October 23, 2006--It's Over! . . . Now What?
The good news—the war in Iraq is over. The bad news—just as we didn’t have a plan for what to do after “winning,” we do not have one for what to do after “losing.”
OK, after declaring that the mission this time is really accomplished.
I know you are probably saying “But how can the war be over if American troops are being killed at a record rate?” Well, sometimes it takes a while, especially in these kinds of murky and gory circumstances, to realize that it’s over because the word is slow in getting to you.
The war ended on the day Senator Warner, the powerful chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee returned from another trip to Iraq and declared that things there were moving “sideways” and that if the situation doesn’t improve during the next 30-60 days it will be time for a new approach.
Yes, we’ve heard this 30-60-day-prediction many times before—Bush and Chaney and Rumsfeld have said on numerous occasions during the last two years that “the next 30-60 days are important, critical, crucial . . . . ” But this is not another example of them spinning and stalling for time, this time it’s coming from Senator Warner. So when he says we need to consider new strategies, we’d better get started.
So the Bush team is getting started. I suspect this very weekend when Bush assembled his War Council to talk about new “tactics,” being careful to make a distinction between “tactics” and “strategies.” This distinction is the beginning of the attempted post-war-post-mortem cover-up. While they in truth will by political and practical necessity institute a new strategy, or grand plan, they will say that all they are doing is being “flexible” and only “adjusting the tactics to the changing conditions.” So, if they do decide to alter the strategy, sorry tactics, and begin to “stand down,” they will be able to claim that this is not really anything new but only a reflection of their strategy of flexibility—they are still “staying the course.”
This will require more than the usual smoke-and-mirrors since everyone will see that we are conceding that we lost the war and are looking for a fig leaf to cover our embarrassment. Thus, the Bush folks will need to do a few more things, things with which they are already quite familiar. Foremost, will be a new strategy of blame-assignment.
Keep your eyes open for the early manifestations of this. The media will be further savaged for undermining the war effort by pointing out that the US body count is rapidly approaching the number killed on 9/11. Though they have tried to blame North Korea and Congressman Foley on Bill Clinton, it will be difficult to get away with blaming him for the Iraq fiasco, so look for an all-out-war on "traitorous" members of Congress.
More cynical will be the assault on our own generals. Maybe they will start with the one who just last week said the situation in Iraq is “disheartening” but then they will turn on the U.S. commanders in Baghdad—Michael Gordon in today’s NY Times says that for them it will all come down to “standing or falling in Baghdad” (article linked below).
Of course, more than anything else we will see an escalation in placing the blame on the Iraqis themselves. After all we did for them. We brought down Saddam and instituted a pluralistic democracy there, and what do they do to show their appreciation--they start a civil war! The ingrates. Ultimately blame will be placed on the Iraqis’ failed efforts, not ours.
So, it’s over and we stand down, what next?
Probably chaos. Iraq is not a “real” country. It was created by the French and British, effectively, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Any country in that part of the world that has much of its physical border made up of straight lines drawn on a map is an artificial construct. The so-called James Baker Commission, which is about to release its report on what to do, undoubtedly already leaked to Bush so he can begin to adjust his “tactics” and spin to coincide with the findings, will undoubtedly call for a version of the Yugoslav solution (also not a “real” country)—partitioning Iraq into three entities.
This obviously has many, many complications, not the least of which is that the Sunni central region has almost no oil. So what might work even better? Though a pie-in-the-sky suggestion, maybe all the interested parties, as after the First World War, including Syria and Iran this time (I sense Baker sees the need to include them even though they are part of the Axis of Evil) should sit down with a map and redraw it. This time creating borders that are cultural. They did something like that in the former-Yugoslavia and it is sort of working. Over time, maybe it will in fact turn out to be an historical success.
And of course while all of this is going on we’d better figure out a way to fill our cars' tanks with something other than gasoline.
OK, after declaring that the mission this time is really accomplished.
I know you are probably saying “But how can the war be over if American troops are being killed at a record rate?” Well, sometimes it takes a while, especially in these kinds of murky and gory circumstances, to realize that it’s over because the word is slow in getting to you.
The war ended on the day Senator Warner, the powerful chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee returned from another trip to Iraq and declared that things there were moving “sideways” and that if the situation doesn’t improve during the next 30-60 days it will be time for a new approach.
Yes, we’ve heard this 30-60-day-prediction many times before—Bush and Chaney and Rumsfeld have said on numerous occasions during the last two years that “the next 30-60 days are important, critical, crucial . . . . ” But this is not another example of them spinning and stalling for time, this time it’s coming from Senator Warner. So when he says we need to consider new strategies, we’d better get started.
So the Bush team is getting started. I suspect this very weekend when Bush assembled his War Council to talk about new “tactics,” being careful to make a distinction between “tactics” and “strategies.” This distinction is the beginning of the attempted post-war-post-mortem cover-up. While they in truth will by political and practical necessity institute a new strategy, or grand plan, they will say that all they are doing is being “flexible” and only “adjusting the tactics to the changing conditions.” So, if they do decide to alter the strategy, sorry tactics, and begin to “stand down,” they will be able to claim that this is not really anything new but only a reflection of their strategy of flexibility—they are still “staying the course.”
This will require more than the usual smoke-and-mirrors since everyone will see that we are conceding that we lost the war and are looking for a fig leaf to cover our embarrassment. Thus, the Bush folks will need to do a few more things, things with which they are already quite familiar. Foremost, will be a new strategy of blame-assignment.
Keep your eyes open for the early manifestations of this. The media will be further savaged for undermining the war effort by pointing out that the US body count is rapidly approaching the number killed on 9/11. Though they have tried to blame North Korea and Congressman Foley on Bill Clinton, it will be difficult to get away with blaming him for the Iraq fiasco, so look for an all-out-war on "traitorous" members of Congress.
More cynical will be the assault on our own generals. Maybe they will start with the one who just last week said the situation in Iraq is “disheartening” but then they will turn on the U.S. commanders in Baghdad—Michael Gordon in today’s NY Times says that for them it will all come down to “standing or falling in Baghdad” (article linked below).
Of course, more than anything else we will see an escalation in placing the blame on the Iraqis themselves. After all we did for them. We brought down Saddam and instituted a pluralistic democracy there, and what do they do to show their appreciation--they start a civil war! The ingrates. Ultimately blame will be placed on the Iraqis’ failed efforts, not ours.
So, it’s over and we stand down, what next?
Probably chaos. Iraq is not a “real” country. It was created by the French and British, effectively, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Any country in that part of the world that has much of its physical border made up of straight lines drawn on a map is an artificial construct. The so-called James Baker Commission, which is about to release its report on what to do, undoubtedly already leaked to Bush so he can begin to adjust his “tactics” and spin to coincide with the findings, will undoubtedly call for a version of the Yugoslav solution (also not a “real” country)—partitioning Iraq into three entities.
This obviously has many, many complications, not the least of which is that the Sunni central region has almost no oil. So what might work even better? Though a pie-in-the-sky suggestion, maybe all the interested parties, as after the First World War, including Syria and Iran this time (I sense Baker sees the need to include them even though they are part of the Axis of Evil) should sit down with a map and redraw it. This time creating borders that are cultural. They did something like that in the former-Yugoslavia and it is sort of working. Over time, maybe it will in fact turn out to be an historical success.
And of course while all of this is going on we’d better figure out a way to fill our cars' tanks with something other than gasoline.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
9:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home