On Dec. 20, 2002, Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska shared a byline on a Washington Post op-ed titled "Iraq: The Decade After." Biden and Hagel, both of whom had voted two months earlier to go to war with Saddam Hussein's regime, warned that it would not be an easy undertaking and that America had to be prepared for a long-term commitment:How quickly we've forgotten, and how easy is it for any foe to simply wait us out, knowing we can't stomach any drawn-out battle, particularly in this incredible information age.Today President Bush remains committed, while Biden and Hagel are among the leaders of the effort to retreat. Their "decade" turned out to last barely four years.Although no one doubts our forces will prevail over Saddam Hussein's, key regional leaders confirm what the Foreign Relations Committee emphasized in its Iraq hearings last summer: The most challenging phase will likely be the day after--or, more accurately, the decade after--Saddam Hussein. Once he is gone, expectations are high that coalition forces will remain in large numbers to stabilize Iraq and support a civilian administration. That presence will be necessary for several years, given the vacuum there, which a divided Iraqi opposition will have trouble filling and which some new Iraqi military strongman must not fill. . . . Americans are largely unprepared for such an undertaking. President Bush must make clear to the American people the scale of the commitment.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Long-Term Worldview
I've often discussed the difference between people's attitudes before we entered Iraq and now. Before we entered Iraq, people recognized that the process would be long; it would be hard; and it would take great determination and patience to get done properly. James Taranto cited this perfectly yesterday:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have to admit that I thought the process would be shorter. It's clear I didn't know enough to form that opinion. Still it was absolutely necessary to invade Iraq based on the information the highest levels of government had then. (And I suspect that a number of Democrats would have invaded too. People don't seem to remember that Clinton's relatively hard line against Iraq pitted him against the appeasement minded Europeans in the late 90's.)
ReplyDeleteThat's why the "Bush Lied" meme is so important. It's much easier to say that I only voted for the war because I was misled than to argue that you changed your mind. Of course that also means that you're abdicating responsibility for your action.
Rumsfeld estimated publicly that the war would cost 50 billion dollars:
ReplyDeleteQ: Mr. Secretary, on Iraq, how much money do you think the Department of Defense would need to pay for a war with Iraq?
Rumsfeld: Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.
January 19, 2003
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1322
March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."
http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm
He was right about the military, but dead wrong about the people. Obviously, the 50$ billion dollar figure was either a lie or a complete misunderstanding of the situation over there.
It's my understanding that Biden and Hagel want to withdraw not because they didn't realize that it would take a long time, but because Bush has messed it up so badly there's no hope of fixing it now.
SD - That's a very good point about the "Bush Lied" meme. Of course, even if that were true, that shouldn't affect the way we handle things now.
ReplyDeleteJA - I think you have that set stored. :) Again, that number clearly didn't include the reparation of the country; that doesn't make logical sense. Plus, if the sole problem were funding, we could always fix Social Security.
Most of the true Republican Guard fighting WAS done rather quickly, and we WERE greeted as liberators. This hearkens back to the discussions we've had in the past; Iraqis not only support the US actions there now stronger than do Americans, they're far more optimistic about their future than Americans are... about America.
It's my understanding that Biden and Hagel want to withdraw not because they didn't realize that it would take a long time, but because Bush has messed it up so badly there's no hope of fixing it now.
What's messed up "so badly"? That there are terror attacks? What exactly *were* they referring to in their article? If it's not fighting, why the need to keep troops there? That doesn't follow.
Again, that number clearly didn't include the reparation of the country; that doesn't make logical sense.
ReplyDeleteObviously, it doesn't make logical sense. But it's what they told us.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030429011813/http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=2552642
U.S. Officials Play Down Iraq Reconstruction Needs
Fri April 11, 2003 03:49 PM ET
By Adam Entous
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration on Friday played down the need for a costly reconstruction effort in Iraq, citing limited damage to the country's oil fields and other infrastructure and rapid progress in the war.
The White House has not put a dollar figure on rebuilding Iraq, but officials expressed confidence that the cost to U.S. taxpayers can be offset with increased oil production and financial contributions from U.S. allies.
"There's just no reason that this can't be an affordable endeavor," said White House budget director Mitch Daniels.
Daniels and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the bombing campaign was so precise there was minimal damage to Iraq's civilian infrastructure.
"I don't know that there is much reconstruction to do," Rumsfeld told reporters late Thursday.
Already facing record budget deficits and a weak economy in the run-up to next year's reelection campaign, President Bush has every incentive to try to keep down the cost of reconstruction.
The centerpiece of Bush's domestic agenda -- a $726 billion tax cut plan -- was scaled back by the Senate over concerns about financing the war and its aftermath. Holding reconstruction costs down could help Bush shore up support for those and future tax cuts.
Critics accused the White House of understating the bill to U.S. taxpayers to benefit Bush politically.
