Victory

Repeated invocations of the concept of "victory" or "winning" in Iraq from the hawks continually raise the question of what the heck it is they think victory would look like. As Fred Kaplan points out, whenever you look at what the president means (or at least seems to mean) by this, it turns out he's just ensuring defeat. I would only extend Kaplan's analysis by noting that John McCain, like Bush, has firmly committed himself to a similarly vague and unrealistic vision.

I understand that McCain has cred and therefore deserve a free pass from every reporter on every issue you can think of, but given that McCain has decided to put Iraq at the center of his campaign you'd think someone on the campaign trail might find time for a little scrutiny of what he's trying to say about this.

Comments

I have a post on the new "surge": Mahdi Army violence in Iraq at http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com
Excerpt:
"After six months of a self imposed cease fire by the Mahdi Army, all hell is breaking loose in Baghdad and Basra as the Mahdi Army is battling U.S. and Iraqi Army forces and the relative stability brought about by the "surge" of U.S. forces is now threatened.

Today, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino delivered what may be the most stunning counter perspective in ages. This, in fact, may well rank in the Hall of Fame for counterintuitive logic. Ms. Perino asserts the new violence in Iraq is not a setback but, in fact, really a positive sign."

Posted by Jay McDonough | March 26, 2008 1:10 PM

MY:

That's because mainstream Dems are terrified of calling Iraq what it is - a bloody and failed mess. Doing so means you're not serious, unlike the pantheon of failed foreign policy sages that the Times parades in its pages to rue their tragic, but somehow inevitable or unforeseeable, mistakes. Why won't they say thinks like that? Why won't you call out McMegan when she justifies her support for the war in the spirit of Edisonian innovation, ie, let's waste a few hundred thousand foreigners we don't care about to see what happens (it'll be fun!).

Jay:

Yeah, this analysis by the WH is rich. The Awakening Sunnis, having been bribed for their support, are restive because the bribes are drying up. The Mahdi Army, a linchpin of declining violence because of the cease-fire, now gets attacked by us and the despised and insular Iraqi government. Sounds like a recipe for success to me!

Posted by scottreads | March 26, 2008 1:22 PM

Ms. Perino asserts the new violence in Iraq is not a setback but, in fact, really a positive sign.

And, she added, one more reason to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 26, 2008 1:29 PM

Thanks Jeffrey - you made me spit my latte all over my Armani! (actually free office coffee on my DuckHeads!)

Posted by Scott Ferguson | March 26, 2008 2:04 PM

Thanks Jeffrey - you made me spit my latte all over my Armani! (actually free office coffee on my DuckHeads!)

Posted by Scott Ferguson | March 26, 2008 2:06 PM

Powell will be in here in a moment to explain that "victory" in Iraq will be a peaceful, stable Iraqi government that sells us oil, isn't funding terrorists, and isn't making WMDs.

You know, like Saddam.

Except that it will be "democratic" - i.e., have numerous Shia, Sunni and Kurd factions with armed militias squabbling in a "Parliament" while the US - and/or Iran on occasion - pulls the strings behind the scenes.

You know, like America - minus the armed militias (unless you count Blackwater) and substituting Israel for Iran.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 26, 2008 4:40 PM

Kaplan's basically correct in pointing out Bush's ongoing overpromising. On the other hand, I think he's unduly pessimistic here.

It's entirely possible that the government will prevail in its current showdown with Sadr. It's also reasonable to expect that some acceptably stable balance of power will emerge given a realistic timeline that considers the recent history of conflict between the three major groups.

Kaplan, like others, seems to think that "reconciliation" can be demanded in quick-time with some expectation that we'll be paid attention to. This is about like demanding that Israelis of the '50's go along with an affirmative action hiring program for ex-SS troops. Sunnis were carrying out genocide against Kurds and Shi'ites not so long ago, and would probably like to do it again if they could figure out how.

In my view we already have a major component of "victory" in the fact that Iraq is no longer an aggressive, genocidal police state determined to dominate the fulcrum of the world economy by military force. If over the next few years the government, which is unquestionably the most representative and legitimate in the Arab world, is able to work out a way to grant significant autonomy to the three major groups, especially in terms of security, things will improve significantly. An Iraq in any of several possible configurations that's reasonably pro-Western, at peace with its neighbors, not beavering away on wmd's, and pumping oil, is not Mission Impossible. This would be what victory looks like.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 26, 2008 4:47 PM

Powell's last paragraph is quite realistic. Victory is not holding to Bush's impossible fantasy of Sharanskyite democracy. And any in the opposition that describe anything other than that as defeat, so we might as well run and ensure a rout and mass slaughter since that is just another defeat are wrong and engaging in sophistry.
If the Democrats precipitate another cut 'n run that leads to a Saigon-like rout, with mass slaughter and even genocide...their ill reputation on National Security will be secured yet again for generations.

And unlike Vietnam, things after a Hillary or Obama ordered defeat might get so bad in the Gulf that we have to go back in, and the 4,000 we lost will be considered a small pittance in rushing back and fighting a dirty, ugly regional war.

Or it could be that Iran watches the US military run in disgrace and decides with the US humiliated and unwilling to sacrifice anything under Dems, it's "Game On!" for openly building nuclear weapons and the missiles that deliver them. Which would trigger a nuclear arms and missile race in the ME involving Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Israel racing to counter and achieve 1st Strike Success.

And if we cut and run, radical Islamists, who we put on the ropes and have almost finished off, will bounce off the mat and say THEY were the ones that caused Obama to lose his nerve, and America is nothing to fear because they always collapse and lose their will when they suffer a few casualties over time...

Posted by chris ford | March 26, 2008 6:20 PM

and even genocide...their ill reputation on National Security will be secured yet again for generations.

Genoicde. IOKIYAR.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 26, 2008 9:03 PM

I was off by seven minutes on Powell's post.

Meanwhile, Ford is on his ketamine addiction again.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 27, 2008 12:00 AM

How is it that chickenhawks like ford and al know so much about the military? Reading Clancy? It's damn sure not first hand knowledge. And powell of course.

Posted by merlallen | March 27, 2008 3:00 AM