Times change. Things change. Failure to adapt in the face of change can be a recipe for disaster. I was against Iraq from the get-go...not because I'm necessarily against pre-emptive aggression or thought Saddam a satisfactory ruler, but because, from a military perspective, invading Iraq at that moment in time was a grossly negligent and totally unnecessary strategic and tactical blunder in the declared war against Al-Qaida and the meme of radical religous fundamentalism.....a threat, I submit, substantially more dangerous than Saddam Huessein or the lack of democracy in the Middle East. So I have been a vocal anti-Iraq war activist consistently advocating withdrawal from Iraq and recommitment to Afghanistan from 2002 until.....well, possibly until now.
Follow me over the jump and hear me out.
As I explain below, we are fighting an idea war...the first and the biggest of the modern global age. The combatants are not defined by geography, but by principles, good or bad, which manifest and emerge as a result of action, deed and the global perception of each. Ideology cannot be defeated in a decisive conventional military battle. Ultimately an idea war is won based on the perceived merit of that idea's basic operating philosophy. Let me be the first to say invading Iraq was a mistake. Let me be first to make the case that the Bush administration has mismanaged both the war against Al-Qaida and the mission in Iraq. But as Barrack Obama takes office, fresh off campaign promises of withdrawing from Iraq and re-committing to Afghanistan, I can't help but wonder if that solution, which I've advocated for nearly six years, continues to make sense in the face of an objective assessment of our current predicaments.
Like I said 9/11 was/is part of an idea war. In simplest terms, Al-Qaida attacked U.S. based on an idea they've manufactured and marketed that we are evil and they are righteous. They pose themselves as "men of God" "defenders of Islam" thwarting western cultural imperialism and protecting the weak and powerless (aka good, poor Muslims) from our corrupting moral influence. But make no mistake. At its basic level, this is merely a power struggle. Fundamentalists like Al-Qaida simply seek power and control. More on Al-Qaida's meme in a minute.
In many ways, 9/11 backfired on Al-Qaida....at least initially. While they accomplished what they set out to do in terms of causing havoc and drawing attention to their cause, international public opinion went almost universally against them. In the six months after 9/11 their vision of global jihad and the establishment of a pan-Islamic caliphate seemed to have slipped much farther away.
We had at that time unprecedented international support as we first identified Al-Qaida, then pointed our finger at it and began to kick its ass, both militarily and ideologically. In my opinion, we took too long to start that operation and it is clear we abandoned that mission too early and before it was close to won. But by mid-2002, the Bush administration had essentially decided Al-Qaida and the Taliban were finished and turned their sights on Iraq. Underestimating your enemy is a cardinal sin in the conduct of war and that mistake will haunt us until we correct it.
As Cheney now admits, it was their intention to politicize 9/11 and use it to advance other agendas, one of which was removing Saddam and replacing him with a west-loving democracy. (others apparently designed to ruin our economy) It's clear to all but the most kool-aid drunk wingers that Bush, the GOP and the right wing media outlets, acted in concert to conflate and blur the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan, essentially making the case that invading Iraq was a continuation of the war against Al-Qaida when, in fact, that was not remotely the case. Thus, the Iraq war was drummed up, intensively marketed and actually under way in something less than 10 months and well before a majority of Americans could understand the nature of that mistake or consider its longer term consequences.
It was, and still is, my opinion that attacking a sovereign Arab and predominantly Muslim Country under highly exaggerated if not outright false pretenses at that moment in time, severely undercut our ability to defeat the greater threat posed by the meme of radical fundamentalism in the long term. In other words, we risked losing our most effective weapons in this idea war....our reputation and moral high ground... by playing into the rhetoric of our enemies, which accused us of being profit driven imperialists, making an oil grab through a lie.
By equating Saddam and Al-Qaida,a mistake recognized much more quickly and completely internationally than here at home, that is exactly the image we raised in the minds of friend and foe, alike.
And so it unfolded. We almost immediately lost our allies and global popular support. The GOP and its enablers effectively quelled domestic opposition, simultaneously cowing the media and labeling all dissenters (including long term international allies) as unpatriotic terrorist supporters or tin foil hat conspiracy nuts. (I'm still sportin' some heartburn over that). Predictably, the rationale we were sold to justify immediate action without principled debate turned out to be mere marketing....caveat emptor my friends...the true legacy of the Bush administration. No credible links between Al-Qaida and Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction. No "imminent threat" of danger. Folks bought all that saran wrap and duct tape for nothing.
