Get ready to hear from the if-onlys. We're going to hear a lot from them, for a long time. The if-only's are the ones who are going to say "if only we'd stayed in Iraq longer," "if only we hadn't drawn down our troops," "if only we'd been more patient."
They will be Repubs of course. And Joe Lieberman.
They are building the case for this already. Yesterday, the President addressed the VFW and compared Iraq to Vietnam. That is a little bit like the Prime Minister of France in 1940 recalling the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, but Bush's real point was to lay the groundwork for the "who lost Iraq" argument that the Repubs will use to cover their tracks.
Let's be honest: American participation in the Iraq (civil) war is ending. The only question is how soon, and with what human and material cost. Surge, splurge, there's no doubt that we are going to be "drawing down" our troop strength, if only because DOD admits that after April there won't be enough troops to sustain it.
And there's no doubt that the Iraq we leave behind will be neither stable nor democratic. That "success" we're having in al Anbar province is not the birth of a multi-sectarian Iraq; its the Sunnis girding themselves for the war with the Shia after we leave their country.
When the if-onlys make their argument, it's important to remember that the Iraq misadventure was a fiasco in conception as well as execution. It was the wrong war at the wrong time against the wrong foe. Even if it had been well-handled, it would have been a distraction from the struggle against our real enemies--people like bin Laden--and a strategic mistake. With that kind of a start, it was never going to go well. The fact that it has become a total disaster is almost secondary--although we need to remember that as well, so that we make sure to point out to the if-onlys that their monumental incompetence should disqualify them from any role in carrying out American policy in the future.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query anbar. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query anbar. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Monday, September 10, 2007
So, how d'ya read the polls?
Americans trust military commanders far more than the Bush administration or Congress to bring the war in Iraq to a successful end, and while most favor a withdrawal of American troops beginning next year, they suggested they were open to doing so at a measured pace, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
The New York Times, Sept. 10, 2007
As General David H. Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, prepared to report to Congress today on gains made by the surge of 30,000 additional US troops in Iraq, two national polls released yesterday indicated that a majority of Americans believe the increased US troop presence has failed to deliver significant improvements in the war-torn country.
The Boston Globe, Sept. 10, 2007
(The Times owns The Globe. At least we see truth in claims of editorial independence.)
Here's how I read the Times/CBS poll:
Four times as many Americans (but still only 21 percent) think Congress to be most trustful on Iraq as rely on the White House (an incredible 5 percent).
Although 68 percent of respondents say they trust the military most, the language of the question may have had an important effect. They were asked, "If you had to choose [always a dangerous condition] who you trust with successfully resolving the war in Iraq?" There's no telling what individuals regard as "successfully resolving" the war; how many Americans would regard pulling out with the fighting still going on--which is what most people want, or at least acknowledge is going to happen--as a success? Besides, "resolving the war" suggests a military solution (whatever that means). If the question were "If you had to choose who you trust with ending the Iraq war?", I suspect that the answers would have been markedly different.
The same kind of selection bias comes into play in other questions:
The poll asked, Should the US: a) withdraw all troops within a year: b) withdraw some troops but retain some to train Iraqi troops, conduct raids against terrorists [who is a terrorist in Iraq? al Qaeda in Iraq? Sunni insurgents? the Mahdi Army? other Shi'ite militias?] and protect American officials; c) keep the same number of troops in Iraq as there are now and continue to fight until there is a stable democracy in Iraq? Given that question, the surprising thing is not that 56 percent of those asked chose the second option, but that 22 percent opted for a fixed withdrawal date and 20 percent for "staying the course." (Does anyone, Bush included, really believe that there will be a "stable democracy" in Iraq within the lifetime of anyone now breathing?)
No matter how well designed, polls like this are no substitute for leadership. For instance, the Times/CBS poll reports that 35 percent of people believe that the "surge" has made the situation better, up from 19 percent in July; it seems fair to say that the administration's relentless campaign (aided by professional military men) to paint a rosy picture has had an effect.
But contrast this with a BBC poll of the people with front-row seats--the Iraqis. What do they think? 70 percent believe that the "surge" has made things worse in the areas to which additional soldiers have been sent. Just under 70 percent think things have got worse in other areas. 70 percent think conditions for political reconciliation--the original excuse for the "surge," remember--have got worse. 65 percent think the ability of the Iraqi government to carry out its work has got worse.
Oh, and you know about all those reports of our new Sunni allies, like the ones W trumpeted in his visit to al Anbar province last week? According to the BBC, 93 percent of Sunnis believe that attacks on US-led forces are justified.
