living love
03-08-2006, 11:24 PM
U.S. stuck with few options in Iraq
By Dick Polman
Knight Ridder Newspapers
As the United States nears the third anniversary of its invasion of Iraq, there is abundant evidence that military and political options are narrowing, that President Bush's democratization dream is lethally imperiled, that we are hostage to events beyond our control, and that nobody can agree on whether our troops would be better off digging in or pulling out.
The fog of war has frozen domestic politics. Bush's "stay the course" stance is being soundly rebuked in the polls, yet divided Democrats haven't come up with a better idea, a consensus alternative. Meanwhile, the clock ticks. The danger of a full-blown civil war — predicted 18 months ago by the CIA, but dismissed at the time by the Bush team — grows with each passing day.
In political terms, this is a dangerous situation for House and Senate Republicans who face voters in November. Hints dropped by the administration last summer have had them anticipating sizable numbers of U.S. troops coming home in 2006. They looked forward to using this as evidence that Iraqis, in the aftermath of their December elections, were policing themselves and freedom was "on the march."
Those hopes are in jeopardy. With Sunni insurgents and Shiite death squads roaming the cities, and with negotiations for a unity government perpetually breaking down, longtime Iraq observers are fearing the worst. In the words of Juan Cole, a Middle East expert who blogs frequently on the war, "Iraq is a vial of nitroglycerine that can be set off with one shake."
Some might dismiss Cole as a longtime Bush critic, but disillusion also is endemic within conservative circles; witness William F. Buckley, icon of the modern conservative movement. He contends that "the American objective in Iraq has failed" and that Bush must "submit to historical reality" and make "the acknowledgment of defeat."
Polls show discontent
Most Americans aren't buoyant, either; Bush's winter speeches have failed to dispel bipartisan gloom. In a Fox News poll of 900 registered voters conducted Tuesday and Wednesday, 81 percent of respondents — including 72 percent of Republicans — now believe an Iraq civil war is likely. On a separate issue, 70 percent of respondents want to cut the money for Iraq reconstruction. Translation: The public is rapidly losing faith in the mission, and political analysts believe that, in an election year, a war-weary public generally aims its ire at the party in power.
But loss of faith in the mission isn't necessarily synonymous with a desire to abandon Iraqis to their fate. We are basically stymied on what should happen next. In a new poll sponsored by Democratic strategists Stan Greenberg and James Carville, surveying 1,135 Americans during the last five days of February, 49 percent said they wanted to "start reducing the number of troops" (in the belief that we are impeding stability, and preventing Iraqis from standing up for themselves), while 48 percent wanted to "stay the course" and "finish the job" (in the belief that we are a positive force and a bulwark against global terrorism).
A troops-out convert
One fresh convert to the troops-out camp is Suzanne Nossel, who served at the United Nations from 1999 to 2001 as a top deputy to U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. By phone, she charted her change of heart:
"I've always been very concerned about leaving Iraq as a failed state, and the ramifications for the image of American power around the world. I take that seriously. Despite all the mistakes we have made in this war, the stakes have been so high that I felt we had to stay and try to make things right.
"But now, facing the facts on the ground" — a reference to death squads, militant clerics, ethnic fragmentation, and warring Iraqi leaders — "I question whether we are making a contribution, and whether it makes sense to stay in." Or, as she argued separately in an online column, "The only thing worse than Iraq as a failed state is Iraq as a failed state with 130,000 Americans serving there."
Gary Hart said he thinks those troops are at serious risk. The Democratic ex-senator and onetime presidential candidate, a specialist on defense issues, talked about Iraq — and, in his view, the benefits of troop withdrawals — before a speech the other day at the National Constitution Center.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002844798_iraqoptions05.html
By Dick Polman
Knight Ridder Newspapers
As the United States nears the third anniversary of its invasion of Iraq, there is abundant evidence that military and political options are narrowing, that President Bush's democratization dream is lethally imperiled, that we are hostage to events beyond our control, and that nobody can agree on whether our troops would be better off digging in or pulling out.
The fog of war has frozen domestic politics. Bush's "stay the course" stance is being soundly rebuked in the polls, yet divided Democrats haven't come up with a better idea, a consensus alternative. Meanwhile, the clock ticks. The danger of a full-blown civil war — predicted 18 months ago by the CIA, but dismissed at the time by the Bush team — grows with each passing day.
In political terms, this is a dangerous situation for House and Senate Republicans who face voters in November. Hints dropped by the administration last summer have had them anticipating sizable numbers of U.S. troops coming home in 2006. They looked forward to using this as evidence that Iraqis, in the aftermath of their December elections, were policing themselves and freedom was "on the march."
Those hopes are in jeopardy. With Sunni insurgents and Shiite death squads roaming the cities, and with negotiations for a unity government perpetually breaking down, longtime Iraq observers are fearing the worst. In the words of Juan Cole, a Middle East expert who blogs frequently on the war, "Iraq is a vial of nitroglycerine that can be set off with one shake."
Some might dismiss Cole as a longtime Bush critic, but disillusion also is endemic within conservative circles; witness William F. Buckley, icon of the modern conservative movement. He contends that "the American objective in Iraq has failed" and that Bush must "submit to historical reality" and make "the acknowledgment of defeat."
Polls show discontent
Most Americans aren't buoyant, either; Bush's winter speeches have failed to dispel bipartisan gloom. In a Fox News poll of 900 registered voters conducted Tuesday and Wednesday, 81 percent of respondents — including 72 percent of Republicans — now believe an Iraq civil war is likely. On a separate issue, 70 percent of respondents want to cut the money for Iraq reconstruction. Translation: The public is rapidly losing faith in the mission, and political analysts believe that, in an election year, a war-weary public generally aims its ire at the party in power.
But loss of faith in the mission isn't necessarily synonymous with a desire to abandon Iraqis to their fate. We are basically stymied on what should happen next. In a new poll sponsored by Democratic strategists Stan Greenberg and James Carville, surveying 1,135 Americans during the last five days of February, 49 percent said they wanted to "start reducing the number of troops" (in the belief that we are impeding stability, and preventing Iraqis from standing up for themselves), while 48 percent wanted to "stay the course" and "finish the job" (in the belief that we are a positive force and a bulwark against global terrorism).
A troops-out convert
One fresh convert to the troops-out camp is Suzanne Nossel, who served at the United Nations from 1999 to 2001 as a top deputy to U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. By phone, she charted her change of heart:
"I've always been very concerned about leaving Iraq as a failed state, and the ramifications for the image of American power around the world. I take that seriously. Despite all the mistakes we have made in this war, the stakes have been so high that I felt we had to stay and try to make things right.
"But now, facing the facts on the ground" — a reference to death squads, militant clerics, ethnic fragmentation, and warring Iraqi leaders — "I question whether we are making a contribution, and whether it makes sense to stay in." Or, as she argued separately in an online column, "The only thing worse than Iraq as a failed state is Iraq as a failed state with 130,000 Americans serving there."
Gary Hart said he thinks those troops are at serious risk. The Democratic ex-senator and onetime presidential candidate, a specialist on defense issues, talked about Iraq — and, in his view, the benefits of troop withdrawals — before a speech the other day at the National Constitution Center.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002844798_iraqoptions05.html