Disengagement in Iraq

In Washington as a new Congress gets to work, discontent with US policy in Iraq is growing. This discontent is leading some to begin considering strategies that would disengage the United States from Iraq in the near future. The New York Times reports

The rumblings about disengagement have grown distinctly louder as members of Congress return from their districts after the winter recess, and as military officers try to game out how Sunni Arabs and Shiites might react to the election results. The annual drafting of the budget is a reminder that the American presence in Iraq is costing nearly $4.5 billion a month and putting huge strains on the military. And White House officials contemplate the political costs of a second term possibly dominated by a nightly accounting of continuing casualties.

These strategies are about changing the definition of mission success. The president's strategy is to train Iraqis to take over security and administrative tasks from US occupation forces, and to not leave until the Iraqis are fully ready to take over. A key checkpoint in the process of transition are the upcoming elections. If they come off without serious incident, that would indicate the process of growing democracy in Iraq is succeeding. If the elections are significantly disrupted, they "won't be a promising transformation, and it has great potential for deepening the conflict," according to former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. In other words, we would have been making appreciable progress to the goal of a self-governed Iraq.

Despite public expressions by the White House of confidence in the outcome of these elections, the Times report indicates growing concern that "about whether it is politically possible to wait until the Iraqi forces are adequately trained before pressure to start bringing back American troops becomes overwhelming."

This is the most delicate balancing act in any foreign exercise like the occupation of Iraq. Regardless of how one feels about the war itself, the fact of the matter is that we have invaded and conquered Iraq. That brings a moral obligation to do everything we can to bring about peace and stability in Iraq. We must be committed to developing a new Iraqi democracy. We cannot simply turn tail and run, as many opponents of the war would have us do. However, there is a point at which one must admit failure, where despite our best efforts and intentions, the goal is not being realized. The difficulty is in knowing where that point is, and in being willing to admit failure should that point be reached.

It was very clear in the late 1960's, certainly by the Tet Offensive in 1968, that the US mission in South Vietnam had failed. The war there was fought to put down a rebellion, and that rebellion was growing. Despite the casualties inflicted on the enemy, they kept coming. Yet, the war lasted until 1973 with thousands more Americans falling in the jungles, as well as countless Vietnamese. Having failed, why did the United States not simply withdraw? Pride. Presidents Johnson and Nixon were too proud to admit defeat, so many American young men were sacrificed on the battlefield needlessly.

The current president must learn that lesson. I am not suggesting the failure point has been reached. But, at some point, we may reach that point. It may be that our efforts are simply counterproductive, that we are part of the problem. The Times article says, "In classified strategy sessions, other administration officials say they are asking whether the sheer size of the American force, now 150,000 troops, is fueling the insurgency." In any case, the upcoming elections will indeed serve as a barometer of progress in Iraq. If those elections show that we are not making progress, then the president must be willing to face the facts and, perhaps, start considering withdrawal.