Variables
by
William S. Lind
by William S. Lind
DIGG THIS
One
way to look at the situation in Iraq is to try to identify variables,
elements that could change. Without change, the war is likely to
end with U.S. troops having to fight their way out, if they can.
The
military situation in Iraq is not a variable. All that can change
is the speed of our defeat. Some actions might slow it, although
the time for such actions, such as adopting an "ink blot" strategy
instead of "capture or kill," passed long ago.
Other
actions could speed our defeat, an attack on Iran chief among them.
It now looks as if the Bush administration may have realized that
an out-of-the-blue, Pearl Harbor-style air and missile attack on
Iran's nuclear facilities is politically infeasible. Instead, the
White House will order a series of small "border incidents," U.S.
pinpricks similar to last week's raid on an Iranian mission in Kurdistan,
intended to provoke Iranian retaliation. That retaliation will then
be presented as an Iranian attack on U.S. forces, with the air raids
on Iranian nuclear targets called "retaliation." Fabricated border
incidents have a long history as causus belli; perhaps the
Bushies can dress some German soldiers up in Polish uniforms.
As
Bush made clear in last Wednesday's speech, his policies are not
a variable. He will pursue the neo-cons' dreams all the way to Hell,
where they originated.
That
leaves the U.S. Congress, and it may well be the key variable in
the equation. 2008 is not that far away, and electoral panic continues
to spread among Hill Republicans. Senator Brownback is the first
conservative Republican Senator to break with the administration,
opposing the "surge." Conservatives have a central role to play
here, because if they turn openly against the war, Bush will lose
his base.
But
the Democrats hold both Houses of Congress, so the main burden of
ending a failed enterprise will fall on them. At present, they seem
unwilling to go beyond symbolic but ineffectual measures, such as
passing "non-binding resolutions." Why? It may be that they are
paralyzed by a false understanding of the war, one stated by Vice
President Cheney on "Fox New Sunday" when he said, "We have these
meetings with members of Congress, and they agree we can't fail…
"
In
fact, we have already failed. The war in Iraq was lost long ago.
In terms of the administration's objective of a "democratic Iraq,"
which Bush re-stated in his Wednesday speech, it was lost before
the first bomb fell, because it was unattainable no matter what
we did. Now, not even the minimal objective of restoring an Iraqi
state is attainable, at least until Iraq's many-sided, Fourth Generation
civil war sorts itself out, and probably not then. Events in Iraq
are simply beyond our control; the forces our invasion and destruction
of the Iraqi state unleashed far overpower any army we can deploy
to Iraq, surge or no surge.
Once
Democrats accept and announce that Congress cannot lose a war that
is already lost, they will have the freedom of action they need
to get us out. Polls suggest the public will go along; most Americans
now realize the war is lost, regardless of what President Bush may
say or do.
It
is probably true, as Senator McCain constantly reminds us, that
chaos will follow an American withdrawal. But that chaos became
inevitable, not with America's withdrawal (it is already happening,
even with U.S. troops present), but with its destruction of the
Iraqi state. Again, the Democrats need to make this point to the
American people, and make it often.
Senator
Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, put
it best. According to the January 5 Washington Post, he said
in an interview,
I have reached
the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration,
maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost.
... Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing
on your watch and hand it off to the next guy – literally, not
figuratively.
I
believe Senator Biden is correct; I said the same thing in an earlier
column. If the question the Democrats put to the American people
is, should we allow thousands more American kids to get wounded
or killed so the Bush administration can put our withdrawal off
until it is out of office, the public's answer will be clear. Killing
our kids for national objectives is one thing; doing so for political
advantage is something else.
The
key variable thus comes down to this: do the Democrats in Congress
have the courage and the communication skills to level with the
people about why the war in Iraq is continuing after we have lost
it? If not, they will have proven themselves as unfit to govern
as the Republican majorities they replaced.
January
18, 2007
William
Lind [send him mail]
is an analyst based in Washington, DC.
Copyright
© 2007 William S. Lind
William
Lind Archives
|