Here's how I read the Times/CBS poll:
Four times as many Americans (but still only 21 percent) think Congress to be most trustful on Iraq as rely on the White House (an incredible 5 percent).
Although 68 percent of respondents say they trust the military most, the language of the question may have had an important effect. They were asked, "If you had to choose [always a dangerous condition] who you trust with successfully resolving the war in Iraq?" There's no telling what individuals regard as "successfully resolving" the war; how many Americans would regard pulling out with the fighting still going on--which is what most people want, or at least acknowledge is going to happen--as a success? Besides, "resolving the war" suggests a military solution (whatever that means). If the question were "If you had to choose who you trust with ending the Iraq war?", I suspect that the answers would have been markedly different.
The same kind of selection bias comes into play in other questions:
The poll asked, Should the US: a) withdraw all troops within a year: b) withdraw some troops but retain some to train Iraqi troops, conduct raids against terrorists [who is a terrorist in Iraq? al Qaeda in Iraq? Sunni insurgents? the Mahdi Army? other Shi'ite militias?] and protect American officials; c) keep the same number of troops in Iraq as there are now and continue to fight until there is a stable democracy in Iraq? Given that question, the surprising thing is not that 56 percent of those asked chose the second option, but that 22 percent opted for a fixed withdrawal date and 20 percent for "staying the course." (Does anyone, Bush included, really believe that there will be a "stable democracy" in Iraq within the lifetime of anyone now breathing?)
No matter how well designed, polls like this are no substitute for leadership. For instance, the Times/CBS poll reports that 35 percent of people believe that the "surge" has made the situation better, up from 19 percent in July; it seems fair to say that the administration's relentless campaign (aided by professional military men) to paint a rosy picture has had an effect.
But contrast this with a BBC poll of the people with front-row seats--the Iraqis. What do they think? 70 percent believe that the "surge" has made things worse in the areas to which additional soldiers have been sent. Just under 70 percent think things have got worse in other areas. 70 percent think conditions for political reconciliation--the original excuse for the "surge," remember--have got worse. 65 percent think the ability of the Iraqi government to carry out its work has got worse.
Oh, and you know about all those reports of our new Sunni allies, like the ones W trumpeted in his visit to al Anbar province last week? According to the BBC, 93 percent of Sunnis believe that attacks on US-led forces are justified.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Bush's fly-in
I'll believe that there has been real progress in Iraq when the President's arrival doesn't have to be a complete secret beforehand.
For a refutation of the administration's publicity campaign, see Paul Krugman today.
Last month, I suggested that the movement of Sunnis toward the Americans in al Anbar province is not a sign of success in the war, but preparation for all-out war with the Shia once we leave Iraq. While I still think that is the case, my comment did not discuss the significance, if any, of the Sunni rejection of al Qaeda. Is this a real denial of the extremist Sunni position that bin Laden and his people represent? Is it a sign that there is an Iraqi identity--that Iraqi Sunnis might feel more kinship with Iraqi Shia than with al Qaeda? Those possibilities must be considered.
Still, we do not know how extensive this change--if it is a change--has been. Are foreign fighters still entering Iraq? Are they finding safe havens outside of Fallluja, which has been the poster for alleged American progress? These questions need to be answered before we can say if there has been more than ephemeral progress.
Finally, let's remember that in the best case put forth by administration apologists, we are back to square one: an Iraq without al Qaeda. Which is where we came in. Which is just one of the reasons why the war was a dumb idea from the beginning.
For a refutation of the administration's publicity campaign, see Paul Krugman today.
Last month, I suggested that the movement of Sunnis toward the Americans in al Anbar province is not a sign of success in the war, but preparation for all-out war with the Shia once we leave Iraq. While I still think that is the case, my comment did not discuss the significance, if any, of the Sunni rejection of al Qaeda. Is this a real denial of the extremist Sunni position that bin Laden and his people represent? Is it a sign that there is an Iraqi identity--that Iraqi Sunnis might feel more kinship with Iraqi Shia than with al Qaeda? Those possibilities must be considered.
Still, we do not know how extensive this change--if it is a change--has been. Are foreign fighters still entering Iraq? Are they finding safe havens outside of Fallluja, which has been the poster for alleged American progress? These questions need to be answered before we can say if there has been more than ephemeral progress.
Finally, let's remember that in the best case put forth by administration apologists, we are back to square one: an Iraq without al Qaeda. Which is where we came in. Which is just one of the reasons why the war was a dumb idea from the beginning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
