Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati'Your Iraq Plan?' Is a Pointless Question
Candidates Should Acknowledge That Bush's War is a Failure and Look Beyond Iraq.
For today's presidential candidates, the question is unavoidable: What is your plan for Iraq?In interviews and town hall meetings, on talk shows and at fundraisers, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Rudolph W. Giuliani and all the others aspiring to succeed President Bush confront a battery of Iraq questions: Are you for the surge or against it? If the surge fails, what's your Plan B? How will you help the troops win? How will you get the troops out?
However sincere, such questions are also pointless. To pose them is to invite dissembling. The truth is that next to nothing can be done to salvage Iraq. It no longer lies within the capacity of the United States to determine the outcome of events there. Iraqis will decide their own fate. We are spectators, witnesses, bystanders caught in a conflagration that we ourselves, in an act of monumental folly, touched off.
The questions that ought to be asked now - but so far have not been - are of a different order.
Recall that Bush saw Baghdad not as the final destination of his global war on terror but as a point of departure. He imagined that liberating Iraq might trigger a flowering of Arab democracy. He was counting on Saddam Hussein's ouster to jump-start a regional transformation. He expected a forthright demonstration of U.S. military might to enhance America's standing across the Muslim world, with friend and foe alike thereafter deferring to Washington.
None of that has come to pass. Baghdad has become a cul-de-sac. Having plunged into a war he cannot win, Bush will not relent. Iraq consumes his presidency because the president wills that it should. He has become Captain Ahab: His identification with his war is absolute.
As a consequence, the "global" effort aimed at eliminating Islamic terror, launched back in September 2001, has narrowed in scope. Today the global war is global in name only. In reality, it has become a war for Mesopotamia.
For his part, the president increasingly preoccupies himself with tactics at the expense of statecraft. Much as Lyndon Johnson once reviewed lists of targets to be bombed in Hanoi, Bush now ponders how many brigades will be needed to impose order on a handful of neighborhoods around Baghdad.
Ritualistic allusions to freedom as the antidote to terrorism still occasionally crop up in presidential speeches, but rhetoric no longer translates into action. An administration that once touted its expansive and principled approach to preventing another 9/11 has abandoned principle. Now there is only Iraq and the effort to ensure that today's news out of Baghdad isn't any worse than yesterday's.
Our political attention, then, needs to turn to whether the president's would-be successors can do what Bush cannot: acknowledge our failure in Iraq and look beyond it.
Candidates who still find merit in an open-ended global war on terror should explain how we prevail in such an enterprise. Given the lessons of Iraq, what exactly does it mean to wage such a global war? Where can we expect to fight next, and against whom? What will victory look like?
Candidates who, in light of Iraq, have become skeptical of open-ended global war as a response to violent Islamic radicalism should be pressed to describe their alternative. How do they define the threat? How do they propose to deal with it? Will they isolate it? Contain it? Subvert it? Relying on what means and at what costs?
"What's your plan for Iraq?" was the right question back in 2002 and 2003 - although it went largely unasked and almost completely unanswered then. But as we approach the 2008 presidential election, though the tragedy of Iraq continues to unfold, that question is moot.
The one that matters is this: As President Bush departs and leaves the United States bereft of a coherent strategy, what should fill that void?
Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of history and international relations at Boston University. He is the author of "The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War."
© Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times
22 Comments so far
Show AllThe question of a "plan for Iraq" was NEVER the right one.
Simply pulling out has always been the best option.
Yes, Iraqis would continue to kill each other. But not at any higher rate. Perhaps at a lower rate. And the biggest source of violence in Iraq -- the violence of our military, and the counter-violence it provokes -- would be gone.
I think the belief that it is our responsibility to "fix" Iraq is well meaning arrogance. We certainly owe the Iraqi people reparations -- but the path forward has to be their own choice. If they want to ask for some specific sort of help that has to be their initiative.
As Leo Tolstoy said, one cannot offer someone a hand up without removing one's foot from ze's back.
How to leave Iraq gracefully right now: Give each Iraqi an equal share of their oil stocks and leave.
The only people that want us in Iraq is haliburton. As for the global war on terror, it is just another un-winable war that the gov needs to fund itself. as with the war on drugs, war on fat etc.
