NYT: Iraq worst foreign policy debacle in American history

In a grimly eloquent editorial titled "Trying to Contain the Iraq Disaster", today's
NYT paints a dark portrait of the political situation in Iraq.

No matter what President Bush says, the question is not whether America can win in Iraq. The only question is whether the United States can extricate itself without leaving behind an unending civil war that will spread more chaos and suffering throughout the Middle East, while spawning terrorism across the globe.

It is a picture that offers little comfort to those who abhor the war and the republican administration that took us there.

In America, almost no one -- even the administration's harshest critics -- wants to tell people the bitter truth about how few options remain on the table, and about the mayhem that will almost certainly follow an American withdrawal unless more is done.

And, in a direct condemnation of the failure of Bush foreign policy, the Times placed those few options on the table.

1.    Start at Home
The Times plan calls for firing Rumsfeld, seeking and following the advise of military commanders, and stating, unequivocally, that the US will not have permanent bases in Iraq.
2.    Demand Reconciliation Talks
Demand reconciliation talks begin immediately, in parallel with negotiations for US withdrawal.

Tomorrow would not be too soon; the end of the year would be too late.

3.    Stabilize Baghdad
Supply sufficient troops to stabilize Baghdad, proving to beleaguered Iraqis that security and stability is possible.
4.    Convene the Neighbors
Go beyond our traditional allies and reach out to Damascus and Tehran to broker a peace.
5.    Acknowledge Reality

Truth will only take us so far, but it is the right way to begin. Americans will probably spend the next generation debating whether the Iraq invasion would have worked under a competent administration. Right now, the best place to express bitterness about what may become the worst foreign policy debacle in American history is at the polls. But anger at a president is not a plan for what happens next.

When it comes to Iraq the choices in the immediate future are scant and ugly. But there are still a few options to pursue, and the alternatives are so horrible that it is worth trying once again -- as long as everyone understands that there is little time left and the odds are very long.

By leading us into the wrong war at the wrong time for all the wrong reasons, this Republican administration has precluded any chance of victory in Iraq. As American opinion moves against this war, the administration is caught like a deer in the headlights - afraid to take any substantive action or coherent steps to repair the disaster they have created for fear of losing their chimera of power. Or, as the NYT states:

The administration, for all its hints about new strategies and timetables, is obviously hoping to slog along for two more years and dump the problem on Mr. Bush's successor.

Americans have been denied any sense of victory. Will we retain any shred of honor as we extricate ourselves from Iraq?

Not if we cannot change course. Not if we cannot move in a new direction. Not if we cannot break the stranglehold of the Republican-controlled congress.

For two more weeks, we must fight with every resource we have, every extra moment we can give. We must make change happen.

•  "Tomorrow would not be too soon, the end

  of the year will be too late."  Casey and Kahlilzad said today that the latest "new" plan will not be ready until the end of the year.

  by litigatormom on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:20:59 PM PDT

  •  re

    Kahlilzad was obviously a big fan of Annie the Musical™ as a child.

    by cookiesandmilk on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:28:50 PM PDT

•  Judy Miller's War

  Any apology in that editorial?

  by fairleft on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:21:13 PM PDT

  •  re

    Right on.

    Did we ever get her offical rank in:

    Operation: Create Iran Jr.™

    ??

    by cookiesandmilk on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:27:24 PM PDT

  •  No shit.

    The cheerleaded the war through omission of facts.

    by Bob Johnson on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:28:45 PM PDT

  •  No, it's George Bush's war

    Miller was just a mouthpiece. Admittedly the NYT blew any sense of unbiased journalism on that one.

    But at least this editorial gets it right. And if every Bush-supporting journal or Bush-voting Republican can change positions and see the light, I say:

    Welcome to our side!!!!

    by MrSandman on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:02:41 PM PDT

    •  Whose side are they really on?

      The Iraqi resistance has forced some realism on the interventionists. But the disease still lives.

      by fairleft on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:49:35 PM PDT

•  Change begins on November 7

  And I did wonder if this is "the worst debacle in American history" why shouldn't Condi be fired along with Rumsfeld???

  by MrSandman on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:23:42 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    I'd say fire Cheney too if that were possible. According to Bob Woodward, Cheney has basically dropped out of active involvement in Iraq and put himself into a Laura-Barney Bubble in which his wife and daughter tuck him in each night with bed time stories about how getting rid of Saddam was the 'right thing' to do. I guess I'll have to settle for this until impeachment or 2009, whichever comes first.

    by Warren Terrer on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:23:37 PM PDT

•  Good Frontline Last Night

  "The Lost Year in Iraq"

  http://www.pbs.org/...

  by ortcutt on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:30:40 PM PDT

  •  More like

    Lost Three Years. There was a chance that the Iraq invasion could be translated into something positive, back in 2003. But there was very little room for error. Unfortunately, the Bush administration, which gives plenty of room for error, was in charge.

    by Warren Terrer on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:26:28 PM PDT

•  Need to talk with the pople fighting us

  talking to the surrounding countries is nice,
  but a peace summit needs to include the people fighting us.

