Post from Todd Hill's Blog:
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
Bad? Brilliant?
You can rate this post.
Register or login now and
tell us what you think.
October 15th signaled another day for neoconservatives to declare, in their minds, a moral victory in this horrible display of leadership in the execution of the Iraq War. So while they break out the pom-poms, make their "freedom's on the march" speeches, and pepper everyone with recycled touchy, feely rhetoric to attempt and mask this debacle in the Middle East I'm going to throw cold water on their parade and remind everyone of a few things. We need to talk about enormous failures that have resulted in a pathetic attempt at installing, not birthing, a skewed form of democracy.

First, I was glad to see that the Sunni's did take part in the political process; however, they overwhelmingly rejected the Iraqi constitution. Despite that enormous rejection the constitution did pass, with all of its fallacies included. As a result, an Islamic Republic is born. The tension between ethnic, religious, and cultural sects is going to be absolutely incredible going forward, with many of the cleric leaders and former Baathist party members fueling the Bush administration created Iraqi insurgency already. They will not accept this constitution if they handedly rejected it to begin with. Iraq is already in the beginning stages of a Civil War; this referendum has likely only sped up the process of a full-fledged bloody division within this fledgling neoconservative democracy installation project.

Second, as General Wesley Clark clearly indicated this weekend, the administration has continuously failed to deliver a plan to sufficiently build an Iraqi military presence that minimizes American intervention in Iraqi security. This coupled with a backdoor draft policy of forced retention cycles for reservists, National Guardsman, and active military personnel and you have essentially created a Molotov cocktail waiting to explode. Mixing an apparent occupation force (US Military) with daily security of your occupants (Iraqi people), while the occupiers (US Military) are tired, confused, and under equipped to handle the scenarios unfolding on the ground, only serve to rapidly destabilize the situation Over There. Since our military is in such a condition, they are also unprepared to handle proper training of a force where trust is absent equally between parties already. Because this administration wears rose-colored glasses the window of opportunity has already closed to attempt to get this situation right. You can't fight war on the cheap and expect to win, and you can't break the Powell doctrine and ignore the warnings of General Shinseki not to deploy the least amount of boots on the ground as you possibly can. Brushing these facts aside is not an option, it has created the scenario we see unfolding before us today.

Third, the attempts at dialogue amongst Iraq's neighbors have been absolutely non-existent. And because of that, both Iran and Sudan are pouring jihadists into the insurgency. The failure to focus on diminishing these obvious results of war has had a detrimental effect on the political process in general. It also demonstrates the need to use overwhelming force to secure the nation you are responsible for now occupying. So in essence, this administration has killed two important points of nation building, something they were opposed to doing in 2000 to begin with. Avoiding these missteps would have moved our brave men and women much closer to returning home, and Iraqi's closer to some sort of stable government. We have neither occurring now.

Fourth, despite fevering attempts to pump up reconstruction efforts, they have essentially ceased or constrained to extremely isolated locations. Bridges that were repaired and reopened have been strategically destroyed again to slow insurgent traffic into many Iraqi cities, especially along the borders. Remind you of an old Vietnam War tactic, doesn't it? Billions of American taxpayer dollars in reconstruction money is now unaccounted for and congress turns a blind eye. The flow of oil President Bush, VP Cheney, Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, and other talking heads who promised it would fund reconstruction has never occurred. Instead, you and I are footing the bill. Insurgents blow up government buildings, police stations, schools, and basic infrastructure such as electricity and water treatment plants faster then we can place the final touches on blueprint schemes. We can't afford to have soldiers doing this type of work anymore anyway; they are now needed to battle an insurgency that didn't exist prior to American interference in Iraq.

What we essentially have here students is a tango between taking one step forward and two steps backwards. The negatives far exceed any positives that any individual can wrestle out of the unfolding debacle in Iraq. The political process that unfolded over the weekend only served to demonstrate how quickly Iraq is falling into a bloody division amongst religious, ethnic, and culture sects throughout this oil rich country. It also showed that the American government must cease, and reexamine any future attempts to tango in nation building. More critically, it has demonstrated blatant incompetence, foresight, and arrogance on the part of the president in executing a delicate weapon such as war. Especially without apparent justification or evidence to do so. For now we need to put the pom-poms away and begin drafting a real strategy for success in Iraq that includes a strategic withdraw of American troops by the end of 2006. We're better off however sitting and waiting for hell to freeze over then for these arrogant leaders to admit any wrongdoing.

