There’s a certain charm in hearing a politician tell the truth, but in political terms Majority Leader Harry Reid put his foot in it when he said in public that he told President Bush in private that "this war is lost" and that the "surge" "is not accomplishing anything" given the heavy casualties this week in Baghdad.
To be sure, the Nevada Democrat tried to recover with somewhat more carefully crafted comments. In a news conference, he said the "The war can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically, and the president needs to come to that realization." Later, on the Senate floor, he said that "As long as we follow the president’s path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course – and we must change course."
Even with the experience of Korea and Vietnam behind us, however, most Americans don’t like to hear that this country is losing a war, even if it is a war that most Americans now oppose. And the political class is virtually allergic to truth, which should hardly be surprising. Government and politics exist on a basic lie: give us money and power over you and we will keep you safe from fears and alarums.
Years ago at a lecture I asked Robert Ardrey, the playwright turned evolutionary popularizer turned social philosopher whether he equated anarchy, against which he had warned us, with chaos and disorder. When he replied in the affirmative, I asked what he would say to the proposition that government is the chief source of chaos and disorder in society. He smiled wryly and said he would have to say that we were getting too smart over there on the left (my friends and I were to his left in the auditorium). When we talked one-on-one afterward, he acknowledged that his son was an anarchist and he really couldn’t condemn him for it.
So in a political sense Sen. Reid’s comment can be chalked up as a political gaffe – remembering that the working definition of a gaffe is inadvertently or carelessly letting slip some piece of truth that doesn’t serve the political establishment.
It should hardly be surprising that even the most powerful country in the history of the world – maybe that’s true though it’s not as easy to compare empires in the context of their times as one might think – could lose a war. This war was begun without justification and morphed into an occupation without a plan. I used to think I might be exaggerating back in 2003 when I said the post-statue-toppling occupation of Iraq appeared to be improvised. But enough books and insider accounts have come out that it seems to have been the literal truth.
But flat statements that the war is lost are still tough to take, and probably unnecessary. There should be more diplomatic and perhaps more effective ways to make the case for prompt withdrawal of U.S. troops.
So what might Sen. Reid and other people who want U.S. involvement in Iraq say? Here’s a rough draft:
U.S. troops have now been engaged in Iraq for four years, longer than direct U.S. military involvement in World War II. The brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein has been removed, several elections have been held, and a well-meaning if shaky Iraqi government is in place. U.S. military personnel have served valiantly. They may not always have had a clear direction as to what their objectives were, but the vast majority of them have made America proud with their skill and courage.
We have laid the foundations for effective governance of Iraq. Those foundations may not be perfect, but a certain number of Iraqis, perhaps even an effective working preponderance, are ready for a more civil form of governance. There is always a limit to the ability of a foreign power to stabilize another country unless it intends to make that country an outright colony. President Bush and other leaders have made it clear that we do not intend to make Iraq a colony, and I take the president at his word.
It is time for Iraqis to assume responsibility for the future of their country. This might not be as smooth a process as we might prefer. In the short run, it is quite possible that violence will increase, and that it could last a while. A small number of fanatical people willing to commit violent acts and even to die can upset any country, no matter how stable. Remember, it has taken 40 years for Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, which was arguably a less complicated political equation, to agree on a coalition government. Those of us who genuinely want Iraq to find its own destiny on behalf of its own people may have to exercise patience, to resist the urge to put our hand in when conflict heats up. In the short term this may be frustrating, but in the long term it is the only way for Iraq to achieve genuine rather than superficial independence.
It is worth noting that while U.S. troops have sometimes been a force for stability, or at least for restraining the forces of instability, there is another side to the picture. It is hardly the fault of soldiers and Marines in the field, but the very presence of U.S. troops as a foreign occupying force serves to attract opposition. Even if U.S. forces had a clear strategy and acted perfectly in every way, both nationalist Iraqis and foreign fighters affiliated with al-Qaeda and other Islamist organizations would define themselves in great measure in opposition to the U.S. presence in Iraq. Fanatics will see the presence of U.S. troops as an opportunity to kill Americans or at least fight against them. Whether they are successful or not – and our brave troops have inflicted many more casualties than they have suffered – a certain number of jihadists will become "blooded" and gain military and guerrilla experience, which will make them more dangerous if they are able to return to their countries of origin or to other countries.
The notion that if U.S. forces leave Iraq terrorists will immediately head for the United States to commit acts of terrorism that will dwarf 9/11 is conjecture with almost no basis in reality. In recent years terrorists have gone after softer targets, in Spain, England, Indonesia and elsewhere. While no security regime is perfect, thousands of vital installations the U.S. have seen their security beefed up. Bringing the troops home will free resources to protect the homeland – and offer an increasingly overstretched military the opportunity to recuperate and rebuild itself to face whatever challenges a world of challenges throws at us next.
Most Americans believed at the outset that the invasion of Iraq was a noble endeavor, and in some ways it was. We have overthrown one of the cruelest dictators of modern times and helped to train not only Iraqi troops and police, but Iraqi politicians in the ways of civil society. But it is time for the Iraqis to take back their own country. We have done what we could – perhaps not everything we might have liked, but a great deal – and it is time to leave. It is not for us to set benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but for the Iraqi government to set its own benchmarks..
We hope we have learned something from this experience. We are likely to be a little more skeptical, a little more careful, a little less eager the next time somebody suggests that the only way to solve some problem in some other part of the world – and there will be problems so long as the planet is occupied by human beings – is to send U.S. troops.
Let us resolve to get involved in military conflict in the future only when core interests rather than peripheral preferences are involved. Let us use military force only as a last resort, when all diplomatic and political efforts have failed. And let us have the wisdom, humility, self-knowledge and perspective to understand that not every problem demands or is susceptible to an American solution. It is a diverse and fascinating – and often frustrating – world out there. Let us resolve to try to understand it rather than rule it.
