Congress can no more issue the President orders than he can issue them to Congress or to the Supreme Court, but each has their own levers to check and balance through the separation of powers. Congress declines to use their Constitutional powers, preferring partisan games. So be it.
The power to end the Iraqi adventure is already in their hands through the power of the purse. Alternatively, they could vote to repeal the AUMF. They decline to do either out of fear of the political repurcussions of the humanitarian and security disaster which will surely ensue to use either power.
This is an ignoble ducking of their responsibilty and integrity if they really believe the effort is useless. Their attempts to compel the President to alter his operational command discretion – how many troops, how they should fight – is what is at the source of all this Constitutional friction.
Lex, Even though we primarily disagree, you never became personal. For this reason alone, you have EARNED my respect. History will be the “Ultimate Decider” of this debate. Could or should I continue this debate? But why and at what cost? I will not pursue, I’ll get out of the way and allow “History” to be the teacher. Good luck and THANK YOU!
Grumpy
Well that’s the way people of good will ought to disagree, and I appreciate you also maintaining the high ground.
I try not to ever make it or take it personal against those who drop by here. At least, I don’t do it first
Davreg,
At this pace “winning” will cost the United States dearly-and is costing the United States in terms of what it should be doing in the world. I’m with Barnett when he says that the “Long War” should be boring, “eschewing the war of ideas and focusing more on creating economic facts on the ground–slow and steady–while al Qaeda gets all caught up in illusory “victories.” I don’t want America or the Core on a war footing for the Long War, so de-escalating its crisis profile is a good thing”.
We’ve got a pretty good notion of what “trying to win” is costing, no real clue of what “winning” might cost unfortunately and more dangerously still, nothing but a bunch of queasy hopes about what “losing” might cost.
Can’t balance a single equation with three variables, so it all comes down to what kind of risk you’re willing to take and who gets to shoulder that risk. Right now it’s US armed forces, Iraqi Security Forces and the Iraqi people. Withdraw and it becomes a much higher cost to the ISF and Iraqi people, along with some unknowable but also unboundable risk to the American people, freedom-loving peoples everywhere, US prestige globally and in particular the chance to be of influence in a strategically important part of the world.
In my view we’re “doing what we should be doing” militarily, and about as much as we can afford to do sustainably, more’s the pity. It’d be nice if we could get the non-military arms of government into the fight in a more meaningful way, but there it is.
Lex, that first para there sounds damned near, dare I say, dyspeptic, lol. I think the costs have been quantified, but like any business deal, there are a lot of “if’s”, that effect what the bottom line might be, and flopping the downside numbers on the table too early could be a deal-breaker. Culturally it suits us. The American people can wrap their minds around the installment plan. We have enough problems without having to deal with sticker shock. The cost, no matter what it is, is the price of doing business when you’re the market leader. We need to protect the brand, and there is a possibility that we’ll recover costs on the backside.
Al Queda’s victories are illusory right up until the time something big blows up, I suppose.
Cost? Here’s an interesting trend regarding the deficit:
2004 – $413 billion
2005 – $318 billion
2006 – $248 billion
2007 – $205 billion
Yes, I understand that ‘cost’ includes more than dollars, and that the human cost is high. As high as it would be if we were to encourage further attack my globally demonstrating our moral weakness? Well, no one can be sure of that, but history shows that we’re actually doing pretty well right now, comparatively.
Cost in terms of what “we should be doing in the World?” WTH does that mean? Darfur? How long do you think we’d be there before the same “Bring ‘Em Home NOW!” crap started up again? If you haven’t the stomach for Iraq, you haven’t the stomach for any foreign intervention.
If we fail in Iraq, we may has well defund and disband the ground Army as we will no longer need it. We won’t bother with trying to “win the peace” anymore – we’ll have to limit ourselves to aerial and naval bombardment, and just decide that “it sucks to be you” for the folks that pay the ultimate.
Actually no-we will still need a ground Army and there will still be work for them to do.
The problem is that we started down the wrong road and now the choice is either to hit the exit ramp or go back and start again. Starting again means treating the Iraqis -all Iraqis-as the Arabs they are and conquering them-making the country an colony or occupied territory. There is no patience for that in America or Iraq. We are too far down the wrong road.
What good will it do to win if it paves the way for another strongman to come? Which in the end is what is coming to Iraq, and its probably what that useless country needs. He’s out there and it will come-just a matter of time. Arabs are not ready for democracy and won’t be till they shed Islam.
Circle the wagons and damn the consequences. Got it. Over and out.