So reading these paragraphs by Anthony H. Cordesman in Two Winnable Wars leave me wondering if someone is redefining our goals in Iraq and Afghanistan:
What the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan have in common is that it will take a major and consistent U.S. effort throughout the next administration at least to win either war. Any American political debate that ignores or denies the fact that these are long wars is dishonest and will ensure defeat. There are good reasons that the briefing slides in U.S. military and aid presentations for both battlefields don't end in 2008 or with some aid compact that expires in 2009. They go well beyond 2012 and often to 2020.
If the next president, Congress and the American people cannot face this reality, we will lose. Years of false promises about the speed with which we can create effective army, police and criminal justice capabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot disguise the fact that mature, effective local forces and structures will not be available until 2012 and probably well beyond. This does not mean that U.S. and allied force levels cannot be cut over time, but a serious military and advisory presence will probably be needed for at least that long, and rushed reductions in forces or providing inadequate forces will lead to a collapse at the military level.
I thought going into Iraq was a mistake. I still think so. I also say those points no longer matter. This country allowed George W. Bush the ability to make a complete screw up of our military and foreign policy. We also have the responsibility to help fix the problems we created and the ones that we exacerbated, but to think our military forces can continue to win tactical battles while losing the strategic war only continues our problems.
With either Democratic candidate, we face the chance of ending the Bush/Republican monomania that we need no help in rebuilding Iraq and that Afghanistan has no place in the war on terror.
Comments for this post
