The War that was and the War that remains

Calling our conflict in Iraq a war is not really accurate. It's not a war, its now an occupation and has been ever since our President declared Mission Accomplished. It's an important distinction both politically and factually. I'm sure the term occupation doesn't test as well with the focus groups, so we keep calling it a war.

In any case, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker came back to Washington last week to testify before a salivating congress. The presidential candidates were out in full force both to grandstand and look as presidential as possible with the men that are crafting their biggest foreign policy issue.

Setting aside the questions of the candidates, all of which I actually thought was quite good, there was one tunning thing missing from the testimony last week. A clear picture of what results we are looking for before we can begin to execute a withdrawal.

Let me be clear here, there are the political games the candidates are playing McCaina nd the GOP promising an impossible victory (impossible because no one can define victory), and the democrats are promising an instant withdrawal upon stepping foot in the Oval Office. The truth was pretty well laid out by Colin Powell last week as he prescribed the reality the next commander in chief will face. What troubles me at this juncture with violence at least temporarily down, is that we haven't defined for ourselves under what circumstances we will leave. We have no operational or political fence posts we can point to and say, "when the Iraqis have done x,y,z, then we can begin to draw down." Instead we are left with vague policies and empty gestures from the President.

We need an end game in Iraq, we don't have the human or financial resources to keep this farce going.

Petraeus on Iraq

Hey all, just a quick hit. I saw this interview with Gen. Petraeus on the state of Iraq. It's a good primer for his April testimony.

A Surge of Success?

The NY Times reports today that defense secratary Robert Gates has approved a "pause" in troop withdrawal from Iraq. To summarize, after meeting with General Petraeus, Secretary Gates supports the decision to pause the draw down while commanders assess if violence can continue to be suppressed with troops reduced to pre-surge levels. A report on post-surge troop levels will be presented to the president in the early spring. The full NY Times Report can be found here.

This immediately had ramifications on the campaign trail with Senators Clinton and Obama voicing their disagreement and reiterating their individual commitments to bringing troops home beginning in the first year of their respective administrations.

For the record, at the time of the invasion of Iraq, I was unsure about the need for us to get involved there militarily. I doubted the evidence presented by the administration, but at the same time so soon after 9/11, I felt that trusting the president was in the best interest of the country, "surely, they must know something we don't."

Then it turns out they didn't know something we didn't. They thought they knew things they didn't. I don't think it's worth wasting the screen space to explain all of the pitfalls and nonsense that went on in the years of the war before General Petraeus took command. For those interested in the failures of President Bush and Donal Rumsfeld buy this. What matters is where we are now. I was certain, like many others that the surge would not, could not work, I will admit I was proven wrong.

But the point must be, so what? We are where we are now. Relatively low levels of violence because of the troop surge has led to a relative calm. (I feel it necessary to post a side-note: This link is a youtube video of the venerable Martha Raddatz on Bill Maher's show giving her point of view on the surge) However, the political reconciliation and stabilization are far from complete.

Is it appropriate for the Democrats to be calling for an immediate withdrawal or "redeployment" out of Iraq? Is Senator McCain reasonable when he says we can stay in Iraq for 100 years and the American people won't care if our troops are safe? All I can say is we broke Iraq, and now to some extent we bought it. The Iraqi government is clearly not ready to lead on their own, and certainly could not provide security to its people. While I don't think I'd be OK with our troops their indefinitely, no matter how safe they are, I think it is reasonable to think we will need to be there in a peace-keeping capacity anywhere from 5 to 10 years. As the government builds a democratic structure and as the army and police begin to see past their sectarian differences we will see the Iraqi people taking advantage of their oil wealth and begin rebuilding their country. Patience is required. It was fair to criticize a poorly working plan, and it is fair to forever hold President Bush accountable for a misguided mission. But the last thing America needs or wants is a withdrawal that only leads to more chaos and death in the Middle East. The right wingers that blindly followed President Bush into his foolish crusade cost young Americans their lives. Let's not let left wingers with their blinding desire to leave something that they see as unjust cost the Iraqi people more.