A military commitment to political success in Iraq

Frederick Kagan has really impressed me over the course of this war with his vast knowledge of military operations and strategy and his most recent Weekly Standard column is no exception.

No Third Way in Iraq

Frederick's title and some of his writing in this piece to make me suspect of his politics (the title seems to ask conservatives to dig in for a fight with liberals over the matter of redeployment and Iraq policy, which is not only a foolish, foolish suggestion, politically, I think, since Democratic control over the House and Senate makes such a fight seriously handicapped for Republicans, it also seems to be just the oppposite suggestion that is necessary to generate the kinds of bi-partisan -- and in the case of representatives of Iraqi ethnic groups, multipartisan -- policy ideas that might be adopted by Iraqis to develop a sustainable democratic government).

But I have to say that what I always appreciate about Frederick's writing is his very serious appreciation for the reality that military operations are a critical support for security needs that are more basic than politics, right now, and which are needed to support a political process that will take time to win the confidence and/or trust of enough Iraqis to make it sustainable.

As Frederick argues well at the end of his piece.

"It is quite true, as the American leadership often says, that there is no military solution to the problem in Iraq. That is true of any counterinsurgency--at the end of the day, the solution will have to come from the political process. But it is also true of almost every counterinsurgency that there is a military component necessary for political success. The American civilian and military leadership has consistently downplayed and shortchanged this military component. We are coming up on what will probably be the last window of opportunity to regain control of the situation in Iraq and stop the slide toward chaos and defeat. Considering the likely consequences of such a defeat for the region, our nation, and our armed forces, we would be derelict if the effort is anything less than all-out."

Frederick's c0mments are not fair to the leadership of folks like General George Casey who have argued for both the need for a political solution to the crisis in Iraq and the need for a U.S. military commitment to make such a solution possible.

But Kagan is right, I think, to keep our attention on the need for military strength to provide the basic security necessary for a political solution to take hold.

Americans take our security for granted, I think, because we are so well-protected. Katrina should have been a reminder of what life looks like, even in America, when security is taken for granted.

An absence of real security in Iraq will surely undermine a democratic political solution, and, as Kagan argues, create more backlash against America's role in the situation, rather than relieving us of an unhappy burden. As Kagan argues, the absence of confidence in American backing of Iraqi security efforts would likely, given our history with Iraqi soldiers, fuel insurgency as Iraqis make fewer commitments and/or abandon security efforts in lieu of a convincing and forceful presence by the American military and more certain victory over insurgents, especially in difficult battle scenarios where Americans provide an essential backing for Iraqi forces. It is wishful thinking, given our history with Iraqi military and law enforcement forces and given the untenable situation of insurgent and defensive militias from a variety of groups and areas within the country and the repeated requests by the interim government that American forces remain that an American drawdown would improve Iraqi security and not seriously deteriorate that security so necessary for a government built on sustainable democratic principles and political compromise between groups to take hold.

America has a choice to make. It's not an enviable choice for us. Neither are the choices available to Iraqis enviable.

But the least worst option, right now, is not pull-out or draw-down, both of which are recipes for disaster and military and political collapse in Iraq. The least worst option is sticking with a bad situation until a better situation can be created from the mess that currently exists.

We don't have to stay, obviously. And if we decide the leave, which we should at least have the balls to admit that we are doing so because Democrats don't feel responsibility for President Bush's war and that they want Iraqis to take this mess off their hands, not because Democrats are operating with some sort of noble purpose, if that is the option they press. Democrats who press for withdrawal are either deluded by their arrogance that somehow they care more about Iraqi security and a peaceful Iraqi political future than the Iraqis themselves, or they are cowardly in the face of America's responsibilities given the mess that we have created of Iraq, at this point, unless I hear a better argument to the contrary.

The only real option is staying the course and creating a sustainable political process for Iraqi governance.

Americans should consider the alternatives because it allows us to do what we know we need to do:

The right thing. To stay until we have confidence that the Iraqi government and military can handle the security challenges they face.

And our capacity for genuine commitment to doing the right thing comes from our ability to choose otherwise and freely choosing to do the right thing, despite our reservations and despite the sacrafice involved.

And it puts my own sacrafices at Eisenhower in perspective. I might or might not be happier elsewhere, right now, given the current political climate in my school and in the district, right now. But I didn't get into teaching for the pay or the comfort. I got into teaching to affect reform of inner city schools like Eisenhower. And I'm not putting my life on the line, every day. To the contrary, I am hoping that I am helping to make Kansas City and surrounding cities like Lawrence far safer for my presence in it and I am doing it in one of the safest place for kids and people to spend time, generally: in a school.

I hate any situation where political pressure overwhelms reason and its capacity to patiently help us navigate difficult situations.

But reason has to operate in our dealings in Iraq (and in schools), at some level, because nothing else makes sense.

And our dealings there must be animated by patience, thought, and courage if we are to find a peace that will last and to do good by our very serious, very tragic mistakes.

Thanks to Frederick Kagan for offering me the opportunity to reflect on this very serious choice and what it says about us and our capacity for doing the right thing in the face of difficult sacrafices.

Why Democrats and Republicans invest too much confidence in government

George Will has a brilliant article in the Washington Post, today, that illustrates exactly the "irrational exhuberance," as George calls it and as Alan Greenspan originally referred to the source of the hazy vision that led to the technology bubble and crash of the late 90's, that has characterized Democratic and Republican governments alike as each invest too much confidence in the power of government to solve important problems.

Innoculated for Exhuberance

And George is exactly right on both counts.

Hillary Clinton's and Washington Democrats' foolish conviction that the Federal government could and should effectively coerce every level of government and every citizen in a cumbersome, overbearing government health care plan was perhaps the most serious investment of far too much confidence in government during the last Democratic Administration.

And George Bush's belief that the U.S. government could remake the Middle East with its military might is perhaps the most serious investment of far too much confidence in government during either the last Democratic or Republican Administration.

They are two different mistakes with two very different sets of problems. Challenging Saddam Hussein likely did need outside and overwhelming military force to do the job. But believing that the U.S. could do it alone, especially without the support and leadership of the Iraqi people, as well as the support of our democratic and critical non-democratic allies in the region was American hubris at its worst. Republican backing of this foreign policy failure as well as Democratic incompetence to develop an alternative policy other than some different version of American hegemony in the form of pressuring the Iraqis to clean up the mess we made (does our arrogance have no bounds?) will likely undermine American power in serious ways if America does not humble herself in world affairs.

The foolish national health care plan offered by Hillary Clinton luckily was less ambitious and less successful. And it too, as George well argues, was a terrible investment of confidence by an Administration in the power of government to solve a problem that it cannot and should not attempt to solve.

As George argues, "the most important thing a government can know...(is) what it is that it doesn't know." And that is the source of the hubris of both Democrats and Republicans in Washington -- investing too much confidence in Federal solutions -- that need our vigilant criticism and correction.

It is the perpetual problem of solutions imposed by Washington. They assume that they know more than they really know to solve those problems. In America, it is the most important reason to have divided government, separation of powers, and checks and balances: to check the hubris of those seeking national power. Typically Washington legislators know far less than they would need to solve more serious problems in the country. Their power should be limited and exercised in the most limited of ways if it is to be either effective or wise. To the extent that Washington overestimates its understanding of issues (which is more often than not), it generally makes problems worse, is my study and experience.

And to the extent that all power is exercised humbly (which is less often than not) the more effectively and wisely it can be used for any purpose.

Check out George's article for a very insightful look into the hubris of all parties whenever they exercise power.

Democrats won an election for one brief political era. Lord Acton and George Will have wisdom for the ages.

Love,
Ben