"We have made a serious long-term commitment to rebuild and stabilize Iraq -- that must not be sacrificed on the alter of another giant tax cut for the wealthy," said David Sirota, spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee.
UPBEAT ASSESSMENT
So far, the White House has requested about $2.4 billion for humanitarian aid and reconstruction.
Critics said far more will be needed.
What's messed up "so badly"? That there are terror attacks?
ReplyDeleteThe civil war.
JA - Weird. That's never how I understood it, anyway.
ReplyDeleteThe civil war.
I guess depends how you define that, but among Iraqi civilians they have almost no support. I'd much sooner call Hamas vs. Fatah a civil war than this.
Ezzie:
ReplyDeleteJA - Weird. That's never how I understood it, anyway.
I can't know what you understood, but please promise me you will stop posting about how "everybody knew it would be a long road." :-)
I guess depends how you define that
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031401869.html
Even the Pentagon's agreeing now:
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military for the first time Wednesday said in a new report that some of the violence in Iraq can be described as a civil war.
In its bleakest assessment of the war to date, a quarterly Pentagon report said that last October through December was the most violent three-month period since 2003. Attacks and casualties suffered by coalition and Iraqi forces and civilians were higher than any other similar time span, said the report.
Look, I really wish you were right about this Iraq stuff, but the facts are completely against the Bush administration. They simply refuse to admit reality and keep asking for just one more chance. When we finally leave, whether it's next year or in a few years, the GOP will attempt to blame the loss on the left just as many continue to do about Vietnam.
The truth is, to paraphrase Jon Stewart, we're not very good at nation-building. Nation destroying, on the other hand, we're great at. (That's why I'm not as opposed to a limited air attack on the Iranian nuclear program as I would be to an actual invasion or war.)
"everybody knew it would be a long road."
ReplyDeleteFine. Everybody with a bit of common sense. :)
As for civil war... I don't think it makes a difference what the terminology is, really. Whatever it is, just leaving now will translate into a disaster - just like Vietnam. And yes, Vietnam became a bigger disaster because we left (and didn't take care of it properly in the first place). Iraq is nowhere near as bad, particularly for US troops, as Vietnam was. This needs to get taken care of, and it is going to take time. The original point of this post was that people did recognize that this was going to take a long time before we started - yet now seem to have forgotten that. However "bad" people think Bush screwed up, it can't be that bad: Saddam was toppled, caught, and hanged; his regime basically wiped out; a new democratic government put in; most of the country actually voted; the economy is drastically improved with far more luxuries we consider basic; etc. Yes, there's terror attacks/civil unrest/civil war whatever you want to call it going on, but that's part of the growing pains. How long was the Revolutionary War? Israel is *still* basically struggling for its independence. Other countries have fought far longer with far less going for them and eventually succeeded; in today's times of one person can drive a car bomb to kill 50, it's that much harder... and yet it's still happening. This requires serious patience and - this is important - much quieter discourse on the subject. When the terrorists think that they're just a few more dead soldiers from getting the US out of the country, that does actually embolden them, however much Democrats claim that this is something that "needs to be discussed". I think Democrats underestimate how much their public statements affect the actions of terrorists over there.
"everybody knew it would be a long road."
ReplyDeleteFine. Everybody with a bit of common sense. :)
Which apparently excluded Don Rumsfeld. Unless he was lying.
Yes, there's terror attacks/civil unrest/civil war whatever you want to call it going on, but that's part of the growing pains.
What makes you think that, seriously?
How long was the Revolutionary War? Israel is *still* basically struggling for its independence.
Iraq is not one country struggling for independence from someone(s) else. It's several groups fighting each other for control of the same territory. That's why it's a civil war, not a revolutionary war. It's more like our civil war than the revolutionary war, except it's not divided cleanly along any geographic borders.
When the terrorists think that they're just a few more dead soldiers from getting the US out of the country, that does actually embolden them,
*screams*
Regardless of whether we debate the matter internally, the U.S. can't stay there forever. The terrorists, as you call them accurately (because they use terror) but misleadingly (because its more a civil war than anything else), could simply wait us out regardless of what we do.
Bush has no freaking exit strategy, no way out, no way forward, etc. He's just got hubris and stubbornness and will never, ever give up because he'll never believe the people who tell him the truth. I agree that suddenly leaving will be catastrophic, but he's not giving us any freaking choices. The Democrats are trying to force his hand to do something other than continuing to throw more Americans over there to die until we either run out of them or vote him out.
Pardon the late post, but I refrained from blogging during Chol HaMoed. The US and its allies defeated both Germany and Japan in less than four years. There are two possibilities here:
ReplyDelete(1) The Iraqi resistance is more of a military power than German and Japan put together.
(2) The Bush administration is incompetant and fighting a war.
I strongly suspect the latter. Both Britain and France changed governments during World War I. It would not hurt the US to do so now.