Responsible options in Iraq

Stephen Biddle, of the Council on Foreign Relations, says the obvious in today's Washington Post: that splitting the difference between sticking with the Iraqis and pulling out only satisfies more self-centered political domestic concerns and not the military mission in Iraq.

Iraq: Go Deep or Get Out

Biddle presents us with the harder choice: either abandon the mission altogether and stop risking the lives of American soldiers, or commit to this thing until the Iraqis are ready for us to leave.

As Biddle points out, the training element of this mission is intimately bound up in the fighting element of the mission, since trainers working with Iraqi forces and the forces, themselves, need cover and the offensive security efforts of American military personell. Thinking that we can somehow leave behind trainers and pull everyone else back leaves both the trainers and the Iraqi security forces vulnerable to a sectarian security situation that they have made clear that they are not ready to take on by themselves, at this point.

From the perspective of Iraqis responsible for security in their country, there is only one responsible option for Americans: to support Iraqi security efforts until they are ready for Americans to leave.

But Americans, ultimately, have to choose whether they will support this effort or not. I agree with Iraqis that we need to support this effort until Iraqis are ready to take over security efforts on their own. Iraqis responsible for security in their country, right now, did not create this security nightmare; Americans did, as well as the insurgency we provoked and the sectarian civil war that we carelessly helped initiate without better discussion, planning, and coordinating an invasion with Iraqis - particularly opposition groups and their alligned militias - before initiating it.

But Americans, and American soldiers, in particular, need to decide if they are going to be willing to guarantee such security until Iraqis can take over themselves and Iraqi legislators can reach an workable democratic resolution.

I do think, given the fact that Americans overwhelmingly supported this invasion, going in, that we have a responsibility to see this thing through, since we helped create the security situation that exists today.

But I have not signed up to risk my life for this effort, yet. I've given it serious thought several times and several times been dissuaded by friends and family who have been concerned, probably rightly, that I would get in much trouble since I have an active brain and a big mouth and would likely get the shit kicked out of me at various times for speaking unpopular views.

Ultimately, I think American soldiers need to decide this one. Are they willing to risk and sacrafice their lives to finish this job? If enough of them are, I think we need to support them and fix what we have broken here. If not, there is no use of trying to compel them to complete this mission if they do not have confidence in it. If there is one of many lessons we should learn from Vietnam, this is one of them.

But if they are willing to complete this mission, I think America can do right by the Iraqis and restore it's reputation as a country that is more concerned with the lives and welfare of the Iraqi people than they are with their own selfish interests or domestic political squabbles.

That's what this whole thing was supposed to be about. We have an opportunity to live up to that commitment.

I only hope that Americans will do right by the Iraqis and not just bail because the going got tough. It's easy to say that from the sidelines, I realize, when I haven't signed up for that duty. I'm giving that option serious thought, again. But I do think we need to do right by the Iraqis, no matter what we end up doing, here.

Here's to responsible options in Iraq and doing right by Iraqis who deserve the security and democratic transition that we have said that we are committed to delivering.

Love,
Ben