  I have yet to hear their position or demands ( other than US out of Iraq and US bases out of Saudi Arabia, which was the origianl Bin Laden position.)

  Then a summit with the factions of Iraq.

  by Valerius on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:31:21 PM PDT

•  This is so on the money...

  Americans have been denied any sense of victory. Will we retain any shred of honor as we extricate ourselves from Iraq?

  I might rephrase to:

  In starting this war, George W. Bush denied Americans any chance of victory from the outset.  Will he now restore our honor as we extricate ourselves from Iraq?

  But in the end, I agree with Ret. General William Odom, CJCS under Reagan, that George W. Bush will go down in American history as launching the single most catastrophic foreign policy debacle.  Ever.

  by STOP Votergate on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:31:45 PM PDT

  •  I don't agree

    that there was no chance for victory. I was against the war from the start, but it could have turned out differently had someone with skill and intelligence, as opposed to Dubya, been in charge. Then again, the mere fact that Bush was the one in charge could be the same as saying there was no chance of victory.

    by Warren Terrer on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:28:48 PM PDT

•  Well, I still say WW1 was worst US debacle

  If we hadn't gotten into World War One, the two sides would have stalemated and ended the war on more even terms -- which just might have averted World War II.  But Iraq is definitely our second worst foreign policy debacle, knocking Vietnam to third.

  by richter on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:32:17 PM PDT

  •  we may ahve set the stage for WW3

    by Valerius on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:34:52 PM PDT

  •  But Iraq has prevented us

    from intervening to stop genocide in Darfur, from creating a viable government in Afghanistan, from exerting any real pressure on Iran, North Korea or China (which could, frankly, take Taiwan in 48 hours if it felt like it), and will end up costing us $2 trillion at a time when we can't maintain our domestic infrastructure, transition to alternative fuels or prevent catastrophic climate change from permanently altering our only human habitat.  

    Not to mention the billions that have been channelled to Republicans through massive profiteering, or the permanent dishonor of invading a country, destorying much of its heritage, culture and infrastructure, and killing a half million of its citizens.

    by Bob Love on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:51:44 PM PDT

    •  Calling it the worst policy debacle in history

      is hardly sufficient when you look at the damage done.

      One of my Spanish friends asked if we had given up our constitution after the terror bill was enacted. I jokingly replied, "Imagine the leader of the free world picking out appropriate instruments of torture."

      He looked at me aghast and replied, "You don't really believe you still lead the free world, do you?"

      You cite some pretty fine proof that we don't.

      by MrSandman on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:16:34 PM PDT

      •  We're still the leader by virtue of power

        But whatever moral example we ever represented is pretty much shot to hell now.

        by richter on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 02:47:44 PM PDT

        •  Which makes us the Bully of the World.

          W has confused bullying with leadership.  

          by Bob Love on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 11:03:57 PM PDT

          •  Yes. A very good way of putting it.

            by richter on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 07:43:08 AM PDT

    •  I still thinkWW1 outcome was worse for us...

      ...but you make a compelling case for Iraq.  And as I say below, we still don't know what this war will cost us in the years to come.  Some of the possibilities are very grim indeed, including another major terrorist attack from some jihadists WE recruited with this abysmal war.

      by richter on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 02:46:14 PM PDT

      •  You make a good case.

