As far as the debate over Iraq goes, opponents of the war clearly have the facts on their side. And domestic opinion. And history. And international consensus. And common sense.
But, somehow, war supporters seem to have ended up with all the cool rhetoric. Sure, they’ve been wrong about everything from the start, but when it comes to the war of words, the right always seems to come up with the superior soundbites, substance be damned. In 2002, they coined the still-ambiguous phrase “weapons of mass destruction.” In 2003, they had “shock and awe.” When conditions in Iraq deteriorated, “cut and run” was a big winner for them, as was “defeat and retreat,” and to a lesser extent, “stay the course.” No matter how much substance critics of the war offered, we just haven’t been as adept with bumper-sticker slogans. The other side is just better at it.
The latest one is particularly good. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told Tim Russert on Meet the Press yesterday, “I believe that victory in Iraq is the only option.”
That sounds good, doesn’t it? In recent weeks, we’ve been hearing a couple variations on this one, including, “Defeat is not an option” and “Victory is the only option.” What’s not to like? Who wants to endorse failure?
It also helps war supporters frame the debate before it begins. The White House said two weeks ago that it would seriously consider any plan, from any lawmaker, just so long as it’s consistent with “victory in Iraq.” So, when a Dem or sensible Republican talks about a redeployment plan, the White House says, “No, that’s not worthy of serious consideration, because it doesn’t meet the victory-based ground rules.”
With this in mind, William Odom’s item in yesterday’s WaPo is an absolute must-read. Odom, a retired Army lieutenant general who was head of Army intelligence, Reagan’s director of the National Security Agency, and a professor at Yale, makes clear that when it comes to Iraq, victory is not an option.
Too many lawmakers have fallen for the myths that are invoked to try to sell the president’s new war aims. Let us consider the most pernicious of them.
1) We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon. Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable! Undoubtedly we will leave a mess — the mess we created, which has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath, a civil war, a terrorist haven, a “failed state,” or some other horror. But this “aftermath” is already upon us; a prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists.
2) We must continue the war to prevent Iran’s influence from growing in Iraq. This is another absurd notion. One of the president’s initial war aims, the creation of a democracy in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian influence, both in Iraq and the region. Electoral democracy, predictably, would put Shiite groups in power — groups supported by Iran since Saddam Hussein repressed them in 1991. Why are so many members of Congress swallowing the claim that prolonging the war is now supposed to prevent precisely what starting the war inexorably and predictably caused? Fear that Congress will confront this contradiction helps explain the administration and neocon drumbeat we now hear for expanding the war to Iran.
Here we see shades of the Nixon-Kissinger strategy in Vietnam: widen the war into Cambodia and Laos. Only this time, the adverse consequences would be far greater. Iran’s ability to hurt U.S. forces in Iraq are not trivial. And the anti-American backlash in the region would be larger, and have more lasting consequences.
3) We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al-Qaeda in Iraq. But it was the U.S. invasion that opened Iraq’s doors to al-Qaeda. The longer U.S. forces have remained there, the stronger al-Qaeda has become. Yet its strength within the Kurdish and Shiite areas is trivial. After a U.S. withdrawal, it will probably play a continuing role in helping the Sunni groups against the Shiites and the Kurds. Whether such foreign elements could remain or thrive in Iraq after the resolution of civil war is open to question. Meanwhile, continuing the war will not push al-Qaeda outside Iraq. On the contrary, the American presence is the glue that holds al-Qaeda there now.
4) We must continue to fight in order to “support the troops.” This argument effectively paralyzes almost all members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in grave tones a litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has anybody asked the troops?
During their first tours, most may well have favored “staying the course” — whatever that meant to them — but now in their second, third and fourth tours, many are changing their minds. We see evidence of that in the many news stories about unhappy troops being sent back to Iraq. Veterans groups are beginning to make public the case for bringing them home. Soldiers and officers in Iraq are speaking out critically to reporters on the ground.
But the strangest aspect of this rationale for continuing the war is the implication that the troops are somehow responsible for deciding to continue the president’s course. That political and moral responsibility belongs to the president, not the troops. Did not President Harry S. Truman make it clear that “the buck stops” in the Oval Office?
Clip it, save it, and share it with your friends. Better yet, send a copy to your representatives.