I propose a new law:
It says if a US leader starts a war in a foreign land and it is not over by the time they leave office, we must exile them to the country of war to be the governor/leader until they successfully end the war. At the same time of their exile, our country will remove our troops very quickly, with none left behind to be used as a makeshift shield.
And is anyone else out there sick of Bush, the stupid, always talking about everything like he is stuck in the angry mode loop? I'd like to get him with me in a boxing ring, wouldn't y'all?
For the Bush Crime family the deaths of Iraqi citizens is the pay off, they love large numbers, if you kill them off or run them out of the country, then you can take what you want faster and there will be no one left to fight you! That is their goal! These guys make Hitler look like a school boy, but now you all know how the every day people felt in Germany when they started to kill off the people they did not feel made them WHITE enough! Our government is destroying this country, and then they will do the rest of the world with nukes, they cannot allow another country but ours to use WMD's no, we are the only one so far and they will start WW111 to make sure they can hold onto that title! Enjoy the end of times if Republicans get any more time in office our days are very numbered.
amacd has it right--the larger question iswhether we can somehow bring democracy to America. We can't come up with useful answers if we still imagine that W and his ilk are mere fools, that their actual purpose in invading Iraq was bringing democracy to the Middle East--in fact, preventing democracy from cropping up there is a key goal.
No, they know very well the peak of oil is arriving, and they gamble that controlling the Middle East will allow them to control much of the rest of the world's oil--to ensure that the US gets the lion's share, but also because controlling it gives them power.
Has the Iraq war been such a terrible failure? It all depends on what you think the real objective was. Close to a million Iraqis have been killed and two million have fled the country. That's real progress, if your objective is to seize the oil in that country.
I wonder, since its a obvious now that we invaded to steal the oil, why doesn't the White House Press have the balls to bring it up when Bush is taking questions from them?
o.k., Mr. Bush, you we're unwilling to sit back while another nation controlled the worlds energy. But there was a better way. Your plan failed. Quit pretending to bullshit us and get serious about doing your job. Your constituency isn't just Halliburton & Exxon/Mobil, its all of us.
I wonder what he'd say.
"Iraqis will decide their own fate. We are spectators, witnesses, bystanders caught in a conflagration that we ourselves, in an act of monumental folly, touched off..."
But the most horrible thing is that even this statement is false. Iraqis won't be "deciding" anything. It is more like a fire that we have ignited -- and now it burns out of control. I hate militarism, etc. but in a real way it is now our responsibility to do whatever it takes to save the afflicted, 500,000 troops, a million... Yes, yes, I know what you're thinking...but... Iraq will stabilize eventually, but will anyone notice the genocide that got them there? If only we could put our collective head in the ground for 2 years. Even wingnuts are saying "What is YOUR solution, hand Iraq over to the death squads?" Such a situation! Who was it that said "Choose your leaders carefully." They were right.
Melville's Ahab, like George Bush, set out to kill for oil. Both of them forgot what they were doing and lost their ship (of state). Win? Lose? What is victory the wives and mothers on their widows walks ask.
The easy way out of Iraq:
I have a suggestion for anyone interested in finding a way out of this hopeless quagmire. Once it was found that there were no WMD in Iraq, our mission changed to bringing democracy to the Middle East. So let's do that. Why don't we just let the Iraqi people have a referendum on whether they want the U.S. to stay indefinitely or leave immediately. If they opt for us to go, we leave. That's democracy in action. Mission accomplished.
Melville's Ahab, like George Bush, set out to kill for oil. Both of them lost sight of what they were doing and sank their ship (of state). Win? Lose? What is victory the wives and mothers on widows walks ask.
notfooooldbyW...
Right On!!! Right On!!!
We absolutely must not take our eye of the 'Hydrocarbon Law' hidden in the appropriations bill as a 'Bench Mark'! Further more, we should be alert to any other such attempts that could possibly deprive an already savaged people, through slight of hand!
