Democrats can praise military progress — but still support withdrawal

August 9, 2007

I’m a little surprised conservatives are all excited this morning about a CNN interview yesterday with Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.). It looks like the AP has led the right to the wrong conclusion.

One senator said U.S. troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq. Another insisted President Bush’s plan to increase troops has caused tactical momentum.

One even went so far on Wednesday as to say the argument could be made that U.S. troops are winning.

These are not Bush-backing GOP die-hards, but Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin, Bob Casey and Jack Reed. Even Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, said progress was being made by soldiers.

The suggestions by them and other Democrats in recent days that at least a portion of Bush’s strategy in Iraq is working is somewhat surprising, considering the bitter exchanges on Capitol Hill between the Democratic majority and Republicans and Bush. Democrats have long said Bush’s policies have been nothing more than a complete failure.

The right hears all of this and says, “A ha! We were right all along!” It’s a bit like Stephen Colbert’s habit of saying, “I accept your apology” after his guest reaches some point of agreement with him.

Look, this isn’t complicated. Durbin and Reed, who went to Baghdad at the start of the August recess, said they saw, first-hand, that U.S. troops are going into some areas of Iraq and routing enemy forces. Of course they are; our military is exponentially stronger and better than anything Iraq can throw at them.

But the AP report, and the conservatives who were overjoyed by it, continues to miss the point. U.S. forces can succeed in practically every military confrontation they face in Iraq and the president’s policy can still be a failure.

You can watch the Durbin/Casey interview on CNN for yourself, but the anchor seems equally confused about the broader dynamic. Here’s the relevant portion from the transcript:

ROBERTS: Let me back up there. You said you did see military progress?

DURBIN: What we find is that the surge has troops going into areas, where for 4 1/2 years we have not seen our military in action. Naturally, they are routing out the al Qaeda in those areas. That’s a good thing but there is no evidence of the government of Iraq in these areas. There are no Iraqi policemen, no Iraqi soldiers, these are Americans .

ROBERTS: I understand all of that. Everybody in the Democratic Party is saying the surge has failed.

Senator Casey, do you agree with your colleague there are some signs of military progress here?

CASEY: Sure, there are, John. We have said in the beginning, our troops are doing their job. The problem is the president of the United States continues to insist on stay the course policy, no change in direction, no sense the American people can determine there’s a light at the end of the tunnel. That’s why I think there’s a bipartisan agreement right now to change the course. I think the president should listen to the will of the American people.

This need not be complicated. The point of the so-called “surge” was to pave the way for political progress, which is what Iraq needs more than anything. Nearly eight months after the policy began, there’s been no political progress at all. Indeed, Iraq, politically, has gone backwards.

As Philip Carter, an Iraq war veteran, recently explained, successful military battles don’t reflect a successful policy.

Today, in Iraq, we face a similar conundrum. Our vaunted military has won every battle against insurgents and militias—from the march up to the “thunder runs” that took Baghdad; the assaults on Fallujah to the battles for Sadr City. And yet we still find ourselves stuck in the sands of Mesopotamia. In a New York Times op-ed published Monday, Brookings Institution scholars Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack argue that “[w]e are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.” They go on to describe the myriad ways the surge is succeeding on the security front.

But in emphasizing this aspect of current operations, they downplay the more critical questions relating to political progress and the ability of Iraq’s national government to actually govern. Security is not an end in itself. It is just one component, albeit an important one, of a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy. Unless it is paired with a successful political strategy that consolidates military gains and translates increased security into support from the Iraqi people, these security improvements will, over time, be irrelevant.

That conservatives and journalists still seem confused about this is disconcerting.

So as long as we keep 160,000 troops in Iraq to police the country we are doing great? There is no doubt in my mind that in September we will hear that the surge has done a good job. As CB notes, that is not the problem. If we put one US soldier in each Iraqi house I’m sure the violence would drop to zero.

The problem is that all we did was eliminate the symptom. Even if there is no violence in Iraq for 6 months, when we pull out the underlying problems will still be there. Who is going to move into Sader City in force to police it when we are gone?