        But I think this is the world's first true planet-wide crisis, one with unknowable, incalculable repercussions, and Bush's response has led us 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

        One of my hopes is that by November of 2008, W will be so completely discredited that future presidents of either or any party will be forced to repudiate every position that he has taken, and to take real action to reduce greenhouse emissions and the general destruction of our air, water and earth.  

        by Bob Love on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 11:09:41 PM PDT

  •  I'd agree with you

    if the US had been the one who started WWI in the first place for no good reason. Iraq, on the other hand, is just like poking ourselves in the eye with a sharp stick.

    by elmo on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:53:10 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, Iraq = quagmire + stupidity

      I mean we can't even blame the French for this one!

      by ChicagoDem on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:06:46 PM PDT

    •  I don't see this effecting my premise

      World War One was a shared debacle, to be sure.  Iraq is very much a debacle that is entirely our own (unless you take the so-called "coalition" seriously, which I certainly don't.  But if you accept my premise that we may have set the stage for World War II by entering World War One, the results of that decision were still more catastrophic than the results of the war in Iraq... so far.  Indeed, that is the weakest part of my premise.  We still don't know how much damage Iraq is going to inflict on us in the years to come -- Bob Love's list above is only part of it.

      by richter on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 02:43:24 PM PDT

      •  It's like Vietnam

        There's a war going on already, do you join it, or stay out? That, to me, is a very different calculation than the one you take to start a war where one doesn't already exist.  

        by elmo on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 04:11:14 PM PDT

  •  I think you're

    exaggerating the military role the US played in WWI. The US played only a minor role militarily in that war. It's major role was industrial and financial. Maybe that's what you are referring to though. I'm not sure.

    by Warren Terrer on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:31:26 PM PDT

    •  No, I meant militarily

      We entered the war in 1917. By that point both sides were exhausted, and the Germans greatly feared that our entry would tip the scales against them -- so much so that they made a concerted effort to win the war before our troop strength grew.  That effort failed -- and in most of my readings on the subject, there seems to be a consensus that our intervention resulted in the huge scale of Germany's defeat.  This lead to the disastrously punitive Versailles treaty that fueled the rage of a generation of German fascists.

      To be sure, many countries flirted or embraced fascism in the 20s and 30s -- including Italy, which ended up on the winning side in WW I.  So it is entirely conjectural on my part to suggest that World War II would not have happened if the outcome of World War I had been more favorable for the Germans.  But there certainly is a case to be made for it.  One could also add that the American public eventually grew so disillusioned with the experience of Word War I that it fed our isolationism in the early years of World War II, a war we SHOULD have gotten into from the very first.

      So again, my list of worst foreign policy debacles would be -- in descending order of "debacleness."

      1. World War One

      2. Iraq

      3. Vietnam

      4. Support for pro-American despots during Cold War

      5. Delayed entrance into World War II

      Anyone else have a list they'd like to offer?

      by richter on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 02:28:00 PM PDT

      •  You're right

        While the number of troops actually deployed by the US in WWI was small, the potential US deployment was so great that it definitely was a factor in German thinking. That could have led to German disasters like Operation Michael, which was for Germany the WWI version of the Battle Of The Bulge.

        I'm not sure it was the worst debacle in US foreign policy history. The war certainly had enormous long-term implications and was a debacle for most of the combatants, but so much of the blame has to go to the European powers that started the war that I think it's hard to characterize it as a US debacle. But an argument could be made, as you outline.

        by Warren Terrer on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 03:27:42 PM PDT

•  not to demand a war criminal trial for the admini

  administration players in this so called pre emptive war would make the people of the US complicit in this horror.

  The arrests must include the house and senate leadership that supported this war, the generals
  and joint chief of staffs, war profiteers and all the those involved in the torture.

  by Valerius on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:34:06 PM PDT

•  please check this out

  http://www.geocities.com/...

  by Marty McFly on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:36:00 PM PDT

•  I am just an ordinary person who thinks,

  but I am two to three years ahead of the New York Times. At least some institution with (supposedly) some clout finally said it.

  by lecsmith on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:39:28 PM PDT

•  Reason # 1 why W is the Worst

  President Ever.  Of course, there are 14,792 similarly convincing reasons.

  by Bob Love on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:40:30 PM PDT

•  Cheney

  Thought playing Geppetto with his own well-oiled Pinocchio would give him enormous power.

  It did.

  Worst presidency ever.

  IMPEACH.

  by Yellow Canary on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:43:19 PM PDT

•  Here's the NON-'ugly' option for Iraq

  Why this looks "ugly" to the US and the NY Times I'm not sure:

  1. The US leaves over the next 6 to 9 months.

  2. During this period there are intense negotiations/reconciliation between the primary parties, the Shiites and Sunnis. These are largely successful, since it's pretty clear the Shiites would 'win' any final military duel, unless the Sunnis desire only an oil-less Central Iraq Republic.