Peace, Best Wishes and Hope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk1vEuhBuEU
Andrew J. Bacevich is being falsly kind to say that Bush, "imagined that liberating Iraq might trigger a flowering of Arab democracy. He was counting on Saddam Hussein's ouster to jump-start a regional transformation. He expected a forthright demonstration of U.S. military might to enhance America's standing across the Muslim world, with friend and foe alike thereafter deferring to Washington." That's because the real reason for invading is still alive. The US written 'hydrocarbon law' for Iraq is pending ratification in the Pentagon protected and therefore Pentagon bought and Pentagon owned "Green Zone" Iraqi Parliament.
Sweet deals loom for US/UK oil giants if Iraq's oil is allowed to become privatized under the duress of the US occupation. The only "flowering" that the Bushies have sown with bloodshed and mayhem in Iraq will be the gushers of oil dotting the Iraqi landscape - ( See Cheney Oil Maps on www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml ) Blocks 1 through 9.
Funny, Mr. Bacevich doesn't use the word "oil" once, yet he knows as well as anyone that the Cheney-ites dream of world dominance, and as the oil starts running out, he who controls the oil controls the world.
It may still be difficult for some to accept, but now that all pre-illegal invasion claims have been proven false (including the spread of democracy by democracy haters) - the only remaining reason for invading a sovereign nation which was all but defenseless against history's mightiest military : oil.
Zeitguist is absolutely right!
This was an illegal "war" from the get go. The question is not only what are you going to do as president to get us out of this mess. The real question is why are we there in the first place? Under what circumstances do you, if you become president, do you think military force should be used? For what reason and for what outcome?
These are fundamental questions that go to the heart of what America's role should be in the world. When should we hold 'em? When should we fold 'em? Under what circumstances are you willing to spend human blood and for what purpose? And how do ANY military act, overt or covert, serve the people of America?
With respect to regional politics one can not dismiss the inner relations of the shiyah clerics specially in Najaf and Qom the twin epicenters of shiyah Islam. Sadr family is a good example as for many years they are part of elite political clerics in the region , Moghtada's cosine is Sadegh Tabatabi is the brother in law of late Ahmad Khomeini who negotiated release of the American hostages their uncle is Imam Mosa Sadr who initiated the Amal Movement of Lebanon which later turned to be Hezbollah we also know that Moghtada is son in law of his uncle Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Bagher Sadr there are numerous other relation ships throughout the Shiyah clerics in the region one can also point to the relation between some current daily commentators on western media and the "THINK THANKS" analyst within shiyah clerics of Iran . It is impossible to isolate one state from other by drawing a border line back in early last century in some colonial office in London. So when we hear that western powers after their first war they divided the middle east among themselves and after their second war they divided the rest of the world among the winners of that war this is not just coming from Ahmadinijad one can dislike Ahmadinijad but one can not dismiss the truth he is spiking to the middle easterners and, he is being heard by masses.
My point is, if the west is hoping for Iranians to rise up and overthrow the current government in Iran because of the economic or internal politics they may as well start another world war, and if they won again then they can divide Iran up that could be a faster solution then the one they are currently pursuing. In other words if they want Iranian to rise up against their government the best solution is to make the government of Iran a subservient of foreign power like existing governments in Saudi, Jordan and Egypt. Like the old saying they are Sob's but they are our Sob's I am sure this feeling is mutual among the different nations as we witnessed the last American presidential elections.
Our political attention, then, needs to turn to whether the president's would-be successors can do what Bush cannot: acknowledge our failure in Iraq and look beyond it.
Candidates who still find merit in an open-ended global war on terror should explain how we prevail in such an enterprise. Given the lessons of Iraq, what exactly does it mean to wage such a global war? Where can we expect to fight next, and against whom? What will victory look like?
Candidates who, in light of Iraq, have become skeptical of open-ended global war as a response to violent Islamic radicalism should be pressed to describe their alternative. How do they define the threat? How do they propose to deal with it? Will they isolate it? Contain it? Subvert it? Relying on what means and at what costs?
"What's your plan for Iraq?" was the right question back in 2002 and 2003 - although it went largely unasked and almost completely unanswered then. But as we approach the 2008 presidential election, though the tragedy of Iraq continues to unfold, that question is moot.
