Today the last American combat troops left Iraq, nearly 7.5 years after Bush/Cheney launched this military fiasco. There is no measure of this war that makes anything other than an unalloyed disaster with few parallels in American history - not the number of deaths and injuries, the $2 trillion spent on it, nor the way it has weakened the American position in the region and the world.
The Obama Administration deserves - and will surely not get - a great deal of credit for fulfilling this campaign promise. After all, even as Obama may be sinking us deeper in Afghani quicksand, he resisted calls to abandon his original timeline in Iraq.
Violence has subsided in Iraq and a measure of stability has returned, but in fact the country remains a basket case and will be that way for some time. The troop escalation - the so-called "surge" - led by Gen. David Petreaus (to whom George Bush more or less abdicated his role as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces in 2007) deserves some credit for this.
But the surge was always intended to create enough safe space for the Iraqis to come up with a long-term political resolution to the civil war of 2004-07. That, clearly, has not yet happened. Politics has ground to a halt in Iraq months now after the elections. There is still no real government now in Baghdad, and none on the horizon.
Some while ago I suggested the right analogy for the Iraq war was not Vietnam, but Cambodia. There, after the United States contributed to the destablization of the country, the country descended into a fratricidal, genocidal civil war, brought to an end - ironies of ironies - when the Vietnamese invaded and restored some order.
American combat troops are not necessary for whatever may happen in Iraq going forward and it is long past time for them to come home. Let's hope Obama is demonstrates similar resolution with his timetable to get American troops out of Afghanistan.
Showing posts with label Iraq War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq War. Show all posts
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
A Surge of Magical Thinking
Perhaps it is too early to declare the much-vaunted troop escalation in Iraq (dubbed by George Bush the peppier-sounding "surge" which has been dutifully parroted by the press) a failure. But that judgement is no more precipitous than the near-immediate declarations of "success!" made by virtually everyone.
The troop escalation has been called a success because it has been credited with bringing about a dramatic drop in violence in Iraq. Because of this, the troop escalation has been just about the last thing Bush loyalists and Iraq war cheerleaders can hang onto. They have so desperately wanted something here to work in what has otherwise been an abject failure that they almost immediately seized on the troop escalation, and its architect, David Petreaus. Chirpy Republican apologist David Brooks recently called the troop escalation Bush's signature success and one of the most courageous decisions made by any president.
We should acknowledge, however, that correlation is not necessarily causation - Iraq had descended into what should have been called a civil war; civil wars have their own gruesome dynamics and the decrease in violence may also correspond to the exhaustion of warring parties; and despite the troop escalation, Iraq remains one of the most violent, dangerous places in the world. And, of course, many of the warring parties in Iraq put down their weapons because the US Army paid them to - once the money stops, who knows what will happen?
The larger point is that reducing violence was never supposed to be the goal of the escalation. Getting the violence under control was a means to an end. It was supposed to create the space for the political process to work. And the results here, while perhaps not yet a failure, surely don't look like success.
In the past week, Prime Minister Maliki seems more and more like he is consolidating power in purely sectarian ways, shutting out other players, who, in turn, have access to fighters and weapons. And a new round of bombings have been deadly enough to land on the front page of the papers, rather than in the middle. Iraq, to judge by the news coming out of there right now, seems no closer to peace and stability than it was a year ago.
Many people have made the analogy between Iraq and Vietnam, and there are haunting similarities. But it has always seemed to me that the better, and even more horrifying, analogy is Cambodia. Once a prosperous and stable country - in the 1960s it was a net exporter of food - Cambodia was brought to ruin once the Richard Nixon and Henry Kissenger orchestrated secret (and illegal) bombings in their pursuit of North Vietnamese soldiers. Just as Iraq was turned into a proxy in the "war of terrorism," Cambodia was the collateral damage of our feckless Vietnam adventure.
Once American troops left Southeast Asia in 1975 Cambodia descended into a fratricidal civil war which ended with the triumph of the Khmer Rouge. Cambodians thus went from bombing raids, to civil war to genocide in just under a decade. It has not really recovered in the thirty years since (it still must import food each year, for example).
American troops must be withdrawn from Iraq. But as we prepare to pull them out, we ought to use the remaining time there to push for political solutions rather than simply congratulating ourselves on the "success" of the troop escalation. No one can envision where Iraq might be in 30 years, but then no one envisioned what became of Cambodia either. Perhaps we can learn something from that tragedy.