So the war rationale continued to change after the fact. No longer were we acting in self-defense to thwart the imminent threat of WMD attack by Al-Qaida operatives working in cahoots with Saddam. Now we had a moral obligation to remove Saddam (because he abused his own people with weapons we sold him) and the loftier goal of establishing democracy in the Middle East. We were exporting freedom. "Why do you hate freedom?" was the question posed to those of us pointing out the shift in rationales. Predictions of a three to six month war that would "pay for itself" ...initially lapped up by "loyal Americans" (enablers) quickly proved untrue and have become all but forgotten.
Unfortunately, it turns out that establishing the institutions of a functioning democracy was not a mission our military was advised of beforehand. Consequently, the military was not trained and did not have a plan for THAT mission and was forced to develop it on the fly...from scratch....another cardinal sin of war, and another mistake created by the politicians....who simply tasked the military with that mission after the fact. Those problems were compounded because Bush committed virtually our entire military (and a substantial number of third party vendors) in an urban setting with too few interpreters and too little understanding of the culture, the history of the country we were "remaking" or the details of that "remaking" mission, itself.
Predictably and inevitably, Al-Qaida operatives quickly moved into Iraq, undetected and virtually undetectable due to the porous borders and systematic dismantling of Iraq's military and police forces and our own inability to distinguish friend from foe. Al-Qaida preyed on these mistakes, ambushing U.S. convoys, inciting an insurgency and a bloody civil war by pitting Sunni against Shi'a, fanning ancient rivalries and inciting blood feuds. Our own mistakes compounded these problems. The revelations of Abu-Ghraib portrayed us as depraved torturers. No-bid contracts, profligate spending, and oil contracts made us look like profit driven capitalists more concerned with the plunder we could wring from this land than its future well-being. High civilian casualties and wide spread property damage do not win hearts and minds.
The U.S., by its own acts and deeds had gone from being universally perceived as the victim of 9/11, with righteous moral authority to find and punish true evil, to being re-branded as exactly what Al-Qaida had predicted we were. Unfortunately, in this idea war, our flag was represented by George Bush, the GOP and a culture of corruption and latent domestic religious fundamentalism, a perfect storm of ignorance and ineptitude.
As the carnage mounted in Iraq, the idea of withdrawal slowly gained traction...unfortunately, not until after the 2004 elections....which brings me to the "surge" and the topic of when and in what condition we should leave Iraq.
One of the biggest reasons the surge is "succeeding" is because of the brutality and savagery of Al-Qaida, itself. Ultimately, it was Al-Qaida's own moral shortcomings that helped galvanize Sunni and Shi'a to eliminate Al-Qaida as a common enemy, much like the world galvanized in support of U.S. after 9/11. It seems rampant murder of intellectuals, progressives and moderates, suicide bombings, beheadings and forced religion are repugnant to Iraqis, even in the face of a "common enemy" like U.S. Like 9/11, Al-Qaida was becoming a victim of its own blowback...it's own worst enemy. So we've been able to encourage new alliances and make headway "putting the lid back on" the giant can of crap we unnecessarily opened in the first place. As our military "surged" we also changed and refined our strategies for dealing with civilians and our plans and tactics for building a functioning democracy. Despite the strategic blunders by the White House, our military has managed to make progress in Iraq.
There is plenty to debate about how far we've come, how effective we've been and how far we have to go. Certainly there has been some progress in reducing violence. But that is not "success" in the sense of our original mission and should not be confused as such, as insisted by John McCain during the recent election.
So when can we leave?
If restoring a semblance of security is our only goal, then maybe we can leave soon. But if establishing a functioning democracy is the goal, then we've got a ways to go.
But is that our goal? If a Middle Eastern democracy is so important, then why aren't we using our economic and diplomatic influence to encourage democratic institutions and reformation among our so-called "ally" states in the Middle East, like Dubai, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
If creating a functioning democracy in the Middle East is so important that we'll expend 5,000+ U.S. troops and untold treasure in the effort, then on what basis do we do business with Middle Eastern states (or anyone for that matter) that show no interest or support for such an idea? Are we to believe constitutional democracy can only be imposed by the sword? Are we going to beat freedom into Iraq, no matter what the cost?
