"The Stakes are High... but Hard is not Hopeless"

Over at theAtlantic.com, Robert Kaplan says that the recommendations of the much disparaged Iraq study group are being implemented by the Bush Administration. He writes that the report:

...warned against a precipitous troop withdrawal from Iraq, and was open-minded regarding a temporary surge of modest scale in Greater Baghdad. President George W. Bush is doing that. The report called for a reinvigoration of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, as part of a regional diplomatic blitz. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have been doing that. The report called for a reconstruction czar for Iraq, as part of a process of infusing the country with more economic aid. President Bush indicated he will do that. The report sought to give the President a swift kick in the rear end—toward a more dynamic policy on Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton report, together with the November election results, have accomplished that...

He goes on to say that the appointment of Admiral Fallon as head of Central Command was meant to send a "we mean business" message to Iran. This little quote got my attention.

Army Lt. Gen. David Petreaus told me months ago that because the Army promotes people for commanding American and not foreign troops, sometimes the least talented people get assigned to train Iraqi forces: therefore, the policy needed to be reversed.

Why am I not surprised and shocked? It's the old theory about "crap rolling downhill." Human nature is universal, even in the military. Undesirable tasks are passed down the chain to subordinates often with less than desirable results.

How many years ago was it that Secretary Rumsfeld was reporting the numbers of trained Iraqi forces "under arms and ready to stand up." Apparently, Gomer Pyle and Forrest Gump were doing the training because two years later we still haven't seem a significant improvement. Now that the first of the 20K surge troops have arrived in-country, the insurgents have stepped up the carnage and the question is: Can they be stopped or tamped down long enough for us to wean the Iraqi government. We'll know within a few months. The question that may not be answered so quickly though is "What the hell is Iran doing?" Well, we know what they're doing; working feverishly night and day to develop a nuclear deterrent so that they can work their will in the Islamic world or worse, bring on the end times. Kaplan writes:

Fallon could eventually be proven right on China. Whatever the case, it may not necessarily say anything meaningful about his stomach for a confrontation with Iran. Like a lot of people, he may put China in a completely different category from Iran. One thing is clear: he will be extremely cautious over the need for military action against Teheran. So the question becomes, can Gates and the man he has chosen to lead his war fighting command in the Greater Middle East frighten the Iranians sufficiently to make negotiations meaningful? For the history of naval pressure shows that it must communicate the willingness to fight if it is to have the desired impact on an adversary. I worry that we do not sufficiently grasp the fact that the Iranians may not be reading from the same set of instructions as us, on the real-life political-diplomatic board game we are about to embark on. What if the Iranians watch our beefed-up naval and air presence, combined with increasing economic pressure on them, and say, so what? That's where the partial and tenuous overlap between what the Baker-Hamilton report advised we should do, and what neoconservatives say we might do under better circumstances, evaporates. That's where it may come down to a confrontation between Vice President Dick Cheney and the Gates-Fallon team at the Pentagon, which is essentially the Baker-Hamilton team.

Only then will we know if Bush has truly repudiated the Iraq Study Group. For the moment, he has co-opted enough of its recommendations for those in Congress who praised the report, and now denounce the President's surge, to be labeled hypocrites. As I said, a report like that of the Iraq Study Group is never intended to be liked; or openly implemented. It is meant to subtly influence policy. That it has surely done, so far.

Niall Ferguson, also writing at the Atlantic, A War to Start All Wars, says that the middle east looks like Europe, circa WWI and he concludes with this:

What will the United States do if Iraq’s neighbors fail to contain the ethnic conflict that is now consuming Iraq? The simple answer would be to leave the people to kill and displace one another until ethnic homogeneity has been established in the various states. That has effectively been American policy in central Africa. The trouble, of course, is that Iraq matters more than Rwanda, economically and strategically. Does anyone seriously believe that a regional conflagration would leave Israel and Saudi Arabia—America’s most important allies in the Middle East—unscathed?

Ask a different question. Did anyone seriously believe that a war in Central and Eastern Europe in 1939 would leave Britain and France unaffected? The really sobering lesson of the twentieth century is that some civil wars can grow into more than just regional wars. If the stakes are high enough, they have the potential to become world wars too.

---

Ferguson rightly raises the issue of what happens after the US leaves Iraq. With the Democrats lost in the myopic politics of today and now joined by the first wave of Republican defectors, no thought seems to be given to the consequences of leaving the Iraqi government to fend for itself against the Baathists, al-Qaeda, the sectarian militias, and Iran. Maybe it's unfair to say "no thought is given to the future consequences of the redeployment plan. " This morning, I heard one Bush critic on public radio say that it doesn't matter when we withdraw, a sectarian bloodbath is inevitable, therefore, we need to begin withdrawal now. That represents shallow, callous thinking to me; dangerous thinking, because it only looks at the short term without regard for the future. The argument is also made that continued US presence in Iraq is causing the violence. Does anyone honestly believe the violence will end when the US leaves? Look at the Iranian proxy in Lebanon today. How many times must it be repeated? "The biggest threat to middle-east and world stability is radical Islam."

General Petraeous, testifying before Congress this morning admitted the situation is grim. He also said that he wouldn't have accepted the job if he thought Bush's plan had no chance of success. Petraeous is willing to "give it a go" and the country should be also. Bush's plan may fail , but the fact is, "staying the course" has been defeated and there is a higher probability for an unfavorable outcome with the Democrat's "Redeployment" plan. This could be our last opportunity to stabilize the country and secure our investment (such as it is). It would be a shame to give up now but letting the situation descend into regional chaos or world war would be criminal.
General Petraeous also told Congress, "The situation in Iraq is dire. The stakes are high. There are no easy choices. The way ahead will be very hard. ... But hard is not hopeless."