Over the last several months on the campaign trail I have frequently been asked about Iraq. My response has been consistent. The Iraq study group, a bipartisan group, has outlined a strategy in Iraq. The president has been slow to adopt those findings, but nonetheless he has. One of the findings suggested that if the commanders recommended a ‘surge' he should listen. The commanders requested a surge, and the President responded. Along the way I have also suggested that Congress should not make military decisions. Our military leaders should do that. While I believe that the military should be managed, I know that it should not be micro-managed. Finally, I have been very clear, stating on more than a few occasions that we should wait and see what Petraeus and Crocker say upon in September. Well, this week they spoke. I agree entirely with their findings, and believe that the primary reason for the vocal questioning of their findings is political reasons.
I think what the Petraeus/Crocker reports reveal is the growing success of the surge. Personally, it has confirmed my confidence in the American Military to make military decisions. It is not Congress, or pressure from professional protestors like MoveOn.org or Code Pink, that should dictate our movements on the battlefield. Specifically, I think the events of the week uniquely contrast the differences between our two political parties. On the one hand you have the MoveOn.org folks and their well-funded political candidates referring to General Petraeus in a full-page ad in the New York Times as a dishonest betrayer. On the other hand you have General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. Petraeus and Crocker are supremely qualified individuals. There is universal agreement on that. As recently as January Petraeus' appointment received unanimous approval. This week they gave thoughtful, objective, well-researched and orderly analysis on the situation in Iraq. For those objective observers, the American people overwhelmingly come down on the side of Petraeus and Crocker. According to even the New York Times, the American people trust the General implicitly.
In his closing remarks, Ambassador Crocker best articulated the importance of our presence in Iraq to the House Armed Services Committee when he said, “I am certain that abandoning or drastically curtailing our effort in Iraq will bring failure and the consequences of failure must be understood. An Iraq that falls into chaos or civil war will result in massive human suffering - well beyond what has already occurred within its borders. It could well invite the intervention of regional states, all of which see their future connected to Iraq's in some fundamental way. Undoubtedly, Iran would be the winner in this scenario, consolidating its influence over Iraqi resources and possibly territory.” Crocker continued, “The Iranian President has already announced that Iran will fill any power vacuum left by Iraq. In such an environment, the gains made against Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups could easily evaporate and they could establish strongholds to be used as safe havens for regional and international operations. Our course is hard. The alternatives are far worse.” I agree.
As a result of the testimony this week I can say I more fully understand the entirety of the situation, both militarily and politically, and the importance of our mission. The Democrats often suggest there is no military solution. After this week's testimony, I believe that to be a gross, political oversimplification. Violence and political progress in this case are inversely proportional: the less violence, the more progress. I heard Gen. Petraeus emphasize the need to create ‘space' for the political process to begin. He cited groups like Al Qaeda in Iraq who aggressively seek to impede political progress through increased violence.
You have to consider Crocker's testimony in light of this as well. Reconciliation and de-Baathifaction, and the Iraqi idea of Federalism have supporting legislation.
De-Baathification is not a presto-chango sort of occurrence. As Ambassador Crocker suggested, you have to consider the political notion of de-Baathification by two very untrusting sectarian groups. Shia and Kurds were tortured and abused for decades under Sadaam's Baathist regime. Understandably, there is hesitation on both sides about corresponding legislation. Both sides want power and resources and they do not yet trust one another enough to share either. However, there is progress, most notably on display this past August as President Al Malaki brought disparate sectarian leaders together to discuss the idea of reconciliation and de-Baathification.
How long did it take the US to figure out Federalism? Under its' new constitution Iraq is moving toward a de-centralized system of government. It took us a long time to figure this out. Hamilton, Madison and Jay speak of it at length in the Federalist Papers as small states were frightened by the larger states. The Marshall court didn't get it sorted out until some 30 years after the constitution was signed!
This is not a process that can be fit neatly into a single season TV show, and it's not fair to any of the participants to place such unreasonable expectations on them.
|