The troop escalation has been called a success because it has been credited with bringing about a dramatic drop in violence in Iraq. Because of this, the troop escalation has been just about the last thing Bush loyalists and Iraq war cheerleaders can hang onto. They have so desperately wanted something here to work in what has otherwise been an abject failure that they almost immediately seized on the troop escalation, and its architect, David Petreaus. Chirpy Republican apologist David Brooks recently called the troop escalation Bush's signature success and one of the most courageous decisions made by any president.
We should acknowledge, however, that correlation is not necessarily causation - Iraq had descended into what should have been called a civil war; civil wars have their own gruesome dynamics and the decrease in violence may also correspond to the exhaustion of warring parties; and despite the troop escalation, Iraq remains one of the most violent, dangerous places in the world. And, of course, many of the warring parties in Iraq put down their weapons because the US Army paid them to - once the money stops, who knows what will happen?
The larger point is that reducing violence was never supposed to be the goal of the escalation. Getting the violence under control was a means to an end. It was supposed to create the space for the political process to work. And the results here, while perhaps not yet a failure, surely don't look like success.
In the past week, Prime Minister Maliki seems more and more like he is consolidating power in purely sectarian ways, shutting out other players, who, in turn, have access to fighters and weapons. And a new round of bombings have been deadly enough to land on the front page of the papers, rather than in the middle. Iraq, to judge by the news coming out of there right now, seems no closer to peace and stability than it was a year ago.
Many people have made the analogy between Iraq and Vietnam, and there are haunting similarities. But it has always seemed to me that the better, and even more horrifying, analogy is Cambodia. Once a prosperous and stable country - in the 1960s it was a net exporter of food - Cambodia was brought to ruin once the Richard Nixon and Henry Kissenger orchestrated secret (and illegal) bombings in their pursuit of North Vietnamese soldiers. Just as Iraq was turned into a proxy in the "war of terrorism," Cambodia was the collateral damage of our feckless Vietnam adventure.
Once American troops left Southeast Asia in 1975 Cambodia descended into a fratricidal civil war which ended with the triumph of the Khmer Rouge. Cambodians thus went from bombing raids, to civil war to genocide in just under a decade. It has not really recovered in the thirty years since (it still must import food each year, for example).
American troops must be withdrawn from Iraq. But as we prepare to pull them out, we ought to use the remaining time there to push for political solutions rather than simply congratulating ourselves on the "success" of the troop escalation. No one can envision where Iraq might be in 30 years, but then no one envisioned what became of Cambodia either. Perhaps we can learn something from that tragedy.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Day Late, Dollar Short
For this year's F. Scott Fitzgerald "There Are No Second Acts In American Life Award," I nominate. . . Colin Powell!!
Powell, of course, endorsed Barack Obama for president a few days ago. Rumors had been swirling as long ago as February that Powell would make this endorsement - now that Obama is up by double-digits in some major polls, I guess the former general felt the time was finally right to shock and awe us with his official blessing.
I'm delighted that Obama has received this endorsement, and I hope it has some effect on people's perceptions of Obama's foreign and military policy cred. Perhaps it might even prompt the press to notice that John McShame served as Enabler-in-Chief in the Senate for the Bush foreign policy, arguably the most disastrous in American history. I suspect, though, it won't matter much beyond the Sunday morning network bloviators.
But we should be clear: this endorsement is not so much about Obama as it is about Powell trying to rehabilitate himself -- re-positioning himself for some sort of second act, after the self-imposed exile he has been in since the debacle of his career in the Bush White House. This endorsement marks Powell's official re-entry into American political life.
Powell had his moment. Several of them, in fact, when his opinion might have mattered, might have made an important difference. Let's review: After stealing the 2000 election, Bush chose Powell to be his Secretary of State. Powell was universally respected and admired. His choice served, more than any other cabinet appointment, to give legitimacy to an otherwise illegitimate administration. Powell could have said "no" to being used in this way, but he didn't.
Then Powell allowed himself to be used again when he gave that now-infamous speech to the United Nations justifying the invasion of Iraq. Once it became clear just how badly he had been used, Powell said nothing. He might have resigned before the 2004 election; indeed, he might have endorsed John Kerry exactly four years ago. Either act might have changed the outcome four years ago. But Powell said nothing. Hell! He even could have challenged Bush in the Republican primary in 2004, which would have left him as the odds-on favorite this year. Instead, channeling his inner Hamlet, he skulked quietly out of power, and did not even have the courage to join the chorus of critics of the war.