What is your plan for Iraq is not a moot question. Considering all of the other psuedo-individual questions this one is not outdated even if the questionees agree that Bushès war is a failure the only question that Americans are and should be demanding from Congressmen is are they (soldiers) going or are they staying and if so, when because what you say will be written down.
It is the KISS principle : Get out of Iraq and THEN argue and formulate a plan for future terrorist-containment like we will not repeat Iraq like we repeated Vietnam
Swift is alive and well, and named Tony. Well done.
Tony Christini...
Although your 'PRACTICAL SOLUTION' is presented as a satire, it is quite repugnant, and no doubt, in some dark corners would garner wide support.
Andrew J. Bacevich...
We must STOP the media from referring to the invasion as a War. It is nothing more, nothing less than a Congressionally sanctioned 'Police Action' for purposes of plunder subjugation. Stop paying attention to the commercial media facade of democracy, dished out as comfort food, for the already numb neurons. After we wake up from the slumber, Stop Bush and his neocon oligarchs from traumatizing other people's children and getting them to pull the trigger for him, and his errant neocon ideology.
Peace, Best Wishes and Hope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk1vEuhBuEU
Of course, I agree with Bacevich's point that the question has changed and expanded immeasureably with the failed concept of Bush's insane, preemptive, oil-war against Iraq.
However, I would go even beyond Bacevich and strongly suggest that ----
The very most important question that the American people should be asking of any candidate for president in '08 is not, "Where do you stand on the war?", but, "Where do you stand on the EMPIRE that has taken over our country --- an Empire of which the war in Iraq is only its biggest and most visible crime?"
Of course, if most Americans were to actually ask this question of the corporate Empire's vetted and approved candidates, who will be allowed to run for the figurehead of president in "Vichy America", there would be no serious answers --- since all of them are totally beholden to the guileful global corporate Empire behind the MSM facade of "Vichy America".
Bacevich presents the discouraging but probably truthful case that very little can be done to resolve the Iraq disaster created by the Bush-Cheney administration and their cronies.
"Hard power" surges of US troops, bullets and bombs probably won't help and may be very counterproductive.
"Soft power" approaches such as information operations, psychological ops and persuasion ops might be helpful.
Perspectives on these kinds of approaches are included in:
"Intelligence, psychology and human heart: All are needed for success in war and peace"
PopulistAmerica.com
March 31, 2007
http://www.populistamerica.com/intelligence_psychology_and_human_heart
- - -
In addition, lessons learned from the WWII-era US Army "Military Intelligence Service (MIS)" in the Pacific, which was comprised of Japanese-Americans, provide possible assets and resources in these efforts. See:
"Eastwood, Spielberg: One More Iwo Jima Film"
PopulistAmerica.com
April 4, 2007
http://www.populistamerica.com/eastwood_spielberg_one_more_iwo_jima_film
The last time the Arab world was upset on this scale was back when the Israelis invaded Lebanon and a man named Saddam went to war with a new country called Iran.
Millions ended up dead and displaced, their lives ruined forever.
How does this keep happening? One may keep blaming the Saudis, Israel or ideology or Islam. Certainly all are in some part at fault. But in the end its political, Saddam picked on Iran to make friends in high places. France and Britian build his gas making factories for money. Iran took US missiles in exchange for Ak-47's, to give to other terrorist who paid the US in drugs that got US citizens hooked.
People trying to analyze this problem intellectually are barking up the wrong tree. These are politicans. Leaders of the barbarians, barbarians themselves.
'How to solve the ME?' Was there ever a more naieve question asked. How can we love Arabs when Arabs dont love Arabs, and how can the racist Jews do it from such a weak position. Thats why they need those tanks, because they are weak. To MAKE themselves strong. Thats why the US needs those Abrams (that turned out to be bad machines) rolling up and down the streets of Mesopotamia, and its not for oil, but for power, to make others afraid.
But they are not afraid, because only those with somthing to lose are afraid. Iraqis feared the abyss, chaos, their fear has been soothed by the instict to live, and to eat and they no longer fear chaos or the US.
So it was in Viet Nam, so it is in Iraq. The last man is here, but he carries the koran, not a vote, and reads al Sadr, not Socrates. The Neocons conned us.