The Trimmings of Slim Victory

I read this Krauthammer column, and gosh am I confused.

He seems to be saying that it's a good thing that after four years we've finally learned how to combat an insurgent enemy (Al Qaeda in Iraq) that wasn't there when we invaded in the first place and that this means we don't have to worry anymore about the whole civil war/ethnic conflict/complete fuckup of a central government stuff. Also, if we pulled out troops it would say bad things about General Petraeus and that's totally not fair. No, seriously:

To cut off Petraeus's plan just as it is beginning -- the last surge troops arrived only last month -- on the assumption that we cannot succeed is to declare Petraeus either deluded or dishonorable. Deluded in that, as the best-positioned American in Baghdad, he still believes we can succeed. Or dishonorable in pretending to believe in victory and sending soldiers to die in what he really knows is an already failed strategy.

Christ knows these maniacs have come up with some odd arguments in their time, but "you can't take your ball and go home because tat might make the General cry" is one of the flat-out weirdest.

This is also pretty bizarre:

We don't yet know if this strategy will work in mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods. Nor can we be certain that this cooperation between essentially Sunni tribal forces and an essentially Shiite central government can endure.

We don't know if a strategy of waiting for a shift in allegiance between Sunni tribal sheiks will work in mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods? What? As for the "cooperation," the answer is, no. Why should it? Allowing that this is one positive development, why should it supersede all the less happy developments?

The broader point is that if the argument now is that we need to accept an occupation of indefinite duration and uncertain outcomes FOUR YEARS into the war, primarily in order to defeat an enemy that did not exist in Iraq BEFORE the war...  even accepting those  premises, it is clear that starting the war in the first place was a strategic disaster probably unprecedented in American history.

When the maniacs who screeched for this war to begin with acknowledge that reality, then I might be willing to listen, perhaps for a second, to their caterwauling now about the alleged moral defects of those of us who say it's long past time to end it.

Comments

[Bruce Baugh]

The bit about not picking on poor ol' Petraeus is one I've seen a lot lately, and I don't get it. He did, after all, co-write the book on the subject of counter-insurgeny for the Army, and it's right out there online, as a 12 Mb PDF. The Appendices make particularly interesting reading, as they lay out a comprehensive set of needed resources and how to use them so as to have some prospect of establishing a just and peaceful situation. As it happens, basically none of them exist in Iraq. I want someone to ask the general to explain either when the manual is getting updated to reflect his new convictions or explain why he now thinks all that stuff can be dispensed with. In the absence of such an explanation, of course he's blowing smoke.

[Raenelle]

The people who created this crisis cannot be trusted to fix it. They lack the wisdom, the competence and the selfless patriotism for the job. Our only option until the fool is gone is to just stop him. Any consideration of correctives has to imply by whom, and the Bush track record, in the negative, is an almost impossible perfect 10.

[Steve]

So our big success in Iraq is getting the Sunnis to accept weapons and ammunition from us? Yippee! We're winning!

Meanwhile, back in reality, our "success" in Anbar province really means that the U.S. military has given up on any prospect that the Iraqi "government" might control more than a few square blocks of downtown Baghdad, and has now moved to plan B: fuelling the Iraqi civil war, in the hope that if the whole country breaks apart in a bloody spree of ethnic cleansing, we get to keep the Kurdish part.

And, of course, by describing this as "Plan B", I'm falling prey to the same manipulation that claimed Petraeus' plan to be "Plan A", when it's really more like "Plan Q."

[Tom Hilton]

Allowing that this is one positive development, why should it supersede all the less happy developments?

Because 'winning' has been redefined to mean the existence of at least one non-trivial positive development. Because we're 'winning', none of that other stuff is relevant.

[bdr]

Stop crucifying Petraeus Christ.

[flory]

Fair, judicious, almost Trillinesque review

high praise indeed.....

[Lynne Cheney]

General Petraeus is a gooooooood man.

[El Cid]

I think we have the North Vietnamese exactly where we want them. None of the rural areas of South Vietnam will expect an invasion early fall, and we will finally be able to unite Vietnam in a Democracy and Free Market Economy as designed and administered by well-trained agents from National Review magazine and Red State blog.

[Cervantes]

RE: { when it's really more like "Plan Q." }

Or maybe Plan 9 ...

[Liberal AND Proud]

General Betrayus

[Mellifluous]

You don't understand at all. We have no moral defects.

"Plan 9." Genius.

[Eric Cunningham]

I think Krauthammer just admitted that he (and republicaans like him) have been lying to us.

He wrote:

"A year ago, a confidential Marine intelligence report declared Anbar province (which comprises about a third of Iraq's territory) lost to al-Qaeda. Now, in what the Times's John Burns calls an "astonishing success," the tribal sheiks have joined our side..."

I don't remember anyone ever reporting that 1/3 of Iraq was lost to Al-Queda. I remember things like, "we're making great progress" etc.

It seems like they'll only reveaal the bad news when it fits into their current propagaanda.

Later he wrote:

"The same has started happening in many of the Sunni areas around Baghdad, including Diyala province -- just a year ago considered as lost as Anbar..."

If Anbar and Diyala provence were "lost" and Baghdad is a bloodbath, don't you think we have a right to know that?

I think its clear that all these warmongers are "making it up as they" go.

[Jefro3000]

I just get all warm and mushy inside when Krauty talks about how the Sunni tribal Sheiks have "...joined our side." Yeah, the 1920 Revolution Brigade has decided to embrace George Bush and Charles Krauthammer! Can anyone say, Blowback?

[Mark Lazen]

Good post. But I think the red herrings of Krauthammer's brain dead opinions are simple and obvious.

--Reducing the overall level of violence in Iraq is only a small step toward building the necessary political solutions. The fact that some Sheiks have, as a matter of pure self-interest, temporarily aligned with us against "Al Qaeda" is not indication of their openess to political compromise. Quite the opposite. It is symptomatic of the very jockeying for power that stands in the way of political compromise.

--And of course the absurd assertion that the Iraq "Al Qaeda" is in any way related to the real Al Qaeda. The Iraq Al Qaeda is like our shadow. It came into existence when we arrived, and will likely disappear when we are gone.

[Jeff Ball]

Some other other absurdities I found in the Krauthammer piece:

When Krauthammer says, "A year ago, a confidential Marine intelligence report declared Anbar province (which comprises about a third of Iraq's territory) lost to al-Qaeda[,]" what I wonder is if that report about all being lost was so wrong, isn't there just as good a chance that the alleged good news about our successes with the surge just as susceptible to being wrong. In other words, things change and any progress made today could very easily be the one step forward we seem to take before we take two (or more) steps back.

Also, not to put too fine a point on what may just be a tired cliche, but haven't we always been preached to by supposed experts on Arabic culture that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?" If that is not just a cliche, isn't it likely that the support of Sunni tribal sheiks nothing more than a temporary arrangement revocable when they have finished using us as their hammer to eliminate their rivals?

Am I just supposed to suspend my common sense when the great oracles speak? Perhaps they aren't oracles at all, but instead orifices since they spend so much time talking out of their asses.