I have two items that I want to point out about Iraq. First, though, I'm told a lot of times that I only focus on the negatives of the Bush administration, which I think is true to an extent. Here's a little time to redeem myself, maybe. I think my position on the Iraq war has been made clear within the contents of this site. Just as a quick review: First, whatever Bush planned for didn't happen. Second, to question Bush and his ill-fated decisions is not to be anti-war, anti-American, counsel loving liberal or un-patriotic. Third, Bush did the right thing the wrong way. Those are a quick overview of my rationales about Iraq. If you disagree with me, then please at the very least do not come at me with the likes of my second point, cause you will lose the argument right then and there.
Now on to my topic. In the NY Times today there is an article about Donald Rumsfeld and his surprise visit to Iraq. During his visit Rumsfeld calls, actually demands, certain items that Iraqi leaders must do in order "to ensure that a stable, secure and popularly elected government survives, and to allow American troops to begin to withdraw." I'm supporting this 100%.
Most importantly Rumsfeld called for Iraqi leaders to hurry with the constitution by Aug. 15. In some of his demands Rumsfeld sounded almost entirely nervous and especially urgent about the next couple months in Iraq-- and he has reason to be, we all do. Rumsfeld also called for Iraq to be more vocal about Syria and Iran with regards to their support of the insurgency.
Rumsfeld's visit was a surprise, unannounced political strong arm of the Bush administration, and that is exactly what needs to happen. Some will say that Rumsfeld's visit is just another way of America intervening and Bush's way of puppeteering the Iraqi government, and also some will probably call it American imperialism. Well, it's all probably true, but we have troops dying in Iraq and Iraqis have thousands of people being murdered. The situation is grave. Big stick diplomacy, or strong arming Iraq is the precise policy given the situation. The Iraqi government must assume more responsibility for their country. And in order to achieve that, they must get through these very difficult first steps. If it takes being prodded by Bush in order for Iraq to become more sovereign, then poke away. A hands off approach by Bush like that of the last two years is not realistic. Bush's ability to prepare for the best, hope for the best has not worked. I do applaud these latest actions.
My second item that I want to point out is a Brookings Institute publication tracking the progress in Iraq. It's an index of tracking variables of reconstruction and security in post-Saddam Iraq. It's long, but mainly graphs and charts, and it's an awesome way to better understand the progress being made in Iraq. There's no analysis, just numbers left open to interpretation. This is by far one of the most non-objective reports about Iraq that I've seen. I'm good with numbers. And it's easy to see that slowly but surely things are getting better. Now if Bush and his team would put all that effort that they do into winning campaigns and elections into fixing Iraq, then maybe we would have a chance. Again, however, the entire brunt of all that is happening in Iraq is placed squarely on our troops and their families. They deserve more than number crunching and an administration consumed only with political gains. They are the finest and only force even capable of making Iraq work. God bless you all.
7.27.2005
Indexing Iraq
Posted by Chris at 11:48 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I, like you, am glad to see Bush finally using a little "strong arm" as you put it. But I also understand the patience he has used during the past two years.
If Bush had sent Rumsfeld in the same capacity he has now two years ago, the Iragi people, and future leaders would have reacted negatively. Time had to pass to allow the Iraqi people to realize that they need our help, just as much as we need theirs.
Bush has kept to his deadlines the entire time. He has been vague on some things, but always knows when to draw the line. Again he has done so, and I beleive that the Iraqi people will once again stand up and meet the deadline.
I have supported the entire war effort, and have been patient with Bush's handling of it. But I also beleive that we really need to stick to a plan for ending our military presence, at least that of an active role in Iraq. The Iraqi people have declared their desire to take full control of Iraq, and we should really make that a reality. If Bush can get all troops out be the end of his second term, I would consider the entire conflict a huge success.
Thanks Craig.
I think where most people misunderstand my stance on Iraq is that I have been for the strong arming from the very beginning; people take my current dissatisfaction as being "anti." Though I wouldn't call Bush's actions of the last two years as being patient, I call them total inaptness.
His patience has resulted in Iraq turning into complete chaos. I would actually argue that the Iraqi people and future leaders have reacted negatively to Bush's patience, a total uprising is the result. I would think that after 30 years of dictatorship by Saddam the Iraqi people surely would have tolerated some dictating by Bush as well.
I can really only think of one two deadlines that Bush has set, well three counting this one for the constitution. The first was for Saddam to leave. The second was for elections. I would much rather Bush focus more on solvency than deadlines. Sticking to deadlines tends to rush things, and that is exactly why I complain about Bush's rush to everything in Iraq. Everything seems to have been a rush. Thoughfulness can go a long way in planning.
I think right now, plans to end deployment in Iraq are way premature. I'm actually all for a permanent military presence. I don't think our "success" should be measured as to how soon the troops return. Bush is right when he says that the troops will come home when the job is finished.