  • Oh, they’re not confused. They know exactly what Durbin and Casey and other mean when they say that there has been military progress, but not political progress, which is necessary for any of it to be considered ”successful’ at all.

    They’re simply looking to cloud the issue, and find a soundbite or two that they can throw back at us later; e.g., “but didn’t you say back in August that there has been progress?”

    Remember, nuance is not exactly the hallmark of these obfuscators. Nuance = pansy liberalism in their worldview.

  • We all know CNN’s Roberts is braindead. But for the AP to throw such drivel onto the wires makes me want to puke…

  • Ah yes the military is doing some good. So come on Iraqi government follow up. Oh wait, you’re all on vacation. Never mind.

  • The sword is two-edged:

    On one hand, we cannot allow ourselves to sound as though things are turning around. The minute a Democrat or someone opposed to the war admits to any progress, no matter how inconsequential, the “dead-enders” (if I may borrow a Rummian term) will throw it out there like a hand grenade, and quickly cover their ears and eyes:

    SEE!! WE WERE RIGHT!!! THIS PROVES THAT WE WERE ALWAYS RIGHT AND YOU’VE ALWAYS BEEN WRONG. IN YOUR FACE! IN YOUR FACE!! IN YOUR FACE!!! La, la, la, la, la, Mmmmmmmmmm, la, la, CAN’T HEAR YOU!…….

    On the other hand, if we try to turn it around and explain the bigger picture (that there is no viable government and that isolated successes don’t mean things are yet going “swimmingly”, let alone that this enormous folly of a war was ever justified to begin with), the talking point will be “Democrats want us to fail in Iraq”.

    There really is no way to win. Our nation is polarized across lines of intellect and maturity, not just politics anymore. Those of us who knew the war was a bad idea from the beginning understand that there is gray, nuance and complexity in every debate. When the right is wrong, we don’t behave like a bunch of schoolchildren and taunt them for it. We give them another chance to make it right, and another, and another. We acknowledge that they’re human and offer the benefit of the doubt. We also understand that a broken clock is right twice a day (and a broken record uses the same metaphor twice in one morning, but I digress…), and that a valid point on the side of the opposition, or an invalid one from our own side is but one of many ebbs and flows of discourse in what we would like to assume is everyone’s humble quest for truth and meaning.

    But a child has his knowledge first, whereby a single occurrence or fact is all that child requires to jump onto his high-horse and gloat about how much smarter he is than Mommy and Daddy.

    You cannot win intellectually against the child. Nor can we win against the childlike mentality that has become so pervasive on the right side of the political spectrum. Discipline might be our only hope and I hope the Democrats stop sparing the rod of justice.

  • I remember a time, no apparently passed, when journalists who worked for national media routinely had IQs above 90.

  • For those interested in a psychological analysis of warmongering, I have recently completed a 10-minute online video entitled “Resisting the Drums of War.” It examines how the Bush administration has promoted the misguided and destructive war in Iraq by targeting five core concerns that often govern our lives–concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Looking ahead, the continuing occupation of Iraq–or an attack on Iran–will likely be sold to us in much the same way. The video examines these warmongering appeals and how to counter them. It’s available for viewing HERE.

  • As long as Bush is in office Iraq will be a military state under US domination. US forces will continue to win battles and police the state but nothing will change politically until we withdraw and neighboring states become involved in reconstruction. However Bush is committed to continue this “splurge and stay the course” strategy preventing political change. It’s a catch-22 cycle that will only change with the withdrawal of US forces. Everyone is just biding their time till we withdraw.
    Next stop…Iran. How does it feel? To live every day in fear of our president…of what he might do next. I fear my president more than I fear any terrorists.

  • Of course with no political solution, taxpayer money can be indefinitely laundered through the war effort to fill the coffers of ‘businesses’ like Haliburton. Large portions of that money in turn finds its way back to Republican politicians and think tanks.

    • Comments are closed.