Who knows whether Powell's authoritative voice could have helped changed the direction of policy over the last 4-5 years? We do know what happened without that voice, however, and Powell stands guilty of silence when silence was unacceptable. The pattern repeats itself even with this endorsement. If Powell's benediction matters at all, it would have mattered a lot more in August or September, not two weeks before the election. Imagine what impact it would have had if it had come in Denver?
Like Robert McNamara a generation ago, Powell wants us to forgive him the dreadful mistakes he made without ever really having to admit that he made them. By jumping on the Obama band-wagon so late in the game, Powell hopes that he can resume the role of elder-statesman he seemed destined to play before he let his loyalty to the Bush family supercede his loyalty to the nation, leaving him in utter disgrace.
Powell, of course, endorsed Barack Obama for president a few days ago. Rumors had been swirling as long ago as February that Powell would make this endorsement - now that Obama is up by double-digits in some major polls, I guess the former general felt the time was finally right to shock and awe us with his official blessing.
I'm delighted that Obama has received this endorsement, and I hope it has some effect on people's perceptions of Obama's foreign and military policy cred. Perhaps it might even prompt the press to notice that John McShame served as Enabler-in-Chief in the Senate for the Bush foreign policy, arguably the most disastrous in American history. I suspect, though, it won't matter much beyond the Sunday morning network bloviators.
But we should be clear: this endorsement is not so much about Obama as it is about Powell trying to rehabilitate himself -- re-positioning himself for some sort of second act, after the self-imposed exile he has been in since the debacle of his career in the Bush White House. This endorsement marks Powell's official re-entry into American political life.
Powell had his moment. Several of them, in fact, when his opinion might have mattered, might have made an important difference. Let's review: After stealing the 2000 election, Bush chose Powell to be his Secretary of State. Powell was universally respected and admired. His choice served, more than any other cabinet appointment, to give legitimacy to an otherwise illegitimate administration. Powell could have said "no" to being used in this way, but he didn't.
Then Powell allowed himself to be used again when he gave that now-infamous speech to the United Nations justifying the invasion of Iraq. Once it became clear just how badly he had been used, Powell said nothing. He might have resigned before the 2004 election; indeed, he might have endorsed John Kerry exactly four years ago. Either act might have changed the outcome four years ago. But Powell said nothing. Hell! He even could have challenged Bush in the Republican primary in 2004, which would have left him as the odds-on favorite this year. Instead, channeling his inner Hamlet, he skulked quietly out of power, and did not even have the courage to join the chorus of critics of the war.
Who knows whether Powell's authoritative voice could have helped changed the direction of policy over the last 4-5 years? We do know what happened without that voice, however, and Powell stands guilty of silence when silence was unacceptable. The pattern repeats itself even with this endorsement. If Powell's benediction matters at all, it would have mattered a lot more in August or September, not two weeks before the election. Imagine what impact it would have had if it had come in Denver?
Like Robert McNamara a generation ago, Powell wants us to forgive him the dreadful mistakes he made without ever really having to admit that he made them. By jumping on the Obama band-wagon so late in the game, Powell hopes that he can resume the role of elder-statesman he seemed destined to play before he let his loyalty to the Bush family supercede his loyalty to the nation, leaving him in utter disgrace.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
MUSIC AGAINST WAR
I am really not a 60s romantic. But one thing that I miss from that time was the extraordinary role that artists played in criticizing the senseless war in Vietnam. From Country Joe and the Fish to Bob Dylan to Jimi Hendrix, musicians challenged the easy shibboleths of Cold War America, sometimes with humor, sometimes with bitterness, sometimes with tears.
Unfortunately, the Iraq War has not spurred the same outburst of politically-engaged artistry. I'm not sure why. It may be that the immediacy of the draft in the 1960s--and the American death toll in Southeast Asia, about ten times that of Bush's war so far--created a sense of urgency.
It's telling that the most powerful antiwar songs of the Bush II-era have come from the South, a region whose sons and daughters are disproportionately represented in the military and where "God, guns, and guts made America #1" bumper stickers are commonplace.
One of my favorite bands, the Drive-By Truckers, have written two of the very best antiwar anthems to date. Frankly there is no better, no more powerful or moving song about the tragedy of the Iraq War than "Dress Blues" (above) about a Marine from Greenhill, Alabama.
And on the Truckers' newest album (h/t to Scott McLemee at Quick Study--I'm always six months or a year behind the latest music) is "The Man I Shot," which captures the terror of shell shock or what we now call Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome, one of the countless, everyday human tragedies of the war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
