Getting it Right in Iraq

One of the most difficult things to deal with as a citizen thinking about Iraq is the constant one-way version of the story we seem to get. Whether complaint or skeptical, the media only deals with one point of view on Iraq, that of our government. That's not fair and balanced, its not even objective. It's just a simple way to minimize investment in actual news gathering and focus reporting on what you are already being fed. It also underserves the American public trying to suss out what is really going on in Iraq.

Enter the McClatchy group. They have been one of the few news organizations consistently taking risks and working from within Iraq to give the most complete picture of what's going on in Iraq. I listened to an interview this morning by Bill Moyers of Leila Fadel, the 26 year-old McClatchy Baghdad bureau chief. You can catch the transcript here, or listen to the podcast. The best part of her reporting is that its agenda free. There's little discussion of what "should" be happening or what's right and wrong, her reporting simply attempts to explain who the players are and what the ingredients are in the soup that is Iraq.

The Moyers interview is a great start, but you can also go straight to the source. Fadel and her staff maintain a daily blog relaying what life is like for the the people living in Iraq. It's a riveting read, and if I were made head of a major news outlet tomorrow. It would be required listening daily on my network. Give it a read here, and rest assured it will be on our blog roll.

Why We Can't Leave

David Brooks writes in today's NY Times about the political progress we are seeing in Iraq. He argues just because we're not seeing western-style top down constitutional reconstruction, doesn't mean its not happening on a country-wide basis.

He may be right, but at the same time Sunni Awakening forces and Shia militias have as much incentive to reignite their fighting as they do to make peace. At this point, I hope we have learned is that making predictions about how Iraqis will act is fruitless. I happen to disagree with Brooks, I think that societies take a long time to build, and we will see further upticks in violence before we see them slide down.

However, that doesn't change my agreement with his prescription for US activity. The democrats' stand for a time table for withdrawal is simply not tenable. We cannot force artificial dates for when we will leave. Managing an organic situation with a rigid time line might make for a good campaign promise, but in practice will lead to disaster. Rather, we need to set up operational goals that are achievable and then let the Iraqis to their own devices.

The operational goals are objective. Things like 80% effective running electricity nationwide. Iraqi-controlled secure passage along critical roadways. Iraqi controlled security of the green zone. In other words, purely operational goals that are non-partisan and non-political. Then we must step away. If we continue to leave our benchmarks up to the Iraqi government compromising on issues, we will never leave. However if we pull the plug the nation will fall into chaos. I think the American people are smart enough to recognize that we broke it, so now we have to leave it in a position to operate itself.

The Nobility of War

President Bush defended the Iraq War yesterday on it's fifth anniversary, which frankly he needed to do. Overall his statement did not phase me. With one exception, "The battle in Iraq is noble, it is necessary, and it is just. And with your courage the battle in Iraq will end in victory," he told an audience of Pentagon brass, soldiers and diplomats.

The use of the word noble bothers me greatly in this context. Why? Because the president is subtly hijacking the nobility of our brave men and women, which no one would deny, and connecting it to his larger, failed scheme. The Iraq War is a mistake. Simply because our brave men and women are performing their duty with nobility, grace and honor under enormous difficulty, does not mean we get to call the entire folly "noble."

Mr. President words either have meaning or they don't.

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.

The Surge is Working....MORON!

You know, people love Senator John McCain, I admit, that I really like him. For a long time he has been the lone independent voice solving problems other senators and politicians were too scared to touch. But he rides the straight talk express...that bus carries one "fact" that we all need to challenge. "The Surge is Working."

The surge is not working...why? Because it was supposed to be temporary, and now we've gone from approving the "surge" to approving a "pause." The pause for the uninitiated is the maintaince of surge-troop levels and holding off on the reduction of troops to pre-surge levels. Some would say, that is only proof it is working because if it weren't we'd be seeing the same level of violence we did pre-surge. In fact, the president announced his "return on success" policy a month or so ago. I find this humorous, when the surge was announced it was announced as neccessarily temporary because there weren't enough troops to maintain this level past the spring. Guess what spring-time's coming, so I guess we're successful!!

I know, I know, violence is down over there. The number of car bombings and secaratian violence is down. But there is something simmering under the surge pot-lid. The recent attack in Baghdad, in one of the safest areas of the country yielded 68 dead. And a recent report from the washingtonpost.com tells us that the Iraqis might be getting fed up with our occupation. I want to finish this post with my grand exit strategy, the truth is I don't have one. But I think it's disingeniuos to the American people, the Iraqi people, and most importantly our soldiers to repeat the false mantra "the surge is working." We need to debate the reality on the ground, which is our magnificent men and women in the military are doing their best to keep the lid on the pot. But sooner or later, without new policies and progress its still going to boil over. The nation has lost 3,974 brave men and women because of this war. Isn't it time to change strategy?

Between Iraq and a Hard Place

Senator McCain's likely nomination for the Republican party's nomination will slide Iraq front and center of the agenda debate heading toward November. McCain can and should characterize himself as the strongest candidate to be commander-in-chief. While there has been a ton of discussion surrounding who will be the Republican running mate. There needs to be a discussion over who should be the Democrat running mate. Let me promise you something here and now, there will be no so-call "dream ticket" Obama and Clinton will not be found on the same ballot.

However, once the dust clears and one of them is the definitive nominee the name under theirs on the ticket should be Senator Joe Biden. Senator Biden has demonstrated consistent cogent understanding on the war in Iraq and the history of the conflicts of the middle east. His proposal of a federalized system of governance was right before and it is right now as an effective way of building a future in Iraq that's not "Stay for 100 years" and not "Get out in 60 Days."

This has been the year of moderation. Putting Biden on the ticket would be the perfect way to shore up a candidate's soft spot on Iraq.

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.