<span class="gmail_quote"><br></span><span>What's wrong with cutting and running?</span><br>
<span>
<b>ASK THIS</b> | August 03, 2005</span>
<span>
<p>Everything that opponents of a pullout say would happen if the U.S.
left Iraq is happening already, says retired Gen. William E. Odom, the
head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration.
So why stay?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00129" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00129
</a></p>
<p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);">Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with <a href="http://www.hudson.org/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">Hudson Institute
</a>
and a professor at Yale University. As Director of the National
Security Agency from 1985 to 1988, he was responsible for the nation's
signals intelligence and communications security.</p>
</span>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b>By William E. Odom</b></p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq,
the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren't
they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe
it would make things better.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Here are some of the arguments against pulling out:</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<b>
</b>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"></p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><b><b>1) </b><b>We would leave behind a civil war. </b></b></p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><b><b>2) </b><b>We would lose credibility on the world stage. </b></b></p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><b><b>3) </b><b>It would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy.</b></b></p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><b><b>4) </b><b>Iraq</b><b> would become a haven for terrorists.</b></b></p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><b><b>5) </b><b>Iranian influence in Iraq would increase.</b></b></p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><b><b>6) </b><b>Unrest might spread in the region and/or draw in Iraq's neighbors. </b></b></p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><b><b>7) </b><b>Shiite-Sunni clashes would worsen.</b></b></p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><b><b>8) </b><b>We haven't fully trained the Iraqi military and police forces yet.</b></b></p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><b><b>9) </b>Talk of deadlines would undercut the morale of our troops.</b></p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b> </b> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">But consider this:</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><u></u> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b>1) On civil war.</b>
Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more
Iraqis than Americans. That's civil war. We created the civil war when
we invaded; we can't prevent a civil war by staying. </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">For those who really worry about
destabilizing the region, the sensible policy is not to stay the course
in Iraq.
It is rapid withdrawal, re-establishing strong relations with our
allies in Europe, showing confidence in the UN Security Council, and
trying to knit together a large coalition including the major states of
Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, and India to back a strategy for
stabilizing the area from the eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan and
Pakistan. Until the United States withdraws from Iraq and admits
itsstrategic error, no such coalition can be formed. </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Thus those who fear
leaving a mess are actually helping make things worse while preventing
a new strategic approach with some promise of success.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b>2) On credibility. </b>If we were Russia
or some other insecure nation, we might have to worry about
credibility. A hyperpower need not worry about credibility. That's one
of the great advantages of being a hyperpower: When we have made a big
strategic mistake, we can reverse it. And it may even enhance our
credibility. Staying there damages our credibility more than leaving.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Ask the president if
he really worries about US credibility. Or, what will happen to our
credibility if the course he is pursuing proves to be a major strategic
disaster? Would it not be better for our long-term credibility to
withdraw earlier than later in this event? </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b>3) On the insurgency and democracy.</b>
There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties
will take over the government once we leave. But that will happen no
matter how long we stay. Any government capable of holding power in
Iraq will be anti-American, because the Iraqi people are increasingly
becoming anti-American. </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Also, the U.S. will
not leave behind a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq no matter
how long it stays. Holding elections is easy. It is impossible to make
it a constitutional democracy in a hurry.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">President Bush's
statements about progress in Iraq are increasingly resembling LBJ's
statements during the Vietnam War. For instance, Johnson's comments
about the 1968 election are very similar to what Bush said in February
2005 after the election of a provisional parliament.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Ask the president: Why should we expect a different outcome in Iraq than in Vietnam?</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Ask the president if
he intends to leave a pro-American liberal regime in place. Because
that's just impossible. Postwar Germany and Japan are <i>not</i> models for Iraq. Each had mature (at least a full generation old) constitutional orders by the end of the 19<sup>th</sup>
century. They both endured as constitutional orders until the 1930s.
Thus General Clay and General MacArthur were merely reversing a decade
and a half totalitarianism -- returning to nearly a century of liberal
political change in Japan and a much longer period in Germany.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Imposing a liberal
constitutional order in Iraq would be to accomplish something that has
never been done before. Of all the world's political cultures, an
Arab-Muslim one may be the most resistant to such a change of any in
the world. Even the Muslim society in Turkey (an anti-Arab society)
stands out for being the only example of a constitutional order in an
Islamic society, and even it backslides occasionally.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b>4) On terrorists.</b>
Iraq is already a training ground for terrorists. In fact, the CIA has
pointed out to the administration and congress that Iraq is spawning so
many terrorists that they are returning home to many other countries to
further practice their skills there. The quicker a new dictator wins
the political power in Iraq and imposes order, the sooner the country
will stop producing well-experienced terrorists.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Why not ask: "Mr.
