More lame duck lameness

ARTICLE: McCaffrey Paints Gloomy Picture of Iraq: In Contrast to His Previous Views, Retired General Writes of 'Strategic Peril', By Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post , March 28, 2007; Page A11

People have hung on McCaffrey's word for years WRT Iraq, and I've found his reports to be highly accurate.

Here he cites some good reasons for optimism but likewise underscores the solid reasons for long-term pessimism.

In weighing both judgments, you can't help but get the feeling that Bush and Co. are simply running out the clock, hoping to barrow the score as much as possible but not making the desperate run to pull out any win.

The diplomatic offensive is similarly arrayed: just enough to get some short-term progress (perhaps on Palestine) but not enough to force any comprehensive advance on any timetable Bush can complete.

As long as this mix of short- and long-term signals continue to be sent, I would expect similarly half-hearted attempts from all concerned: all will make moves that look like an openness to serious concessions but none will quite follow through in any breakthrough manner. They all just want it on the record for the next administration that they've been trying as hard as anyone else to make things work.

Meanwhile, the Dems will do everything conceivable to tie Bush's hand in case Rice is being set up on Iran just like Powell was set up on Iraq. They are wise and correct to do this, because the danger of some stupid kinetic reach for quick solutions near the end of the term will be large, given the temptation of such an approach to those in this administration who believe that restoring power to the presidency is their real historical legacy.

Would I like to be able to argue for a better outcome still on Bush's watch? You bet.

But here's where the lack of strategic imagination in this crowd comes to haunt us, reminding us that Bush's second term was a profound electoral mistake.

Comments

[John McNamara]

You seem to be contradicting yourself. If I understand your implication, Bush is to be faulted for not making a last minute effort to win, yet at the same time the Dems are to be credited for tying his hands so that he can't do just that?

[Mike Anglin]

Tom, what do you think might be the strategic move behind Iran taking the British military hostages? It seems to me that the UK was on the way out, but this might stir them up a bit and the whole thing seems to make things worse for Iran in the long run. Is this a case of some low level officer not getting the memo, or is there some method in the madness that I am not getting? What's your take?

[Rixtex]

I read McCafferty's assessment through Michael Yon's site and came away feeling McCafferty was more optimistic than Rick's reports. McCafferty tells it like it is, but then goes on to talk about how Gen. Patraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker's leadership skills are improving the situation on the ground. He does say time is running short. Any pessimism seems to reflect on the ability of our politicians to support the above leaders and of the Iraqi politicians to use our support constructively.

[John Cunningham]

I must agree with JM's comments, and add that you must realize that if the US fails in Iraq the whole idea you promote in your books -- ideas I agree with -- are toast. You sometimes exhibit a schadenfreude about Bush and the Iraq War... almost welcoming his failure to discredit his approach and the philosophy of the "neocons." But if the US retreats from Iraq the idea of "nation building" (which is what most politicos and media will call the SysAdmin approach) will be discredited for at least 10-20 years. To accomplish something like a SysAdmin mission the US must develop a political culture of patience and perseverance, and that's what is being sorely tested right now. Do we have the ability, with our microwave sound-bite society, to endure protracted campaigns of the sort a SysAdmin op will require? For any such mission will no doubt encounter indigenous or foreign-sponsored insurgencies and lead to a guerilla war or terrorist campaign designed to disrupt the SysAdmin effort. This will inevitably see horrible headlines splashed onto the world scene that will undermine our political will to continue. Witness Somalia after the Black Hawk Down incident. Witness the terror campaigns in Iraq that have as a major goal the influencing of Western resolve. I wish you'd spend some time promoting solutions to Iraq, for if we fail there your ideas will not have the chance to be put to practice for a very long time.

[Sean Meade]

John C: you have a point. failure in Iraq will probably set back nation-building. however, Tom does not see it as a 'single point of failure' for his ideas.

Tom has been promoting Iraq solutions since before the invasion. he supported the war. but the Bush Administration has continually screwed up the peace, perhaps most of all because of their unwillingness to listen to anyone but themselves. the BA wouldn't listen to other nations in the run up, so we've had much less nation-building help. they wouldn't listen to Shinseki and we had far too few boots on the ground. fast forward to the Iraq Commission, and, perhaps most of all, the electorate.

so, the question should rather be, why hope for listening, solutions, even competence from this crowd? best to hamstring them for the rest of their term so they don't do something really stupid, like attack Iran.

[John McNamara]

Sean,

I respectfully disagree with your characterization that the BA administration did not listen to anyone. Were certain viewpoints and opinions dismissed? Of course. But that's always the case, no? Ultimately, decisions must be made and that means certain players will not make it to opening day. However, it seems that far too often I find myself reading that because A) the BA didn't take the advise of this person or that person, that B) therefore they didn't "listen to anyone."

And what nations did we not listen to in the run up? Germany? France? Russia? The motives of these putative allies were craven at best, criminal at worst. We listened to the blather at the UN for 6 months despite the fact that it was undeniably in the midst of a criminal conspiracy wrt Oil for Food. We listened to Turkey as well when they refused to allow an invasion route from the north, which would have trapped remaining Sunni elements and forced them to fight rather than go to ground like they did. That might have gone a long way to reducing the numbers of Sunni fighters we face today. I find the assertion that the BA didn't "listen to anyone" to be historical revisionism.

The Iraq Commission? That "report" has been given far more stature than it deserves. That it proposed a regional conference to explore ME solutions that would include all the ME players yet would EXCLUDE Israel should have exposed it for what it was(read: Czechoslovakia redux), a non-starter. And No one has been able to definitively characterize the recent election as a mandate to lose in Iraq. The exit polls indicated that voters were motivated as much by pork barrel spending and political corruption as Iraq.

Did they screw up the peace? Probably. Would another course of action guaranteed a better outcome? Who knows. But to advocate hamstringing the surge, among other approaches, which is certainly the last best hope for success in Iraq at this point, is shortsighted, and transparently partisan in my opinion. If this were Kerry in office, for whom Tom voted I believe, I imagine he would be decrying the cynical partisanship behind hamstringing a sitting president in his attempts to win a war in an effort to wait for a new administration to take over.

We cannot wait that long. The war will be lost by then. Tom's opinion that this would not be "single-point of failure" is a dangerous roll of the dice for his viewpoint. If he's wrong, no one will be listening to his SysAdmin theories in 2 years.