Thanks for reading. I don't entirely disagree with ya, but I do have my own notions to add to your comment.
We definitely need to get some beer. We have a bachelor party coming up soon.
MJ; what an EXCELLENT (as usual) post! Great points made by both you in your post AND comments as well as by Craig. Great resources, too. Keep up the great work, my friend, and blog ON!
There is no way that the troops will be out by the end of the second term, no way possible without turning Iraq a more significant haven for terrorists then it already is. These moves are mainly political and to me transparent.
How kind of you, MJ, to call it patience.
It is hard to apply thought, or the proper train of it, to something that began under false pretense, so knowing that it did begin under false pretense and that it took some time for the pretense to fade it only makes sense that he exhibited what you so kindly call patience and what most people know as total ineptitude.
I looked at that Brooks institute study and I am also good with numbers…to me, and admittedly I didn’t really study it; it makes clear one thing….some progress but no where near enough and in some ways it looks like internal conflict/casualties (which we of course caused by this stupid war anyway, are at a significant level and the place is still in so much internal turmoil that of course we can’t leave or even kid ourselves into believing we will be out in anytime soon. Number wise this isn’t going away anytime soon and out troops will not be home unless we leave them to their internal chaos.
GTL, thanks man. I owe you a couple visits. I'm behind on my commenting.
Alice, I agree with you nearly entirely on a couple fronts. I referred to what Craig called as patience as inaptness, and your word "ineptitude" is the word I should have used. I in no way think Bush has been patient. Nevertheless, I do believe Bush's actions to be complete incompetence. I just continued with Craig's term to keep the flow of the conversation.
You are also correct to call the progress slow and somewhat confusing in many aspects as well. Right now I'm all for any form of progress, mainly because Iraq is in that bad of a mess. The Brookings Institute's Index is a very blunt measure of the war in Iraq. Also, if one studies the data it's obvious to tell that many of the goals measured for the progress have not been met. Quite a few actually, have not been met.
I also do agree that we are to blame for the chaos in Iraq. We broke Iraq, it's up to us to fix it.
Iraq is not what Bush promised. To pretend that Bush has been patient and stood firm throughout is to ignore the fact that Bush is primarily responsible for all that has been wrong about Iraq.
Thanks again for reading Alice.
MJ, I agree with you and Alice that Bush's "patience" was ill-advised. To be perfectly blunt, once our military occupied their country (taking into consideration all the propaganda the iraqis were fed under Hussein about us), how much more distrust would we have created by using strong arm tactics to push the process along? I don't believe for a second that the Bush admin planned on the number of casualties we have suffered, and those are the most important numbers in my opinion.
One other point I wanted to add my two cents to...A couple of posts mentioned the chaos we have caused in Iraq. I think it's important to remember the place was not exactly paradise before we arrived. There were horrible things going on there as a matter of course. And if we are truly helping to build a democracy there, every new democratic goverment has been born out of some kind of chaos. As far as I'm concerned, the only way this even resembles a success is that after we leave, Iraq remains a free and democratic country (assuming we actually get it there in the first place!).
True Kim, very true.
I agree that Iraq was not a vacation resort before the invasion. But 400 people were not being blown up every week either. Iraq was led by a very brutal dictator. If anything, totalitarian regimes do bring stability. And Iraq was stable. The instability is our fault.
If we measure the success of Iraq as being democratic or not, then that measure will take years, maybe a decade or longer to achieve. Not that I disagree with you, because I don't. I too long for the day when we can include Iraq in the same sentence as Europe and Japan.
However, just to play devil's advocate, the true measure of success in Iraq will be when we find and destroy the WMD that Bush said was the reason for invasion in the first place. The spread of democracy stuff is just a change in course of the Bush administration.
Thanks for reading Kim. I'm not trying to be argumentive, I'm just trying to incite conversation :)
Interesting link...not exactly beach reading material, but I am glad someone is able to put these things in cold numbers. Numbers don't lie, but as you said, they lack interpretation. It will be interesting to see how different people interpret these facts.
I am still braindead from my thesis...otherwise I might have made some antagonistic comment...but honestly, I can't find anything to be antagonistic about.
I'm tired of seeing Bush and Rummy and the rest of his pals tell the people of Iraq that there is a deadline for their constitution.
When it comes to articulating your own Democracy, deadlines are not important. What is important is getting it right. Our constitution didn't just come up overnight. We--a people who got along quite well--took months with it. Now imagine if we were in Iraq's place with major ethnic and religious divides across the country. We'd want to take our time too.
Great post. I'm having some trouble with the war today. Saint Joseph, Missouri (my home) lost it's first, I've posted an article in his memory. I didn't know the young man, but I guess this article is causing me to remember some old friends that didn't come home from Vietnam. I've also posted my Question Of The Week, I hope you will stop by to answer it.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
Post a Comment