af40's Blog

Let me just get one thing out of the way so that no one will accuse me of having a conflict of interest here. I am not politically affiliated with any party, I tend to vote with the best candidate, regardless of what party they belong to, and I was against the war in Iraq from the get-go. But having said all that, I believe that pulling American troops out of Iraq now is a bad idea.

 

There are numerous proposals of some type of troop pullout emanating from both sides of the political isle. Most Democrats want a rapid withdrawal, while a number of Republicans (not most) want a phased withdrawal based on the fulfillment of objectives in Iraq. Added together, the sum total of advocates for withdrawal constitute a majority of the members of Congress. Yet, President Bush is firmly against the idea of any rapid pullout or timetable, which sets the stage for a showdown over which branch of the government- the Legislative or the Executive- has the ultimate authority to wage war.

 

Interestingly, the domestic squabbling here at home isn't directly connected at all to the short or long-term US objective in Iraq and the Middle-East. I have yet to hear a ranking member of Congress logically and rationally advocate a policy that aims not only to cater to a domestic constituency, but to the national interest. National defense, after all, is a national and not a political or regional issue. As such, we would typically expect for both Democrats and Republicans to come together in agreement (for the most part) on national level issues. This did happen in the two years following 9/11.  But that was followed up by our entry into Iraq, which led to the evaporation of the "era of good feelings" between Democrats and Republicans.

 

I believe that any argument about what is to be done about Iraq today should focus upon the national interest first and foremost. Some argue that one cannot separate the national interest from the best interests of our troops and their families, because, after all, it is they who are giving their lives and livelihoods.  The sacrifices of our troops and their family members cannot be emphasized enough.  Ever since the end of the VietNam War, our military has been completely voluntary. As with our firefighters and police officers, the sacrifices of our soldiers on the call of duty are doubly significant by virtue of the fact that those sacrifices are invested willingly.

 

Yet it is perhaps because so much has been lost and invested in Iraq that we owe it to our troops not to abandon them now when so much hangs in the balance. If we withdraw our troops today, we will prevent the death of more of our soldiers, but we will have abandoned all hope of a stable Iraq, and that, in turn, will mean the abandonment of all that has been sacrificed thus far.

 

Many members of Congress argue that because this war was poorly planned and orchestrated, a withdrawal now is justified. I fail to see the connection here. Yes, Iraq was a mistake. Yes, the intelligence "evidence" was flimsy at best. Yes, there was a concerted effort to mislead the American people into a war on shaky grounds. And yes, this war has been bungled from the start by poor, "rosy" planning and inadequate equipment and troop levels. Senator John McCain, who is an advocate of a troop increase, has long argued that Iraq was bungled from the start. Yet Senator McCain, a former POW and war hero, knows that things can get much, much worse if we withdraw now.

 

Both Democrats and Republicans should cease political bickering over unproductive issues such as "why" and "how" we ended up in Iraq, and "who" is to blame. Those issues will be discussed in due time by historians and military analysts. What both parties must realize, on the other hand, is that we can yet lose the Iraq War if they do not work together on finding a workable solution to the growing internal civil conflict in Iraq.

 

The Iraq Study Group Report released last year indicated that even though a solution requires a broader political strategy, miitary involvement is not mutually exclusive with such a strategy. Secondly, even if careful consideration is made as to ways to look "outside the box" in resolving the Shia-Sunni conflict in Iraq, there is no guarantee of success. Yet what is guaranteed, I believe, is that Iraq will become a failed state if neither a political nor a military option is exercised.

 

Democrats are correct in stating that pursuing a solely military option is wrong. But they are incorrect in claiming that only a diplomatic solution can suffice in lieu of it. America requires military force in order to obtain the necessary bargaining and functional capability to effect a conclusion to hostilities. Some say that we are simply refereeing a civil war. That might be true, but without our presence, Iraq would rapidly devolve into an all-out conflagration where neither side has any "referee" to rely upon for any measure of order. The Iraq government would rapidly collapse without our presence.  Into that vacuum might appear something much worse, perhaps a Muqtada Al-Sadr or some other client of Iran or Syria. It is not impossible to imagine the rise to power of another brutal dictator bent upon financing and assisting anti-American violence. If Iraq did not pose a direct threat to America before 2003, it would certainly pose one now if we were to withdraw our troops.

 

So this brings us back to the question of national interest. Even though a majority of Americans now feel that Iraq was a mistake, pulling our troops out would not remedy that mistake. The Democrats, fresh off their November electoral victories, are justified in pressing for a solution. They have, as President Bush might say, "political capital".  Yet that capital will be exhausted quickly if they fail to see the disastrous consequences of a pullout. And talk about withdrawing financial support, or about a "nonbinding" resolution that denounces the President's troop increase, simply sends a message (to both Shia and Sunni insurgents, as well as Iran) that  our enemies can win if they simply hold out a little longer, if they can wait out the political storm that is raging in Washington.

 

Declassified Soviet documents indicate that America's loss in VietNam, as well as communist incursions in Angola and Afghanistan ,were precipitated by a perception that America was politically weak and undetermined in fighting off communist advances. Since perception is reality, the perception by our enemies in the Middle East that America's resolve is waning will become de facto capital against us. We will effectively hand our enemies a win.

 

That win will be our loss not only in the Middle East, but everywhere else. America will be relegated to a second-tier power, one that is incapable of securing its national interests, perhaps not because it is militarily weak, but because it is politically divided. Yet, a house divided cannot stand, and therefore America will ultimately lose its military and possibly economic predominance once that happens. Our enemies will simply have to target our domestic constituencies and ensure that both parties lose track of the national interest.

 

Our national interest can only be served if both political parties work together towards a solution that does not repeat the mistakes of VietNam, and one that does not compromise either our direct strategic interests in the Middle East, or the vital reputation on which our long-term global interests depend.