Leaving Iraq, Honorably
By Chuck HagelSunday, November 26, 2006; B07
There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq. [Then why did President Bush keep talking in terms of victory or defeat?] These terms do not reflect the reality of what is going to happen there. The future of Iraq was always going to be determined by the Iraqis -- not the Americans.
Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost. It is part of the ongoing global struggle against instability, brutality, intolerance, extremism and terrorism. [Yeah, but it has become a huge part in all those areas. Not that Saddam was not giving aid and comfort to the Palestinians, but now we have another country serving as a training ground for suicide bombers and regular bombers and snipers. If we use the same criteria used against Saddam as supporting "instability, brutality, intolerance, extremism and terrorism", then we might just as well invade Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Zimbabwe, Burma, Sri Lanka, and a probably a few more that are escaping my mind right now. Hell, I cannot agree to the US as a terrorist state but we sure have made things more unstable and we have been brutal - or so lot of people around the world are thinking right now. Define your terms better, Mr. Hagel or there will be others thinking this is just another exercise in American hypocrisy.] There will be no military victory or military solution for Iraq. [If the idea was to establish a democratic government in Baghdad, then the military was part of that goal. Whoever established a civil society at the point of a gun? No one ever did. Dictatorships get born out of violence. Napoleon quelled the violence of the French Revolution and Lenin did the same with the Russian Revolution and then there was Mao in China and Cromwell in England. I could add a few more names to that list. I can think of only one soldier who relinquished power after a revolution - Washington. For a modern analogy look at how Mandela came to power in South Africa. The military continues to perform its job well - things like abusing prisoners aside (although I suspect that this annoyed our troops more than it did its civilian leaders). No, the failure has been in our civilian leadership in establishing the basis for a civil society - the sense of physical security, the ability to make a gainful employment, the secure provision of government services (the sort that we complain about because they mean paying taxes) such as schools, roads, public health, clean water, a functioning electrical grid.] Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger made this point last weekend.
The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. [Care to let us know when you figured that out? Before or after 11/7/06? As I said before, I know Hagel was critical but just how critical I cannot recall. I do not think he made any statements like this before 11/7). We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. [Yes, I already shot my mouth off about this idea.] We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation -- regardless of our noble purpose. [I got an idea: the next time some ivory tower idiot like the neo-cons or the guys who dreamed up Kennedy's Vietnam policy come up with this same idea, it gets an automatic veto unless they have had military service in an operation that tried to impose democracy by force. I got the feeling we will never have anyone propose this idea ever again, if we have that criterion to go by.]
We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam. [I will bet that he would not have said this in this manner before 11/7. Another good thing about our taking the House may be that it allows Republicans to speak the truth.] Honorable intentions are not policies and plans. Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. They will decide their fate and form of government.
It may take many years before there is a cohesive political center in Iraq. America's options on this point have always been limited. [Too bad nobody else from the Republicans ever pointed this out to us before making support for the fight in Iraq a litmus test for being a good American]. There will be a new center of gravity in the Middle East that will include Iraq. That process began over the past few days with the Syrians and Iraqis restoring diplomatic relations after 20 years of having no formal communication.
What does this tell us? It tells us that regional powers will fill regional vacuums, and they will move to work in their own self-interest -- without the United States. [And let us hope that we have created a sense there that our interests are not in their best interests.] This is the most encouraging set of actions for the Middle East in years. The Middle East is more combustible today than ever before [Oh, really? Why is that? I assume that Mr. Hagel means to tie our arrogant blundering to that combustibility.], and until we are able to lead a renewal of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, mindless destruction and slaughter will continue in Lebanon, Israel and across the Middle East.
We are a long way from a sustained peaceful resolution to the anarchy in Iraq. But this latest set of events is moving the Middle East in the only direction it can go with any hope of lasting progress and peace. The movement will be imperfect, stuttering and difficult. [Got that right. It would be good to point out that we Americans must patiently wait through some thoroughly unpleasant alternatives before there is any solution and that how the Iraqis solve their problems may not be completely favorable to us.]
America finds itself in a dangerous and isolated position in the world. [Might be nice if he just plainly said that George W. Bush got us into this place of isolation. Not that we would know that unless we had been reading around the web or listening to those who got branded un-American or anti-American by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.] We are perceived as a nation at war with Muslims. Unfortunately, that perception is gaining credibility in the Muslim world and for many years will complicate America's global credibility, purpose and leadership. [Yep, we have rather ignored that terrorists are born out of ideas - the idea that the big baddie cannot be beaten except with force. Thank you, Mr. Bush for playing into their hands.] This debilitating and dangerous perception must be reversed as the world seeks a new geopolitical, trade and economic center that will accommodate the interests of billions of people over the next 25 years. The world will continue to require realistic, clear-headed American leadership -- not an American divine mission. [Amen.]
The United States must begin planning for a phased troop withdrawal from Iraq. The cost of combat in Iraq in terms of American lives, dollars and world standing has been devastating. We've already spent more than $300 billion there to prosecute an almost four-year-old war and are still spending $8 billion per month. The United States has spent more than $500 billion on our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And our effort in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, partly because we took our focus off the real terrorist threat, which was there, and not in Iraq. [Mr. Hagel, you sound like a Democrat.]
We are destroying our force structure, which took 30 years to build. We've been funding this war dishonestly, mainly through supplemental appropriations, which minimizes responsible congressional oversight and allows the administration to duck tough questions in defending its policies. Congress has abdicated its oversight responsibility in the past four years. [No kidding, why was that?]
It is not too late. The United States can still extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton commission gives the president a new opportunity to form a bipartisan consensus to get out of Iraq. If the president fails to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America will pay a high price for this blunder -- one that we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead. [And before we sell off all of the country to China since we cannot face up to the need to pay our bills through taxes. Much has been said lately that we have been in Iraq longer than we were in WW2 - a false analogy in my mind - but we certainly are not looking at tax rates comparable to WW2.]
To squander this moment would be to squander future possibilities for the Middle East and the world. That is what is at stake over the next few months. [On the whole, I got to applaud him even if he is so late in making these points in this forceful of a manner.]
The writer is a Republican senator from Nebraska
Comments for this post
