A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days

Our goal in Iraq is a simple one. We want to help the country stand on its feet, provide for its own security and give its citizens a chance to vote for the government of their own choosing (something the Iraqi people have been doing with diligence and enthusiasm, I might add). When these goals are achieved, we want to fulfill one more. We want to withdraw.

Americans, it has often been said, are wary of empire-building. We are wary when others try to do it. We are wary when it is proposed that we do it ourselves. While it is, strictly speaking, in the rational interests of the United States to maximize its power and while the U.S. plays the realpolitik game as well as anyone, the values of her citizens eschew imperialism and largely rebel against those who bestride the world like a Colossus. We are proud of our might and strength, but we are happy when left alone.

That is why it is so strange and bizarre to hear and read some of the accusations regarding the American presence in Iraq. Are we there for the oil? If so, why haven't we invaded Mexico and Venezuela just yet? Does anyone think that we plan to? It is in our interests to ensure a stable energy supply but surely even the most casual observer has seen that we don't go to extremes to get it; it is, after all, equally in our interests not to allow the costs of achieving a stable energy supply to outrun the benefits.

Are we there to wage war against the Muslim people? The question is so silly as to not merit any comment whatsoever. If by now people don't understand who the enemy is in the war on terror--or if they pretend not to understand--they are not likely to change anytime soon. 

Are we in Iraq to let Halliburton and Dick Cheney fatten their pockets? Like the last question, it amazes and appalls that we are actually debating this one. And it says something about the deleterious state of the public debate regarding Iraq that this debate is taking place.

The specific policy goals underlining our presence in Iraq are inspired by the same blend of realism and idealism that for so long has driven American foreign policy. To be sure, we have a vested interest in the success of the reconstruction effort in Iraq. But we are also vested in the success of others. One need not be an adherent to the idea that "democratic societies are peaceful societies" to cheer on this effort. I know that I am not. But as I have written before and elsewhere, while democratic societies can be far better warfighting societies than some give them credit for, they are valuable for international security and stability because of their transparency. A transparent society is one that does not contribute to misunderstandings, miscalculations, the security dilemma and the proliferation of War Itself. A democratic Iraq will help bring transparency in a part of the world that remains largely--and tragically--opaque, and will promote greater openness throughout the region. I don't know what the Arabic word for glasnost is, but I am certainly willing to campaign for it.

I know that it is not easy to do so. I know that in the short term, it is easier to say "chuck it," or something that rhymes with "chuck" and leave. But while it may give us short-term satisfaction to do so, the long term consequences of leaving Iraq and our own security interests in the lurch are too terrifying to contemplate--and they will haunt us for years to come. John McCain is not someone I agree with all that often on a number of issues, but he is stellar when it comes to understanding the stakes in Iraq:

“Mr. President, the Iraq amendment under consideration today constitutes no run-of-the-mill resolution and reporting requirement. It is much more important than that, and likely to be watched closely in Iraq – more closely there, in fact, than in America. In considering this amendment, I urge my colleagues to think hard about the message we send to the Iraqi people. I believe that, after considering how either version will be viewed in Iraq, we must reject both.

“Reading through each version, one gets the sense that the Senate’s foremost objective is the drawdown of American troops. But America’s first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, it is to win the war. All other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission. If that means we can draw down troop levels and win in Iraq in 2006, that is wonderful. But if success requires an increase in American troop levels in 2006, then we should increase our numbers there.

“But that’s not what these amendments suggest. They signal that withdrawal, not victory, is foremost in Congress’ mind, and suggest that we are more interested in exit than victory. Mr. President, a date is not an exit strategy. This only encourages our enemies, by indicating that the end to American intervention is near, and alienates our friends, who fear an insurgent victory. Instead, both our friends and our enemies need to hear one message: America is committed to success in Iraq and we will win this war.

“The Democratic version requires the President to develop a withdrawal plan. Think about this for a moment. Imagine Iraqis, working for the new government, considering whether to join the police forces, or debating whether or not to take up arms. What will they think, Mr. President, when they learn that the Democrats are calling for a withdrawal plan? The Republican alternative, while an improvement, indicates that events in 2006 should create the conditions for a redeployment of U.S. forces. Are these the messages we wish to send, Mr. President? Do we wish to respond to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who have put their faith and trust in America and the Iraqi government, that our number one priority is now bringing our people home? Do we want to tell insurgents that their violence has successfully ground us down, that their horrific acts will, with enough time, be successful? No, Mr. President, we must not send these messages. Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our troops, it is victory.

