News reports, presumably generated from within the administration, suggest that President George W. Bush’s “new direction” in Iraq will be more of the same. An increase, or “surge,” in the number of U.S. troops appears to be in the works. President Bush’s refusal to admit error or failure will now lead to more error and more failure.
The ostensible reason for sending more troops is to control the sectarian violence engulfing Baghdad. Except for the most fervid advocates of this war, few observers think that additional troops will either increase the safety of Americans already there or provide the basis for long-term stability. The errors made by this administration in going to war and in conducting this war cannot be undone, and much that is now happening is simply out of our control.
It has been a sobering few months, with high numbers of U.S. casualties, the grim assessment of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, the dramatic speech of Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) on the Senate floor suggesting that our current military strategy “may even be criminal,” and finally the hurried execution of Saddam Hussein. A recent survey of the uniformed armed services revealed that, like the nation as a whole, a majority of the military now disapproves of Bush’s handling of the war and opposes sending more troops. Congressional Democratic opposition to the surge is also widespread. Yet it appears that the president has, as usual, kept his own counsel, and that he is determined to leave the quagmire in Iraq to his successor. As Bush and his apologists have said repeatedly, the United States “cannot afford to lose this war.” Or more accurately, this president cannot appear to lose this war.
Many Americans have lived through this political nightmare before. Writing in the New York Times (November 30, 2006), Thomas Powers drew the necessary parallel between Iraq and the refusal of presidents to accept U.S. failure in Vietnam: “Getting out is the simplest remedy, but no one wants to shoulder the blame for what follows. Staying the course has already been rejected by the president. That leaves only some kind of altered or renewed effort to postpone the day of reckoning.”
Given the president’s control of foreign and military policy, and the public’s willingness to defer to the authority of the presidency itself, there is little that can deflect Bush from his course of action. “Bad news from Baghdad and opposition at home may point to a lowering of expectations, at the very least, but I wouldn’t bet on it,” Powers wrote. “Presidents take failure personally, can lift their voices above the din of opponents, and can use the immense power of their office to force events in the directions they choose.”
What combination of hubris and myopia has driven the United States to wage two unjust and unwinnable wars-in Vietnam and now in Iraq-within the lifespan of most of the readers of this magazine? Some attribute these bloody misadventures to imperialism and the arrogance of power. Yet it is undeniable that a measure of idealism, combining moral righteousness with a characteristically American can-do attitude, played an important part in justifying these wars. Drawn to the high moral imperatives of righting wrongs and liberating the oppressed, many Americans have a hard time accepting that there are limits to what we can do, and even to what we should do. Indeed, the latter may be the more difficult moral principle to grasp. This is not an argument for inaction, especially in humanitarian crises that may require the leadership of the United States. It is rather a call for humility in the face of intractable circumstances and human fallibility.
The murderous chaos unleashed by the U.S. occupation of Iraq reminds us that we are rarely in control of events. As an avowed Christian, Bush should know how basic that proposition is to our understanding of the limits of politics and even moral ambition. As the ethicist Gilbert Meilaendar has written, “to imagine that the destiny of the world lies not in God’s hands but in ours” is a theological error. There are many things we should not do, even if we think we can. Imposing democracy and freedom at the point of a gun is high on that list, as is sending more troops into a war that should not have been waged and cannot be won.
Much needs to be said about what are the most prudent ways to disengage from Iraq. Certainly, talking to all the nations in the region will be a necessary step. What must be said first, however, is that the United States alone cannot fix what it has broken. That is a burden others, too, must now shoulder.
January 2, 2007
