Despite President George W. Bush’s recent attacks on his Democratic critics, it is the loss of confidence among Republicans and the public at large in the president’s credibility and conduct of the war in Iraq that is now driving the debate about how long U.S. troops should remain there. The president claims that those calling for withdrawal want to “cut and run,” but he has yet to put forward a plausible strategy for winning. Without a strategy, “staying the course” will not change the outcome.
Polls show that a clear majority of Americans now think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and that Bush misled the country in making the case for war. The president’s weakened political position was most dramatically illustrated in November when the Senate passed a resolution requiring the administration to give a quarterly report to Congress on the progress being made in Iraq. The bill was supported overwhelmingly by Republicans as well as Democrats, and sponsored by John Warner, the conservative Republican chairman of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee. Warner has said that the next 180 days will prove decisive in testing the legitimacy and stability of the new Iraqi government. Needless to say, progress in Iraq over the next six months is also likely to prove decisive in determining the fate of Republicans in next year’s midterm elections.
Only days after the Senate’s action, Congressman Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) made his dramatic call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Murtha issued an emotional plea on behalf of those in uniform, saying they “have done all they can in Iraq” but have become targets instead of welcomed liberators. Murtha is a decorated Marine veteran, long a strong supporter of military spending, and once an outspoken “hawk” on Iraq; his announcement stunned many, sending the House into a bitter and calamitous debate over what course the United States should take in extricating itself from Iraq.
Even those who opposed the war from the start, as well as those who have reluctantly judged the occupation a disaster, warn that a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces is likely to plunge the region into chaos. At the same time, the open-ended presence of American troops is a principal cause of the insurgency. Withdrawal, it is argued, would help delegitimize the insurgency. Yet a U.S. departure seems impossible unless the new government can field a fighting force capable of earning the allegiance of Iraqis and strong enough to defeat the terrorists.
What are the chances, as President Bush says, that Iraqis will “stand up” as Americans “stand down”? It would be foolish to trust the administration’s claims about the training and readiness of Iraqi forces. In almost every instance, the administration has exaggerated (or been deceptive) when asked how many soldiers the Iraqi army has and when they might be able to take on serious combat duties. Independent observers are not optimistic that a cohesive and loyal army can be created, one whose members are willing to put aside ethnic, religious, and regional allegiances for a nationalistic cause. After years of misguided initiatives, U.S. money and manpower are finally being put into training the Iraqi force. Yet even in more propitious circumstances, creating an effective army is a daunting challenge. In Iraq the barriers of language, culture, and experience between recruits and their American trainers make that challenge infinitely greater. Reporting in the December Atlantic Monthly, James Fallows rehearses the errors already made and the prospects for building an Iraqi army. “America’s hopes today for an orderly exit from Iraq depend completely on the emergence of a viable Iraqi security force,” he writes. “All current indications suggest that no such viable Iraqi security force is about to emerge.”
To build that force, Fallows concludes, the United States will have to commit itself to many more years in Iraq, and to spending countless more billions. Most important, “For the training effort to have a chance, many, many more regular [U.S.] soldiers will need to commit to long service in Iraq,” during a time when army recruitment is a very serious problem.
Fallows sees no sign that Bush, or other leaders in the administration, are willing to speak honestly to the American people about what it will now take to give democracy in Iraq a fighting chance. In the absence of such honesty, the prospect for an honorable and successful conclusion to the occupation grows dimmer every day. Criticizing the conduct of the war aids the enemy, Bush has said. But the failure in Iraq is Bush’s. It was Bush’s decision to go to war and his administration’s failure to prepare for the insurgency that has led to two and a half years of carnage. If the withdrawal of U.S. troops becomes necessary, it will be the consequence of what President Bush has failed to do, not because of anything his critics have said or done.
November 22, 2005
