Category: The Dish

Petraeus, aware of the import of his recitation of the bleeding obvious, later tried to withdraw this gaffe. But it was a genuine gaffe – the truth blurted out by a general who could not help himself. This exchange may be – and certainly should be – the turning point of the Iraq debate. Wars that make us less secure are not wise endeavors. In fact, this week has been unexpectedly revealing, it seems to me, of the rapidly rising stakes now involved.

This week is, I fear, the last chance to salvage something from Iraq, while actually leaving the place at some point with the military intact (if severely damaged) and avoiding a wider, and far more dangerous, regional war with the US in its center. Petraeus is intellectually honest to recognize that the current conflict in Iraq, with insufficient forces to pacify the country but sufficient to enrage Muslims and recruit Jihadists everywhere, is actually a boon to our deadliest enemies, and to Iran. It is clearly, palpably, making us less safe. It is recruiting and training the next generation of Islamists, giving them the skills to wreak havoc on a scale not yet seen. The inexorable logic of this is that, as we continue on the same path in Iraq, as chaos continues this fall (as I fear it will), as Iran makes even more mischief, and as the US moves closer and closer to an explicit policy of backing the Sunnis against Maliki and the Iranians, a war with Iran becomes unstoppable. The vote this week, in other words, is perhaps one last chance to arrest our enmeshment in the growing war in the Middle East before a full-scale war with Iran breaks out.

The consequences of such a war are as unknowable as they are terrifying. An air-attack on Iran’s nuclear sites would likely lead to a Shiite uprising in the South of Iraq – that’s why the Brits are trying to get out of there as quickly as possible – and mass casualties across the country. It would align the new Shiite "government" in Baghdad much more closely with Iran, and force the US into a hideous alliance with Sunni dictators and Sunni tribes. We would have no other global allies. We would still have insufficient troops to win. And we would not just have created a regional civil war in the Middle East; we would have taken sides in it. Such a development could unleash a wave of Islamist terror across the West far more lethal than anything we have yet seen – and even bring the Sunni-Shiite conflict to the streets of Western cities. Such warfare would likely lead to an intensification of the imperial presidency at home, with all the consequences for the Constitution that would entail. There is a disconnect right now, I fear, between the enormous stakes we are deciding and the awareness of most Americans of what may be about to engulf them.

I may be wrong about this. I sure hope I am. We all know I’m an excitable fellow. Perhaps the next six months could lead to political reconciliation in Iraq and continuation of the small, tactical successes of the surge. Perhaps, the empire we are now cementing for our lifetimes in the Middle East will bring peace and democracy in a generation or five. But I don’t think the lesson of the last five years has been optimism about Arab culture. And I would feel remiss if I didn’t voice the foreboding I feel at this juncture. The logic of war is a very powerful one. By refusing to cut our losses now, we may not, in other words, be choosing some kind of status quo. Waiting for 2008, as Jon Rauch has urged, may not be an option – because events and our leaders may well force our hand before then. Democrats who reassure themselves that this cycle of failure will hurt the GOP are not taking into account that the chaos can be used by Cheney, Bush and Giuliani to create more chaos, more war, to polarize the country more deeply, and concentrate more power in their hands.

To put it bluntly: Cheney and Ahmadinejad have fifteen months to get the war they both want. So far, these last five years, Cheney and Ahmadinejad have gotten everything they wanted.

On Monday, John McCain gained four points in USA Today/Gallup; on Tuesday, he gained six points in CBS/NYT; today, the WPo finds McCain in second place with Unready Freddy.

"After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne…

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars," – Barack Obama, October 2, 2002. My italics.

Barring a sudden revolt by the Congressional Republicans, we are now at war with still too few troops and constructing an explicit, Middle Eastern empire for as far as the eye can see.

The short answer is: Americans may think Bush is useless, but there is not an overwhelming desire to withdraw now. Or as Charles Franklin elaborates in a fascinating post:

The CBS/New York Times polls taken 9/4-8/07 finds results similar to other recent polls: Bush War Approval: 26%
War worth cost: 34%
US Did right thing: 41% (All in the ballpark of the trends above.) Do you think the Republican or the Democratic party is more likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq?:
Republican: 32%
Democratic: 42%

A Democratic advantage, but not an overwhelming one.

His conclusion?

Bottom line: Frustrated anti-war forces are understandably angry that the 2006 election victory and subsequent Democratic Congress has failed to bring change to Iraq policy. The trend lines above show how support for the war has declined dramatically since 2003. Anti-war forces can correctly point to substantial majorities who are critical of various aspects of the war.