Reader Comments

Comments are closed for this post.

  
spot on
By jr Oct 17th 2005 at 12:50 pm EDT
We're committed, as of Bush's "major Iraq address" earlier this month, to staying until a stable government capable of self-defense is established. Which is why reports that the Ninevah province (Sunni dominated) is coming in hevily for the Constitution are so disturbing (suggests fraud, see Link for an analysis). Plus, according to Knight-Ridder's Baghdad bureau, the security forces we're spending billions to train and equip are functioning largely as a Shiite militia, directed by local and regional clerics Link

But rest assured: freedom is on the march!
MyDD
By jr Oct 17th 2005 at 1:14 pm EDT
MyDD has more on the discrepancies between the total in Ninevah and in other Sunni provinces: Link
  
Decent analysis
By Superduperficial Oct 18th 2005 at 1:10 am EDT
Though you're fooling yourself if you think "dialogue" with Iran would have changed anything.
It's the best strategy
By ToddHill Oct 18th 2005 at 9:30 am EDT
to take in this scenario. If you are going to invade a soverign nation that just happens to be next door to a large Middle Eastern country with shaky relations to the United States already, and who may or may not have nuclear weapons, you might want to AT LEAST attempt dialogue. Diplomacy is a Fine Art, and since it is a forgotten trade now in this country it has cost us tremendously in generations of foreign policy credibility.

This administration was way too arrogant to even attempt to open their mouths to Iran. We needed and still need till this day some sort of constructive dialogue with them, as we have severly crippled ourselves to the point Iran is gaining in superiority and leverage within the region, and most importantly in Iraq. That is a scenario that might have been prevented had we actually made an effort to not only secure the border and pressure Iran diplomatically, but also to continue with the transformation of Iraq into a Turkey-like democracy.

Think of the Project for a New American Century.
Neocons believe that America is invincible. That no one can stop the military and economic might of the United States. They also believe that to take down one Middle Eastern country (which has always been Iraq to them) you create a domino effect of Democracy spreading much like the plaque across the oil rich region. Don't know what they are smokin' but they need to stop it.

As reality should teach anyone we are all vulnerable, and at some point, can be overextended or in over our heads. We don't have protective shields, we are not invincible. What makes you the better man is when you can admit you might be wrong, and to get it right you need to change the course. Otherwise you are nothing more then a small, narrow-minded, arrogant, misguided, and pathetic example of the word "leadership."
Re: It's the best strategy
By Superduperficial Oct 18th 2005 at 11:08 am EDT
The problem then is we're giving their leadership credibility as being legitimate rulers of Iran, when they have virtually no support among the populace.
Re: It's the best strategy
By jr Oct 18th 2005 at 2:18 pm EDT
Well, they've got an elected leader in addition to the jackasses with beards.

I'm inclined to agree with Joe, but want to isse a separate concurring opinion: the guys in Iran may not like being on the Axis of Evil list and the continual posturing from Dubya, but I bet they love that we just put a ton of their allies, ideologically and politically, in charge of Iraq. The Iran-Iraq War, like most of Saddam's foreign military policy, was about shipping ports: Iran has coastline, Iraq has Basra and not much else. With allies in Iraq piping export crude to Iran, and Iran shipping that crude to everyone everywhere (except the US, which could just take direct shipments from Basra and feel better about not using Iranian facilities).
Point taken; however....
By ToddHill Oct 18th 2005 at 5:51 pm EDT
But remember, just because you open a diplomatic channel doesn't mean you are suddenly giving into Iran or any other country you establish this dialogue with. I don't understand why folks associate diplomacy with weakness.

I believe that you have more power, and certainly more wiggle room when negotiations and diplomacy dictate discussions, not weapons and hollow rhetoric. Calling the schoolyard bully a "chicken" and running from him doesn't do much for strength and legitamcy. Calling the bully a "chicken," demanding that he apologize, and then take steps to rectify his behavior demonstrate a reasonable approach to eliminating the bully.

We called Iran an "Axis of Evil," and then ran away. We haven't dealt with them at all, and quietly they have been gaining superiority and legitamacy in the region over America. We should have called them an "Axis of Evil," demand that they dismantle their nuclear program, and work to rectify their behavior with a combination of diplomacy and military pressure. However, taking misguided adventures into Iraq kind of messed up that strategy.
  
Campus Progress

Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.

Campus Progress