Newt Gingrich was on Meet the Press today. I believe he and Senator Chris Dodd created a good contrast to the different beliefs that exist. I cannot say that Dodd ‘won’ the debate. I can say that Gingrich "sounded good", that is I believe many people (especially those who have difficulty separating pundit talk from facts) thought he sounded good. Unfortunately, in my view he was wrong.
It is not because he is a conservative and I am not. It is not a Democratic vs Republican difference. I am not a political scientist nor a historian. Gingrich, in my view, simply fails the common sense test. He and other like-minded Republicans are driving the Country further from a solution.
Let us begin at the beginning. As the
Chicago Tribune reminds us today:
Five years ago, the most powerful group in Washington was a coterie of President Bush's foreign policy advisers who called themselves the Vulcans after the Roman god of fire. Along with a select group of intelligence officials, they crafted the administration's strategy on Iraq and launched the country into war.
"The Vulcans embodied a point of view that placed the highest priority on American military dominance as the prime aspect of America's dealings with the world," said James Mann, whose 2004 best seller, "Rise of the Vulcans,"
The Vulcans wanted to not just utilize Gunboat Diplomacy, they wanted to actually fire the guns. They wanted not to project our military dominance as a deterrent, but to inject military force to solve the world’s problems.
Of course, we all realize that this creates more problems than it solves. As the
Washington Post tells us today, this outcome was not simply hindsight being 20/20, it was predicted back in 2003:
Two intelligence assessments from January 2003 predicted that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and subsequent U.S. occupation of Iraq could lead to internal violence and provide a boost to Islamic extremists and terrorists in the region, according to congressional sources and former intelligence officials familiar with the prewar studies.
The two assessments, titled "Principal Challenges in Post-Saddam Iraq" and "Regional Consequences of Regime Change in Iraq," were produced by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and will be a major part of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's long-awaited Phase II report on prewar intelligence assessments about Iraq. The assessments were delivered to the White House and to congressional intelligence committees before the war started.
But even without these reports, it seems reasonable to have concluded that most people would object to a foreign military dictating the affairs of their country. Yet that was precisely the goal from the beginning. Clearly, it was foolish to have assumed that the Shia would welcome a pro-US agenda as their own.
Now let’s look at some of Gingrich’s views, which I believe represents what many Republicans believe or want to hear:
First, Gingrich indicated that setting a timeline means "legislating defeat." The Republicans have somewhat successfully linked ‘timeline’ with ‘defeat’, and have likely continued to do so because it polls well with their base. Their argument is that by telling the enemy when you will leave, or the conditions under which you will leave, the enemy will wait you out or create the conditions so that you do leave. They also argue that the timelines give the enemy a reference point.
The flawed logic here is the assumption that staying indefinitely has any greater chance for victory. It assumes that the enemy will be somehow unable or unwilling to adjust to a continued American presence or corresponding surge.
Second, Gingrich attempts to link our involvement in Iraq with the French involvement in the American Revolutionary War. He also mentions the "14 years of confusion" after the end of the war. Perhaps there were 14 years of confusion, but I do not believe it was 14 years of chaos and violence. But again, Gingrich’s premise is flawed. To truly equate the French involvement in the American Revolution to our involvement in Iraq’s civil war would require the French to have served merely as a policeman in the war, aiding both sides while trying to establish and support an American democracy. That’s not how I remember the history of the American Revolutionary War.
If Gingrich really wants to act like the French did, then we need to pick a side in the current civil war and assist them in victory.
The comparisons to World War II are also flawed. This is nothing more than attempt to link the demand for timelines and calls for withdrawal with a lack of will for victory. The problem in Iraq is not an American lack of will for victory, but simply a realization that there is a lack of means for victory. If anything, the lack of will exists on the part of the Iraqis: a lack of will for a stable, peaceful democracy. No military expert has suggested that the American military can end the civil war in Iraq. Even Bush has been forced to admit there is a lack of military means by lowering expectations and redefining victory.
If Gingrich really wants to provide a history lesson to everyone, perhaps he could site examples where a foreign power remained neutral and performed ‘police duties’ during a civil war with the end result of a stable, pro-American democracy. I am not aware of any.
In the past, the Bush administration has advertised ‘benchmarks’ for the withdrawal of American troops. We had "as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down". IOW, all the Iraqis had to do was not stand up and US forces would continue to be in Iraq. Result: continued attacks on police stations and Iraqi recruits. The current benchmark is ‘less violence’. IOW, all the insurgents have to do is maintain or elevate the level of violence in Iraq and US forces will continue to be in Iraq.
By the Bush Administration’s own statements, the latest ‘plan’ is simply for a surge of American troops to reduce violence to some 'acceptable level'. But even if we do achieve that ‘victory’, then we will leave? Or is this plan designed simply to provide another six months of support, after which new reasons to stay will be crafted?
What is missing from the Republican strategy of "continued bloodshed without progress" is the fact that there can be no militaristic imposition of Iraqi national unity on the Iraqis. Without some sort of unifying mechanism, there can be no stable democracy in Iraq. Creating a stable democracy used to be the goal, the definition of victory. Now, even Bush has said victory just means less violence.
With all of the spin about timelines = defeat, it is important to remember one thing: a lack of progress is worse than defeat, especially in terms of lives and dollars.
We also learn from the LA Times that our lack of progress is strengthening Al Qaeda:
In one of the most troubling trends, U.S. officials said that Al Qaeda's command base in Pakistan is increasingly being funded by cash coming out of Iraq, where the terrorist network's operatives are raising substantial sums from donations to the anti-American insurgency as well as kidnappings of wealthy Iraqis and other criminal activity.
The influx of money has bolstered Al Qaeda's leadership ranks at a time when the core command is regrouping and reasserting influence over its far-flung network. The trend also signals a reversal in the traditional flow of Al Qaeda funds, with the network's leadership surviving to a large extent on money coming in from its most profitable franchise, rather than distributing funds from headquarters to distant cells.
This should not be surprising. By some reports, the Al Qaeda ‘plan’ was to engage the US overseas in a costly and drawn-out battle to undermine US credibility and exact financial and military losses.
It seems at this point, the Al Qaeda plan is succeeding. Republicans seem more than willing to continue to advocate military force to fuel this fire.
To understand this, let’s compare combating terrorism to firefighting. Extinguishing a fire requires one of four things, any single one will do.
Remove the oxygen = kill all the terrorists. If there is still sufficient oxygen to sustain combustion, the fire will not go out. So eliminating some terrorists will not be sufficient. This is does not seem as a feasible solution.
Reduce the temperature = make terrorism/radical Islam less appealing. This means improving American support in the Arab world.
Inhibit the chemical chain reaction = disrupt the network. This presents a partial solution, but it does not seem to be a 100% solution.
Remove the fuel = get out of Iraq. Few Arabs will view the injection of US military power in the private affairs of an Arab country as a good thing. Kuwait was a single exception. Iraq is not Kuwait.
It is difficult to see how bombing a fire results in extinguishment. The exception of course is oil well fires. Perhaps that is the source of the Republican's confusion: they are fighting an oil fire instead of an insurgency?
Combating terrorism is no ordinary fire. It requires a multi-faceted, balanced approach because no single action can end it. Republican plan is anything but balanced. In fact, it seems to be enabling our enemies: exactly what they claim the Democratic calls for withdrawal will do.