But change in Congress also requires that Republican members perceive that opinion against the war is so overwhelming that it is time for them to also abandon ship. That mark in public opinion has not been reached. So long as a substantial minority (say 40%+) support the current policy (or at least oppose a rapid withdrawal) then Republicans can count on a public that is too divided on the issue to pose the certainty of electoral catastrophe. This isn’t to say Republicans don’t wish the issue would go away, or that they relish running in 2008 with nearly 6 years of inconclusive war on their watch. But opponents of the war will not prevail in Congress unless a more massive opposition emerges— and one united on the specific details of how to end the war.

Over to you, Senator Obama. Let’s see if you have what it takes to be a president.

In thinking out loud about the surge, it seems to me that the arguments of Petraeus could logically lead to two opposite conclusions: a) that the tactical military gains have obviously not led to political conciliation and so the entire project should be scrapped and we should cut our losses; or b) we have enough tactical military success to suggest that the theory is not insane that less violence could lead to political progress. So, in the case of b), there’s an obvious follow-up: add many more troops. If the surge is working as they claim, why should we not amplify its success by expanding its reach? If Bush were arguing for 300,000 troops to pacify the entire country effectively, and use such numbers for classic counter-insurgency, I could understand the logic.

Instead we have the notion that the surge has succeeded somewhat and so we will now take the military presence back to 2006 levels. That makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Why would we return now to the policy of 2003 – 2007? The police and Iraqi army are as incapable of picking up the slack as they were three years ago. And the national government commands less authority.

A confounding finding from Gallup:

After analyzing survey data representing more than 90% of the global Muslim population, Gallup found that despite widespread anti-American sentiment, only a small minority saw the 9/11 attacks as morally justified. Even more significant, there was no correlation between level of religiosity and extremism among respondents. Among the 7% of the population that fits in the politically radicalized category — those who saw the 9/11 attacks as completely justifiable and have an unfavorable view of the United States — 94% said religion is an important part of their daily lives, compared with 90% among those in the moderate majority. And no significant difference exists between radicals and moderates in mosque attendance.

Not sure what to make of that. Maybe it’s grist for Ron Paul. Some Pollster.com analysis here.

Rome, Georgia, 10 am.

Move over, Chris Richardson Blake Lewis. France’s Pop Idol has a beat box star:

I’m with Jonah on this, which may disconcert him. I think conservatism is indeed linked to resistance to change at a deep level. But at a deeper one, it also accepts change as an integral part of human organization and society. What distinguishes conservatives in the sense I prefer from liberals is a residual respect for what has been, a desire to understand it before changing it. But change it conservatives will. Think of the conservative game-changers in the past: Lincoln, Disraeli, Thatcher, Reagan. They key is the mechanism for change – whether it springs from the experiential intimations of the past and present or from the abstract certainty of the rational mind. The former is conservative; the latter liberal. The genius of the West has been that both tendencies are part of its DNA; and both are necessary. Prudence alone can tell us when to apply which. Which is a key conservative insight as well. This is all developed at some length in The Conservative Soul, which, alas, Jonah declared no conservatives would read. Maybe at some point, some will.

A reader writes:

I mostly agree with your musing about Iran perhaps being the target of our disaster in Iraq. I believe that Iran was the real target of the Bush-Cheney administration all along. Iraq was just a very good excuse. I believe they were looking toward Iran as soon as, or before,  Bush announced "Mission Accomplished" on the aircraft carrier. To me there can be no other explanation for the disastrous way they began the occupation.

Cheney expected to put Chalabi in place, build a few bases to make it look like we were going to protect democracy and then fire up the propaganda machine for the invasion of Iran. They had the forces in place, the supply routes and ports in Kuwait, and a ready and eager public to support them. Unfortunately, they didn’t plan on the insurgency. The result is the situation we are in now.

I can think of no other explanation for their "incompetence". These are not dumb people. (With one obvious exception.) They believe there is no limit to their power, that the world, and in particular the oil rich Middle East, needs to be  controlled, and from Cheney’s point of view we need to teach the mullahs a lesson after the hostage crisis in 1979. The man has a long memory and doesn’t fail to act.

I predict that once the surge is approved and the additional money is appropriated you will see an increase in the rhetoric about Iran. Bush and Cheney had a 7 year time frame to deal with Iran after 9/11. The mess in Iraq has slowed them down, but hasn’t stopped the war drums. I think Bush still holds out hope that a neo-conservative Republican (is there anything else nowadays) will be elected in 2008. Whoever that may be is likely to find Iraq the least of their problems. The disaster in Iran will keep them more than occupied.

Remember, Bush and Cheney have never worried about accountability. It doesn’t matter to them that someone else will have to clean up after them. If there is a chance to make a profit for their friends, demonstrate how "tough" they are, and show the world that you don’t mess with America, while extending democracy, they will take it.

I’m not sure it was all that closely worked out in advance. But it may be Cheney’s best improvisation after the success of the Iraq insurgency, especially if Bush can now tie that insurgency to Iran (after the link to al Qaeda has done the work required by it at home).