Those Who Criticized Pre-War Intel and the War Plan Shouldn't Paint Rosy Pictures for Withdrawal

Today's Iraq musing is an accusation against those who say that by withdrawing troops, the United States will provoke the much vaunted "political solution" to Iraq's violence.*

The story, as offered by Democrats, RINOs like Olympia Snow, and members of the media like Thomas Friedman (link requires paid subscription, so don't give a dime to the NY Times unless you just have to) is that (a) our current level of military activity is allowing the feckless Iraqi parliament to dither about important decisions; (b) therefore, we can provoke the needed political compromise by withdrawing; (c) so there's a happy coincidence between our quitting the fight and the end of all hostilities.

We say that this is a bigger fantasy than the notion that the war was going to be quick and easy (reminder: the invasion and ending of Saddam's regime were amazingly quick and easy; it's the nation-building that's tough).

We point gentle readers to two sources for alternative interpretation of the realities of the current occupation and the consequences of precipitous withdrawal. One is the sage opinion page of the Wall Street Journal, which points yet again (doing this is necessarily a daily exercise of counterinsurgency) to the reality of military progress and significant pacification in the surge's short tenure. The new note is sounded with reference to the observations of Ryan Crocker, US Ambassador in Iraq and no Republican or Bush Administration lackey, that the so-called benchmarks of political progress in Iraq are hardly good measures of political progress, especially in the short time frame so far allowed. As the advocates of withdrawal seem ready to concede military progress but insist on withdrawal because of the lack of political progress, Crocker's point is most salient.

Crocker's view is seconded by, of all people, his opposite number: Iraq's Ambassador to the United States, Samir Sumaidaie, who in an interview with NPR today offered the opposite prognostication to that of withdrawal optimists. To wit: talk about withdrawal in the absence of meeting "benchmarks" simply encourages terrorist elements to work against the achievement of benchmarks and to wait for what looks like an imminent end to military pressure on them.

We continue to point with dismay to the absence of statesmanlike leadership among Iraqi politicians. But we doubt very much that an American withdrawal would engender the selflessness and courage necessary to pull together a functioning Iraqi Republic. We expect instead the full force of tribal bloodletting followed by the intervention of sinister Iran, Syria and somewhat less sinister Saudi Arabia to extend their influence, wealth and power. The outcome is bad for Iraqis in the short term and bad for Americans in the long term.

In place of short term benchmarks, we urge an adjustment to the pace of social and political action in the ancient culture of Iraq. If Iraq had a TV program called 24, it would be about centuries, not hours.

Those who now decry the rhetoric of easy victory that preceded the war, if indeed such rhetoric actually existed, look hypocritical at best when they offer military withdrawal as a cheap solution to Iraq's troubles. We continue to offer the judgment that at best war is always heck, but given the awful state of human affairs and human nature, it is sometimes the grim necessity that confronts people who strive for justice and peace. Once started, it must be seen through to its conclusion, or greater heck will ensue.

__________________
*Boo to all who have adopted the silly false choice that repeats the sound bite, "Iraq needs a political solution, not a military solution." War is the extension of politics, n'est se qua?