“If we can reach victory in 2006, that would be wonderful. But should 2006 not be the landmark year that these amendments anticipate, we will have once again unrealistically raised the expectations of the American people. That can only cost domestic support for America’s role in this conflict, a war we must win.

“I’d repeat that, Mr. President. This is a war we must win. The benefits of success and the consequences of failure are too profound for us to do otherwise. The road ahead is likely to be long and hard, but America must follow it through to success. While the sponsors of each version of this amendment might argue that their exact language supports this view, perceptions here and in Iraq are critical. By suggesting that withdrawal, rather than victory, is on the minds of America’s legislators, we do this great cause a grave disservice.”

Yes. But alas, doing the cause a disservice looms mightily on the horizon. Doing the cause a disservice has given rise to the "Chickenhawk!" meme, used to silence debate by those who must be aware (I am being generous here) that if the debate were allowed to proceed in full and fair fashion, with each side having joined in with vigor and intelligence, the position of the cut-and-run crowd would be exposed for the hollow farce that it is. Doing the cause a disservice has given rise to the inherently inhumane belief that the lives and fate of the Iraqi people matter not and can be washed out of our hands like loose-clinging dirt. Doing the cause a disservice has given rise to The World's Greatest Deliberative Body suffering from a collective panic attack of embarrassing--if not epic--proportions. This is not deliberation. This is not sound judgment. This is not the work of grown-ups trying to right a policy. This is Madness Incarnate and if allowed to stand and prosper, its consequences will weigh heavily with us for decades and generations to come. For that is how long it will take to wash away the shame and fecklessness attendant to the abandonment of Iraq and our efforts there. And until that shame and fecklessness are washed away, people the world around will doubt the word and commitment of a nation steeped in the promotion of law, freedom and justice, a nation that alone among superpowers and empires throughout history has used its power to free rather than enslave. And free we have. Ask the nations of the former Warsaw Pact. Ask the nations once chained to the deadweight of the Soviet Union. Ask the Afghans and Iraqis themselves who their earthly liberators were. They will answer you in the event that you have forgotten. And if you have forgotten, then shame on you.

I don't pretend that all has gone well with the reconstruction of Iraq. But I also don't pretend that things will get better if we leave early. In fact, they will get far worse. Greg Djerejian notes the abuse of Sunni Iraqis by Shi'ite ones, and says the following:

FYI, if we pull out precipitously, as everyone from Nick Kristof to John Warner seems to wish these days, this sorta thing will happen much more often. And Zalmay Khalilzad's leverage to force the Iraqi leadership to do the right thing, whatever the crisis, whoever the leaders in power, will diminish mightily (roughly in tandem with the amount of U.S. forces being drawn-down). I continue to believe that a rapid pull-out, or too rapid Iraqification process--could leave Iraq in the throes of civil war. The Jacksonian/Rumsfeldian wing will then say, tant pis, we tried to help those ingrates and savages but they couldn't pull it together. Everyone will move on to the Next Thing. But history will record that we didn't finish the job, and lied to ourselves that we had made a real go of it.

It must have been hard to be an Iraqi for these many decades. To be under the thumb of a power mad autocrat who believed in nothing but his own self-aggrandizement. Who looked like he wasn't going anywhere anytime soon. It must have been hard to live the only life you are going to have for so long without any hope with which to sustain yourself.

But hope has been brought to the Iraqi people. Hope cannot bring success by itself. Human effort, patience and courage will have to see us through. Those who have labored so long and hard to serve our country and the Iraqi people deserve better than what they have gotten for so long in the debate over Iraq. The Iraqi people have waited too long for hope to have it taken away from them by the impatient and historically ignorant. For too long, we who have believed that the cause in Iraq can and should be seen through to victory have been silent, thinking that others might eventually come around and see the wisdom of our position.

Strangely enough, they haven't. Or perhaps other considerations predominate. In any event, the silence must end. To answer the question posed by the title of this post, the Iraqis will fill the void that would be left by our departure. Some day soon. But until that day comes, we are indispensable to the success of the reconstruction effort in Iraq. Let us try not to forget that. Too many already have.  

(Cross posted on Red State and No End But Victory.)