So says the LATimes. Good grief! Read their Sunday editorial and tell me that they are not subscribing on to the Harry Reid-brand of defeatism naïveté:
EDITORIAL
Bring them home
Iraqis need political reconciliation, not occupation; and U.S. troops shouldn’t referee a civil war.
May 6, 2007WHATEVER THE future holds, the United States has not "lost" and cannot "lose" Iraq. It was never ours in the first place. And however history will judge the war, some key U.S. goals have been accomplished: Saddam Hussein has been ousted, tried and executed; Iraqis have held three elections, adopted a constitution and established a rudimentary democracy.
But what now? After four years of war, more than $350 billion spent and 3,363 U.S. soldiers killed and 24,310 wounded, it seems increasingly obvious that an Iraqi political settlement cannot be achieved in the shadow of an indefinite foreign occupation. The U.S. military presence — opposed by more than three-quarters of Iraqis — inflames terrorism and delays what should be the primary and most pressing goal: meaningful reconciliation among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
This newspaper reluctantly endorsed the U.S. troop surge as the last, best hope for stabilizing conditions so that the elected Iraqi government could assume full responsibility for its affairs. But we also warned that the troops should not be used to referee a civil war. That, regrettably, is what has happened.
The mire deepens against a backdrop of domestic U.S. politics in which support for the ill-defined mission wanes by the week. Better to begin planning a careful, strategic withdrawal from Iraq now, based on the strategies laid out by the Iraq Study Group, than allow for the 2008 campaign season to create a precipitous pullout.
With four out of five additional battalions now in place, there is no reason to believe that the surge will help bring about an end to what is, in fact, a multifaceted civil war. The only bright spot is in Al Anbar province, where Sunni tribal leaders have joined U.S. forces in the fight against foreign Al Qaeda fighters. They deserve our continuing support. But as long as civil war rages in Iraq, even the post-surge force of 160,000 troops cannot achieve more than marginal progress.
As Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. war commander, has acknowledged, the solution to Iraq’s problems cannot be military. Yet political progress has been backsliding. It was only frantic White House intervention last week that prevented the resignation of the last Sunni leaders in the Shiite-dominated Cabinet of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki. The Sunnis say the Maliki government is sectarian, corrupt and incompetent; and they’re right. The Bush administration should convene national peace and reconciliation talks as early as possible — say June 1. All of Iraq’s parties, tribes, ethnic and sectarian factions, except for Al Qaeda, should be invited to the table.
But an important element needs to be taken off the table: American blood. The U.S. should immediately declare its intention to begin a gradual troop drawdown, starting no later than the fall. The pace of the withdrawal must be flexible, to reflect progress or requests by the Iraqis and the military’s commanders. The precise date for completing the withdrawal need not be announced, but the assumption should be that combat troops would depart by the end of 2009. Iraqi political compromise is more likely to come when Washington is no longer backing the stronger (Shiite) party. U.S. troops could then be repositioned to better wage the long-term struggle against Islamic extremism.
We are not naive.
U.S. withdrawal, whether concluded next year or five years from now, entails grave risks. But so does U.S. occupation. The question is how best to manage the risks.
First, there is the grim prospect of a bloodbath in Iraq. But the best way to forestall slaughter is political reconciliation, not military occupation. Second is the worry that Al Qaeda will establish a beachhead in Al Anbar. Yet Iraqis have already turned against the foreign fighters. Third, the neighbors may meddle. Alarmists fear an Iranian proxy state in Baghdad; southern Iraq is already allied with Tehran. But Iraq’s neighbors are more likely to be helpful once withdrawal is assured, and instability is not in their interests, especially without a U.S. occupier to bleed.
Having invested so much in Iraq, Americans are likely to find disengagement almost as painful as war. But the longer we delay planning for the inevitable, the worse the outcome is likely to be. The time has come to leave.
Feel free to write the LA Times and give ’em hell. I will. They may only have 815,000 subscribers in a state of 35 million in a country of 300 million; but even a wannabe influential paper has influence. Especially around here, in Southern California.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
“First, there is the grim prospect of a bloodbath in Iraq. But the best way to forestall slaughter is political reconciliation, not military occupation.”
Gee, maybe if they sucked it up and took on the huge effort that it takes to go to the White House website and actually READ the President’s plan, they’d see that the military presence is in Iraq to make the “political reconciliation” possible, and that without the military presence, “political reconcilliation” is not possible; ie, go directly to #2….
“Second is the worry that Al Qaeda will establish a beachhead in Al Anbar. Yet Iraqis have already turned against the foreign fighters. Third, the neighbors may meddle.”
To quote my two year old daughter, “Well yeah!” Of course the tribes are standing up, and they’re doing it with the backing of forces that the US is training and with the backing of US forces and firepower. They’re also emboldened enough to take on these head-sawer-offers because they’ve seen US forces in Iraq for 4 years and have become convinced that the US isn’t going to cut and run on President Bush’s Watch. Leave, and they’ll turn right around, pat Al Queda on the back, welcome them, and say, “We were rootin’ for ya all the time. Now please don’t saw off our heads.” Got anymore bright ideas LA Times?
“Alarmists fear an Iranian proxy state in Baghdad; southern Iraq is already allied with Tehran. But Iraq’s neighbors are more likely to be helpful once withdrawal is assured, and instability is not in their interests, especially without a U.S. occupier to bleed.”
Wow, well call me an alarmist, but after 4 years and 25years prior to those 4, I haven’t seen Iran and/or Syria play nice with Iraqis, and when they did play with them, it was always with Saddam and his thugs to work against the US. Given that the only examples of Iranian/Iraqi and Syrian/Iraqi cooperation have been in working against the US I think it’s safe to say that such cooperation in the future is a pipedream, and were it to occur it wouldn’t be in the best interests of the United States.
Option 3
Stay in Iraq to protect the Iraqis, to train them, to enable political reconciliation, and to fight Al Queda. Clearly the days of “We will fight them in the air, on the land, on the sea, on the beaches” etc has passed long ago for advocates of running away. Oceans don’t protect us in the 21st century. Distance is no longer measured in miles, but in the hours it takes to fly from an abandoned ally that has fallen into a terrorist haven….to the US. Seriously, is someone actually thinking that the barbed wire and pits of fire along the N and S borders protect this nation from infiltration and retaliation? The only way to fight terrorists is to attack them-wherever they are, and by whatever means necessary. Sometimes that’s spies, sometimes police, sometimes foreign police, or foreign spies, or allied forces, and sometimes…it doesn’t take a village.
It takes an army
Here’s my letter to the LATimes:
If the LA Times knows that General Petraeus “has acknowledged, the solution to Iraq’s problems cannot be military”, then they also know…yet choose not to report…he also said, in his press conference (the day before the Cut & Run legislation failed in Congress):
“Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda’s global campaign…The situation is, in short, exceedingly challenging, though as I will briefly explain, there has been progress in several areas in recent monthsâ€Â
The LA Times also chose not to report on the MSM and Democrat’s darling, Ret. General Barry McCaffrey’s 3-27-07 “After Action Report” where after speaking to 67 military and civilians over in Iraq he said:
“Since the arrival of General David Petraues in command of Multi-National Force Iraq—the situation on the ground has clearly and measurably improved.”
(McCaffrey’s entire After Action Report of Iraq, can be found here: http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/CARL/index.asp?article=3415)
It’s clear that the LA Times and its’ ilk want to do everything in their power to make the war on terror and in Iraq appear to be a total failure. It is unfortunte, however, that the REAL news doesn’t get played.
For more detailed information on what Generals Petraeus and McCaffrey have said, please go to our “Leave Iraq?” series at http://thefightinggop.org/index.php/category/iraqi-war-news/. (Tomorrow will be Part 4: General McCaffrey’s Report)
Interesting, though that most of the MSM has stopped referring to Iraq as a “civil war”, which sort of makes the Vichy Democrats look stupid. I’d guess that the MSM realizes that the surge is at least lowering sectarian violence (as opposed to Al Qaeda terrorism), but are too proud to publish that in print.
Wow, great comments and a great email Word. Should put that up on the main post, it’s a whole post just by itself.
The MSM and the left will continue to deny that any progress is being made in Iraq. To do so would undermine their only hope at gaining more power. Rest assured, this is the ONLY thing they want.
Not that I would be picky…but in paragraph 5…”With four out of five additional battalions now in place”…they are brigades LA Times, not battalions. Let’s see…brigades have 3000-5000 troops, battalions have 500-750. After six years of war, and the LAT can’t even get basic military terms correct? What else don’t they have right? They seem to have very specific body counts down, but they can’t get major combat units named correctly? “We are not naive” – but informed would be a great place to start.
I agree, Curt: great comments here!
Interesting observation at CrooksandLiars.com.
Posted by Steve, he points out that in March
What is irresponsible and baffling is not only the seeming inconsistency in position between the two editorials; but also in the timing of the editorial. Why now? Why not sometime after the full plan has seen implementation, and a chance to observe results?
I guess my letter was too long-winded to see print in the LA Times. Here’s the ones that made it in:
Larry Shapiro’s comment irritated the hell out of me (actually, they all suck). Al-Qaeda made the strategic move to instigate the sectarian violence. As Austin Bay recounts:
And so al-Qaeda is responsible for fomenting the “civil war” when they bombed the al-Askari Mosque in Samarra. Not the U.S. That was the catalyst for the sectarian violence and rejuvenation of the anti-war surrender monkeys.
And I think Dennis Prager made a very astute point here, regarding some of the criticism about lack of post-war foresight planning: