I STILL THINK WE'RE WINNING
There's been a lot of commentary (not to mention some heavily slanted "news reports") on the "fact" that we've lost the war in Iraq, or will inevitably lose shortly. I don't think so, but then, what do I know?
There are two Iraqi wars, of course, one military and one political, and victories in both are necessary for the Iraq campaign to be called a success. The military campaign is being fought entirely within Iraq (hopefully with the exception of attempts to interdict men and material being sent into Iraq from outside its borders). The political campaign (otherwise known as the "hearts and minds campaign") is being fought worldwide, but there is only one battleground that counts:
right here in the US.
We will know how the political campaign is going when the presidential election returns are in. Despite the sound and fury concerning other issues, I think that this election will be a referendum on the War on Terror in general and the war in Iraq in particular. If President Bush is reelected, he (and, in my opinion, we) will have won the only political fight that matters in the war in Iraq. If John Kerry is elected, the President (and we) will have lost that political fight, and the military campaign will sputter and die, since Mr. Kerry promises to bring in the UN, and three key members of the Security Council are adamantly opposed to a US military victory in Iraq.
As to the military campaign, I have an idea for some research I'd like to see which would graphically demonstrate just how well (or badly) we are doing, militarily. Many people have noted that Americans in general are too easily swayed by individual events, that their opinions on how the war is going depend on what happened yesterday, not what has happened in the last six or twelve or twenty four months. That's true. When you are being constantly bombarded with new information, it is difficult to keep your perspective.
That's what I want: a way to gauge the effects of the military campaign in Iraq over a longer time period than last week's headlines. To obtain that perspective, I would like to see a map of Iraq. On that map would be a red dot for every attack by anyone (Baathist holdout, internal religious factions, foreign jihadis, etc., etc.) since the President declared an end to major military action, approximately one year ago. Since I have not seen such a map, I can't say for sure what it would show. But I would guess that it would show that the vast majority of Iraq has seen little or no violence for the last year (especially in the Kurdish north), and that the majority of the attacks have been in the "Sunni Triangle".
And then I would like to see the same map prepared on a monthly basis since April or May, 2003. These monthly maps would provide a graphic timeline which would show, once the enemy started to operate in an area, whether our counter operations are, over time, successful in preventing him from continuing to do so.
So: Who out there in the Blogosphere knows someone (or is someone) with the time and information to prepare such things? If you know someone, pass the suggestion along.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
From
Cap'n Clueless:
If you truly think that America is no better than the terrorists, then go watch the video of Nicholas Berg's brutal murder. After you've listened to his horrible screams as he died, and after you've watched his killers wave his bloody head in front of the camera, get back to me and explain to me why I and my nation are responsible for Berg's death, and why the man who wielded the knife is not.
Brevity from the Captain? What's next, pigs with wings?
HEARTS AND MINDS
There's been a lot of ink spilled on the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, and the damage done to the "hearts and minds" campaign. I have not seen any commentary dealing with what I consider to be by far the most important point.
The US is perfectly capable of imposing a military solution to the problems in Iraq. If we wanted to, we could turn Iraq, or indeed, the entire Middle East, into radioactive craters. That's one military solution. Not a good one. Not one that I advocate. But it
is a solution. Short of reducing the region to its consituent atoms, however, we can also, with persistence, blood and money, impose a conventional military solution. And once that happens, political progress for the Iraqi people is possible. Prior to that time, political progress is much harder and therefore more likely to come in much smaller increments. Additionally, it prior to a military victory, most political progress will be designed to support a military victory, and therefore can be dismissed as American imperialism by our enemies.
The question in Iraq is not whether a military victory can be achieved, but whether it
will be. The answer to that question lies in hearts and minds, but not in the hearts and minds of Arabs or Moslems in general, or even Iraqis. Sure, having the wholehearted support of the Iraqi populace would help. And having a significant fraction of that populace opposed to us would delay any victory. But it would not prevent it.
Frankly, I couldn't care less whether the average guy in Cairo or Amman supports us. They are powerless to stop us. Move that average guy to the streets of Baghdad and the answer changes somewhat. The average guy in Baghdad is powerless to stop us, but he can delay us and raise the cost of victory. So he matters, but he is not critical.
The hearts and minds of only one group is absolutely critical to this war: Americans. That, and that alone, is why the abuse of Iraqi prisoners was so damaging. The incidents gave those who oppose the war the opportunity to bombard the American people with images evoking Vietnam and My Lai, despite the near total absence of any historical correlation. Indeed, the very phrase "hearts and minds" comes from the Vietnam War. The PR offensive has had an effect. To see it, all you have to do is read
Andrew Sullivan.
But, tactically speaking, our enemy has just snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the campaign for the hears and minds of Americans. They had a clear propaganda winner in Abu Ghraib. Then they immediately reduced that victory to ashes by their depraved beheading of Nicholas Berg. They enabled a side by side comparison of Americans to Islamist nutcases.
Americans: abuse consisted of (a) keeping naked prisoners in the dark, (b) posing prisoners for sexually suggestive photos, and (c) possible sexual acts (those haven't yet been established to my satisfaction, but they might well be). Response consisted of: Investigation, Identification of offenders, Prosecution.
Islamists: abuse consisted of the deliberate and horrifying public murder of a prisoner. Response consisted of: Boasting of and glorying in the deliberate and horrifying public murder of a prisoner.
The claim that Berg's murder was in retaliation for the abuse at Abu Ghraib is absurd for any number of reasons, including but not limited to the fact that the people making the claim are the same ones who murdered Daniel Pearl, not to mention three thousand Americans on 9/11. Anyone with a calendar can see that those acts were not related to any abuse by Americans of Iraqis. Our enemies don't need a reason to murder Americans. They're going to do it whether or not they have an excuse.
And, just as an aside, if the abuse of Iraqis is so important to al Qaeda, why weren't they beheading Saddam's minions for the far worse and far more widespread abuses committed by his regime over a far longer period? Is the abuse of Iraqis offensive to Islam only when committed by Americans?
A question for the people of the US: Who would you rather have in charge? It is in your power to win or lose the war. The consequences of a loss may not be felt here in your lifetime. But make no mistake, our children and grandchildren will pay the price of a defeat in Iraq.
We have to make a choice, and it must be made now. This choice is not of our making. It has been thrust upon us. We have to choose between them and us.
I vote for us.
UNHELPFUL POLITICAL PROGNOSTICATION
Stephen Green is
soliciting nominations to replace Powell and Rumsfeld at State and DoD in a second Bush administration.
My picks (that will never happen):
Rudy Giuliani. Which department, State or DoD? Doesn't matter. When he very publicly returned that money to the Saudis, I became a fan, and decided that I would vote for him for damn near any position. Having tossed Yasser out of Lincoln Center doesn't hurt, either. Besides, having literally cleaned up NYC as mayor and federal prosecutor qualifies as both defense and foreign policy experience (especially during and after 9/11). And that's only partially tongue in cheek.
Condi Rice. Again, the choice of where she serves is not terribly important to me, but I like her better at Defense than at State. She strikes me as a warrior (but I can't tell you why, because I don't know). And these days, Defense is probably a better spot from which to run for the White House than State.
If not Rice and Giuliani, then maybe Sam Nunn?
I might have added Tom Kean before the 9/11 Commission debacle, but he doesn't seem to have been able to keep the commission members in line, and their on our side. So I would be worried about what would happen in any senior cabinet position. I think this commission will end his career. Too bad. Moderate Republican/popular former governor of a northeast state? He might have been President (and almost certainly Veep) if he played his cards right.
Dream ticket in '08: Giuliani/Rice or Rice/Giuliani. This is also something that won't happen, since neither one is likely to be willing to serve under the other. But maybe political reality will have set in once the primaries are in full swing.
