The big news on Iraq over the last two days hasn't been about progress on the offensive underway in Baqouba. The fact that things are going well there has, of course, been overshadowed in the media by remarks by American generals, no doubt designed to be heard by Iraqis for purposes of provoking their resolve and by Americans for purposes of blaming someone other than the American generals if things go sour later, that they feared Iraqi forces would be unable to hold the gains made by the Americans and Iraqis.
But the bigger shadow was cast by Republican Senior Statesman Richard Lugar, who Monday voiced publicly what he says he's been telling the Bush administration privately for months: that things aren't working and it's time to organize an orderly draw-down of troops. Lugar was joined later by George Voinovich, whose miserably inconsistent career as a senator compares so unfavorably with the sagely Lugar as to count for nothing in the ongoing debate.
Lugar's opinion is being given much weight in the media. This is to be expected. The media presents stories. Stories require conflict. This looks like conflict.
But let's be clear about the nature of the conflict, including the nature of the person who prompts it. Richard Lugar is the closest thing to a State Department official in the Senate. His bland demeanor and measured pace of speech that appear dull to ordinary mortals mark him as the kind of person born to inhabit Foggy Bottom, where endless negotiation is always preferred over decisive action. Philosophically, he belongs to the camp of Brent Scowcroft and other Republicans who eschew foreign entanglements as long as problems abroad don't become ridiculously close to home.
But noting all that, we think that Lugar revealed his real perspective in his interview on Morning Edition today. To wit: he believes that political pressure for withdrawal from Iraq is irresistible. More particularly, he thinks that Rs will cave as the election approaches. Hence, he advocates an organized, measured withdrawal now as opposed to a disorganized, precipitous withdrawal later. This is not exactly the same as spending the weekend in San Francisco with Nancy Pelosi.
In sum, Lugar is convinced that Americans lack the patience to sustain the fight, so he wants to retreat in orderly fashion.
We believe that among Dick Lugar's many outstanding qualities, a strong political sense is not to be found. It's been over 30 years since Lugar ran in a genuinely competitive election, except when he briefly ran for President in 1996, a race that he abandoned early, and with some delightfully self-depreciating humor, after managing to get no contributions and no showing in the polls. Further, he's never been the kind of Senator who would stand before the public, articulate a position and a cause with vigor, and urge people to get behind that cause. He is a negotiator, a crafter of legislative and diplomatic compromise, but not a leader in the classic sense. (N.B. that this is what Senators become, and that's why so few of them become President. Sorry John, Hillary, Barak and John!)
Folks with memories of about 20 years will recall the so-called "Powell Doctrine," as articulated by General Colin Powell. In sum, Powell advocated that American military force be used only in situations where the goals were clearly attainable and a means of withdrawing afterward was essentially assured. One should realize, however, that this military doctrine was grounded in a pessimistic assessment of America's political situation. To wit: Powell was convinced that Americans wouldn't stand for anything short of a quick victory and an immediate withdrawal. Lugar is a Powellist: he thinks that American character is fixed in its fecklessness.
We remain convinced that Bush's muscular Wilsonianism has not finished playing its hand in Iraq. Militarily, there remains much to suggest that patience and persistence, with continual adaptation of tactics to the evolving situation, will bring continued progress toward goals that will be of long-term benefit to Iraqis, Arabs and Kurds in general, and the rest of humanity, including even the United States. We are no military historian, but we believe that there is much to be said for the success rate of nations with overwhelming military power who manage to stay on the field longer than their opponents.
Sadly, however, the media persists in its usual templates: (a) Americans are killed; (b) Iraqis are killed; (c) generals voice concerns; (d) politicians oppose the President; (e) Republicans risk election losses.
So what this situation calls for is exactly what Lugar has never been equipped to deliver and has abandoned in his pessimistic political assessment: an articulation of the reasons why prevailing in Iraq is so important, a frank assessment of the price to be paid to prevail (still a price far, far lower in lives and treasure than this nation has paid in most wars, Senator Voinovich), and a summoning of Americans to live out the ideals of liberty that define our national identity and experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment