Iraq, Where Do We Go From Here?

Withdrawal timing is "not too important," says McCain.

The troops might disagree.

Robert Dujarric and Andy Zelleke’s article, “The Death of US Strategy in Iraq,” in the 17 April csmonitor.com analyzes the implications behind McCain’s recent statement that the timing of troop withdrawals from Iraq is “not too important.”

The authors submit that McCain may believe there is still a political objective, but it will be different from Bush’s only in that it will be more modest.

However, McCain has not given us answers to the most pressing question of “just what are our objectives in Iraq or the Middle East?” They authors break that question into three components:

· What are the political objectives for keeping large numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come?

· What plausible outcome would justify the costs (dollars and lives, I would guess)?

· Given one or more objectives, what is the strategy for getting there?

All valid questions and I would add, “What are the measures (metrics) that tell us we are making progress toward those objectives and how will we know we are there?” Dujarric and Zelleke write that slogans such as “winning” and “stability” are just not good enough.

War is a Continuation of Policy

Military folks and other strategic thinkers have brought Sun Tze and von Clauswitz back into  popularity. von Clauswitz’ most famous statement that war is simply a continuation of policy by other means is pertinent here. If there is no policy objective, then there should not be a war.

Personally, I’ve been against this Iraq War since it became obvious that the Bush Administration was bent on war regardless of the facts. However, like many Americans, since we are now there and made a terrible mess, I have believed we need to stay and fix the mess and leave with honor. But I am no longer sure our civilians can define an end, or an objective, and therefore an honorable end is unlikely. And, I’m no longer sure that success in Iraq is necessary to our military’s sense of honor.

ur military has always been self-contained and isolated from the rest of society. Success to our servicemen and their military leaders is gauged within the military, by each other and by military leaders. Civilian opinions matter less. Our servicemen and servicewomen certainly don't want to be pitied as victims of Washington, DC (and I've been guilty of that kind of thinking). They do want to be recognized for their skills and accomplishments, but that's kind of hard when the great bulk of America has little knowledge of the military or its skills.

Going to war is not a military decision and stopping a war is not a military decision. Our civilian leaders start wars and declare when a war is done or when it is time to withdraw without success. One can hope that such wars are the result of defined political objectives. Afghanistan was one such war that had and has a clearly defined political objective – Iraq is not.

A Time to Fight

For a military opinion I turn to Jim Webb, Virginia Democratic Senator, who has written A Time to Fight (2008, Broadway Books, Doubleday, New York). Webb, like several other ex-military folks, ran for Congress, as a Democrat. Webb discusses why the military learned to hate the Democratic Party beginning in the 1960s and why all that is changing today, but that is for another post.

Webb also asks that the political objective(s) for Iraq and the Middle East be clearly defined. Here are some quotes I cherry picked:

· “Their [Bush Administration, extreme elements in Congress, and the RNC] most glaring and crucial failing has been an adamant refusal to match the sacrifices of our military with a sound, regionally based diplomatic strategy designed to take advantage of the military’s performance.”

· “Such a strategy could have, and should have, been in place as early as 2003.”

· “Our military has consistently answered that call, never failing to control its tactical battle space. But over the same span of time the region, from Lebanon to Pakistan, has descended into ever more dangerous instability.”

· “Most military people can see and understand these realities. But rather than openly recognizing them, Republican leaders have for years claimed that any mention of the insults “the troops” and comprises a form of defeatism that will not “let them win” in Iraq.”

· “Except in an Orwellian world, wars are not supposed to be endless. Nor are occupations supposed to last forever.”

· “Those who claim that one cannot oppose the President’s policy and still be supporting the troops should consult the opinions of the troops.”

Is Iraq Worth It? Ask the Troops

With that last point in mind, Webb presents the following poll figures from Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps Times and LA Times (and I checked them and they are as Webb stated):

· 2006

o 72% of troops believed we should pull out of Iraq by end of 2006.

o Dec: 60% disagreed with Bush’s Iraq policies.

· 2007

o Dec: 60% of military families believed the war was not worth the cost

o Dec: 58% said US should withdraw within a year or sooner.

from Military Times Poll Dec 29, 2006

egardless of whether our next President defines our objectives for Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest of the Middle East, our troops will continue to perform with honor and bravery. But they do deserve to know what they are fighting for.

Webb ends the chapter that I’ve been quoting with his own quote from President Eisenhower in 1952.

“[The Korean War] was never inevitable, it was never inescapable… America … appealed to the heroism of its youth… The answer to that appeal has been what any American knew it would be. It has been sheer valor…

“from these heroic men there comes back an answering appeal… Where do we go from here? When comes the end? Is there an end?

“[These questions] demand truthful answers. Neither glib promises nor glib excuses will serve. They will be no better than the glib promises that brought us to this pass….”

Amen