  3. There are brief and limited civil disturbances after the US leaves.

  4. Shortly AFTER the US leaves, a basically peaceful election votes in a new constitution making permanent a united Iraq, strong autonomy, a strong and unbiased civil service, and a 'Lebanese' division of power. New national leaders are voted in too, untainted by the American occupation.

  5. Iraq goes forward as an moderately Islamic, Shiite-dominated, stable, eventually wealthy, and fairly democratic society.

  by fairleft on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:02:03 PM PDT

  •  That's more like the "non-ugly fantasy"

    The Sunnis aren't exactly quietly acquising to a Shi'a majority right now.  And the Shi'a aren't acting  graciously in their political victory either.  What makes you think they'd start playing nice without the  US military keeping them at least somewhat constrained?

    I'm pretty sure that any Vietnam-style sudden withdrawal would lead to major massacres and ethnic cleansing.  Unfortunately, that may ultimately be the choice Americans have to make...

    by ChicagoDem on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:09:46 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, Iraqis just _love_ killing each other

      As long as the US is present, there will be no solution, only all three sides (including the Kurds) jockeying for position. When the US leaves the array of power I think will definitely favor the Shiites. They need to reassure the Sunnis and then Iraq can go forward.

      I think exaggerated fears of Iraqi irrationality and propensity for violence are a product of our mass media. Reason: the most powerful forces in the US want a divided and regionally feeble Iraq. So, I just don't trust the suggestions of mainstream media like the NY Times for Iraq.

      And remember, our last Vietnam-style withdrawal, from Vietnam, did NOT lead to major massacres and ethnic cleansing. The major massacres all occurred while we were there, mostly by us (whether deliberate or 'collateral') or by forces allied with us.

      by fairleft on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:46:22 PM PDT

      •  It's only irrational...

        If you don't know the history.

        The Sunnis -- through the Ba'ath-- spent years oppressing the Shi'a (and Kurds, but they're not alone in that).  They murdered thousands of people.

        What happens when a minority ethnic group has brutally maintained its own power by violently crushing the prospects of the majority ethnic group?  This is a classic post-colonial scenario (with Saddam being the American-funded dictator who was supposed to keep the "evil" Shi'a from hooking up with Iran).  The results of this kind of history are evident in situations like India's partition or the mass-murder in Rwanda.  When people have spent decades being murdered by a relatively weak group, they don't usually take power offering olive branches.  Maliki's Shi'a government certainly hasn't been.

        by ChicagoDem on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 06:01:04 PM PDT

        •  The ethnic history of Iraq and Vietnam

          are quite different.

          I agree. Olive branches can't heal the deep wounds in Iraq. God knows what wounds, what hatreds, we have laid bare with this senseless war.

          by MrSandman on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:01:08 PM PDT

          •  Again with the certainty

            "Olive branches can't heal the deep wounds in Iraq."

            How do you know? Look at the completely peaceful relations east Asia and Japan have had after the unimaginably deep wounds of WWII. Olive branches galore got that accomplished. Look at Lebanon, look at Jordan and Egypt, deeply wounded by Israeli war and occupation but at peace with Israel now. There are numerous examples pointing my way, and every which way, of course. And every example is different, of course.

            The fact is that especially we Americans don't know what will happen if we leave, only that the Iraqis very much want us to leave, pretty much immediately, and they also very much want for the violence to end. They may know better than we do, based on vastly superior knowledge, what is best for their country and how to get to peaceful long-term stability. And they want us out, now.

            by fairleft on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 09:08:31 AM PDT

        •  Your knowledge is paper thin

          And I assume the paper is the New York Times. What is disturbing is that from that basis you have a near certainty that massive political violence (even more bloody than what is already going on) will break out after the US leaves.

          And that conjecture is the last 'official reason' people give for supporting a continued US occupation.

          I am not certain of the future but I believe my scenario is at least equally based on the paper-thin facts we Americans know. I think for example, it is clear that the sectarian violence started after the US occupation, and is being used as a divide and rule strategy by the US. Also, the public opinion surveys say 70% of Iraqis wants us out immediately. 80% think we cause more violence than we prevent. Do you think the Iraqis are stupid, or that 70% of them are just thirsting for an even more bloody frenzy of violence?

          Seriously, I think the Iraqis know better than we do what will probably happen after we leave. They probably think the various forces can at least work out a stable truce, and then from there gradually find reconciliation based on Shiite dominance and guarantees for all minorities. Much like what has been working well for awhile in Lebanon despite Israel's disruption.

          by fairleft on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 08:42:54 AM PDT