Even if we manage to create a middle eastern democracy in Iraq, does that really address our concerns over the greater threat posed by radical religious fundamentalism? What if Iraqis voluntarily elect a fundamentalist religious government? Do we honor the institution we created and trust in freedom to play itself out correctly or do we ignore the results of that process until we get a government we like? What kind of freedom is that?
This brings me to the religious fundamentalist meme.......what is it? why do people gravitate to it? Is it inherently bad? Can it be defeated and if so, how?
Religious fundamentalism begins with the "fundamental" belief that one's particular interpretation of a given religion is the absolute truth, that obedience is required by God, himself, that there is no room for tolerance of opposing interpretations and, ultimately, that all non-believers are God's enemies and, therefore, your enemy. Fundamentalism is not unique to Islam (which is one reason BushCo was uniquely unqualified to fight this kind of war). History is rife with example after example of the havoc and inhumanity that can be wrought in the name of God.
Fundamentalists typically come to power on a message of hope, a promise to rescue victims and right wrongs, calling on God to give one strength to deal with an oppressor, whether it be a government, poverty or crime. United in common purpose, the movement gains strength. But because of the fundamentalist religious nature of the movement, it quickly progresses to a rabid totalitarianism with inquisition type litmus tests to dole out favor or punishment.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al-Qaida had run this course before 9/11. Had we stayed focused on the task of eliminating them, educating Afghanis and building reliable democratic institutions instead of invading Iraq, we might have already achieved our stated goal of building a free constitutional democracy, simultaneously capturing and holding accountable those that perpetrated 9/11 and exposing their radical ideology for what it is. But we didn't.
The Iraq invasion undermined our credibility throughout the Muslim world, including Afghanistan. Many of the mistakes we made in Iraq both resonated in and were repeated in Afghanistan. As we surged in Iraq, Afghanistan has gone backwards. Fundamentalists have regained their strength and expanded their strongholds significantly over the past two years. Obama promises two additional combat brigades. Most military analysts think that's insufficient. Afghanistan is larger, more populous and less educated than Iraq. It is logistically more difficult to supply and support operations in Afghanistan. The U.S.S.R. shared a border and after 10 years of trying to tame that Country, was ultimately bled to the point that it was forced to withdraw, with the entire union collapsing shortly thereafter.
Of more concern is Pakistan. The current borders in that area are man made, not very old, and irrelevant to the tribal loyalties that span those borders. As we begin pushing into Pakistan we are triggering a reactionary fundamentalist resurgence in that Country that could result in the democratic election of religious fundamentalists. Pakistan is a nuclear power. If our actions are helping to create a radical fundamentalist nuclear power, then we'd better stop while we're ahead.
Should we redeploy forces from Iraq to Afghanistan?
The better question is what would we hope to accomplish by that move? Is it the establishment of a functioning democracy in that Country or is it the elimination of Al-Qaida and religious fundamentalism?
In my estimation, we now have a better chance of building a functioning democracy in Iraq. We also have, in Iraq, a moral obligation to fix what we've broken. The first George Bush incited Iraqi's to rise against Saddam during the first gulf war, and left them hanging in the wind. We can't do that to them again.
Afghanistan may be lost in some ways. While I mourn the lost opportunity and Bush's folly, and truly feel for Afghanis should that Country revert to Taliban rule, I simply don't see how we can financially or logistically support both wars. On balance, if we are to abandon one war at this time, I say abandon Afghanistan.
Several things will likely happen in my estimation. In the short term, the Taliban will make gains. But moderate voices in Pakistan and Afghanistan will also gain traction when we are not there to be the target of attack and blame. Ultimately, Al-Qaida will again prove to be its own worst enemy because their oppressive brand of religious fundamentalism is an abberation of Islam. This doesn't mean we won't support freedom and democracy in Afghanistan, but it does mean we change our strategy and methodology for doing so. Afghanis having once suffered under Taliban rule will ultimately reject and overthrow that ideology.
So that's it. Wave a flip-flop in my face. I'm changing my mind. I think we'll do more harm than good if we leave Iraq and I think we'll mire ourselves in an untenable situation in Afghanistan and potentially create the very thing Bin Laden dreams of if we just "surge" our way in to Afghanistan. If someone can tell me how to do both, I'm all ears. But we've got HUGE problems domestically that seemingly make that impossible.