Thursday, September 06, 2007

Re: Romney on Iraq   [Andy McCarthy]

Ramesh, I'm a much more reluctant surge supporter than many.  I think it may be sufficient to stabilize the Iraq theater, but I have always thought it utterly insufficient to win the overall war.  My calculation — which is not the standard calculation of surge supporters — has been that, eventually, we will have to confront the fact that Iran must be dealt with — not necessarily invaded, but military operations are going to be necessary.  When that happens, it would be much better if we were heavily present in Iraq and capable of quickly using it as a platform than if we have withdrawn, allowed much of Iraq to become a de facto Iranian preserve, and must start marshalling forces from scratch — under far more difficult circumstances (e.g., with Turkey perhaps in Iran's camp and Pakistan maybe under anti-American leadership).

The administration has done a poor job explaining the overall war and setting appropriate expectations for what it will take to win.  Indeed, the kit-gloves approach to the mullahs is testimony to the administration's own expectations in that regard.  As a result, there is now exactly what your post suggests:  a disconnect between where we'd like to be politically next year so far as the 2008 election is concerned and where we need to be to win the war — meaning, the overall war against radical Islam, not just the Battle of Iraq.  This is a terrible problem, but it is one of our own making.  

It will continue to be a problem as long as the American people are not invested in the war and no presidential candidate is convincing and inspiring enough about what it will take to win.  I don't want to get into a big debate about this, but I support Rudy — notwithstanding the reservations of people I revere, including you — because I think he's that candidate and I don't see anyone else in the field, even McCain (who has been heroic on this), who could do it as well.

We certainly don't want American troops in Iraq forever.  But how long we tolerate them there depends on what they are doing there.  If the case is compellingly made that it's a regional war, Iraq is only a part of it, Afghanistan could still be lost, operations are being launched against the West from northwest Pakistan, and the Iranians and their subsidiary, the Syrians, have to be dealt with, I think Americans would not only tolerate but demand that American forces stay in the region and do what has to be done. 

If, on the other hand, the larger war is going to be ignored, I think there will be very little stomach for keeping troops in the region to do what we would never have sent them to do in the first place:  democratize Iraq.  In that event, maybe there's daylight for a draw-down approach that can help the Republican candidate in '08.  But it would be a false victory and a terrible national security strategy:  It would premise success on a continued misapprehension of the nature and extent of what we are up against, and it would signal that we will lose the war, which, as Sen. McCain says, is a lot more important than losing the election. 

09/06 07:24 PMShare