President, since you and the vice president insisted that Saddam's Iraq
supported al Qaeda -- which we now know it did not -- isn't your policy
in Iraq today strengthening al Qaeda's position in that country?" </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b>5) On Iranian influence. </b>Iranian
leaders see US policy in Iraq as being so much in Teheran's interests
that they have been advising Iraqi Shiite leaders to do exactly what
the Americans ask them to do. Elections will allow the Shiites to take
power legally. Once in charge, they can settle scores with the
Baathists and Sunnis. If US policy in Iraq begins to undercut Iran's
interests, then Teheran can use its growing influence among Iraqi
Shiites to stir up trouble, possibly committing Shiite militias to an
insurgency against US forces there. The US invasion has vastly
increased Iran's influence in Iraq, not sealed it out.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Questions for the
administration: "Why do the Iranians support our presence in Iraq
today? Why do they tell the Shiite leaders to avoid a sectarian clash
between Sunnis and Shiites? Given all the money and weapons they
provide Shiite groups, why are they not stirring up more trouble for
the US? Will Iranian policy change once a Shiite majority has the
reins of government? Would it not be better to pull out now rather than
to continue our present course of weakening the Sunnis and Baathists,
opening the way for a Shiite dictatorship?"</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b>6) On Iraq's neighbors.</b>
The civil war we leave behind may well draw in Syria, Turkey and Iran.
But already today each of those states is deeply involved in support
for or opposition to factions in the ongoing Iraqi civil war. The very
act of invading Iraq almost insured that violence would involve the
larger region. And so it has and will continue, with, or without, US
forces in Iraq.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b>7) On Shiite-Sunni conflict.</b>
The US presence is not preventing Shiite-Sunni conflict; it merely
delays it. Iran is preventing it today, and it will probably encourage
it once the Shiites dominate the new government, an outcome US policy
virtually ensures.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b>8) On training the Iraq military and police.</b>
The insurgents are fighting very effectively without US or European
military advisors to train them. Why don't the soldiers and police in
the present Iraqi regime's service do their duty as well? Because they
are uncertain about committing their lives to this regime. They are
being asked to take a political stand, just as the insurgents are.
Political consolidation, not military-technical consolidation, is the
issue. </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">The issue is <i>not</i>
military training; it is institutional loyalty. We trained the
Vietnamese military effectively. Its generals took power and proved to
be lousy politicians and poor fighters in the final showdown. In many
battles over a decade or more, South Vietnamese military units fought
very well, defeating VC and NVA units. But South Vietnam's political
leaders lost the war.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Even if we were able
to successfully train an Iraqi military and police force, the likely
result, after all that, would be another military dictatorship.
Experience around the world teaches us that military dictatorships
arise when the military's institutional modernization gets ahead of
political consolidation. </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b>9) On not supporting our troops by debating an early pullout. </b>Many
US officers in Iraq, especially at company and field grade levels, know
that while they are winning every tactical battle, they are losing
strategically. And according to the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/politics/24troops.html?ei=5090&en=aa94b10da860c8ad&ex=1279857600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
New York Times
</a>
last week, they are beginning to voice complaints about Americans at
home bearing none of the pains of the war. One can only guess about the
enlisted ranks, but those or a second tour ¨C probably the majority
today ¨C are probably anxious for an early pullout. It is also
noteworthy that US generals in Iraq are not bubbling over with
optimistic reports they way they were during the first few years of the
war in Vietnam. Their careful statements and caution probably reflect
serious doubts that they do not, and should not, express publicly. The
more important question is whether or not the repressive and vindictive
behavior by the secretary of defense and his deputy against the senior
military -- especially the Army leadership, which is the critical
component in the war -- has made it impossible for field commanders to
make the political leaders see the facts.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Most surprising to me
is that no American political leader today has tried to unmask the
absurdity of the administration's case that to question the strategic
wisdom of the war is unpatriotic and a failure to support our troops.
Most officers and probably most troops don't see it that way. They are
angry at the deficiencies in materiel support they get from the
Department of Defense, and especially about the irresponsibly long
deployments they must now endure because Mr. Rumsfeld and his staff
have refused to enlarge the ground forces to provide shorter tours. In
the meantime, they know that the defense budget shovels money out the
door to maritime forces, SDI, etc., while refusing to increase
dramatically the size of the Army.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">As I wrote several
years ago, "the Pentagon's post-Cold War force structure is so maritime
heavy and land force weak that it is firmly in charge of the porpoises
and whales while leaving the land to tyrants." The Army, some of the
Air Force, the National Guard, and the reserves are now the victims of
this gross mismatch between military missions and force structure.
Neither the Bush nor the Clinton
administration has properly "supported the troops." The media could ask
the president why he fails to support our troops by not firing his
secretary of defense.</p>
<p style="border-style: none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color windowtext; border-width: medium; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; padding: 0in;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">¡ö ¡ö ¡ö ¡ö ¡ö ¡ö ¡ö ¡ö ¡ö ¡ö ¡ö ¡ö ¡ö ¡ö ¡ö ¡ö ¡ö ¡ö ¡ö ¡ö ¡ö</p>
<p>So why is almost nobody advocating a pullout? I can only speculate.
We face a strange situation today where few if any voices among
Democrats in Congress will mention early withdrawal from Iraq,
and even the one or two who do will not make a comprehensive case for
withdrawal now.Why are the Democrats failing the public on this issue
today? The biggest reason is because they weren't willing to raise
that issue during the campaign. Howard Dean alone took a clear and
consistent stand on Iraq,
and the rest of the Democratic party trashed him for it. Most of those
in Congress voted for the war and let that vote shackle them later on.
Now they are scared to death that the White House will smear them with
lack of patriotism if they suggest pulling out. </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Journalists can ask
all the questions they like but none will prompt a more serious debate
as long as no political leaders create the context and force the issues
into the open. </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">I don't believe
anyone will be able to sustain a strong case in the short run without
going back to the fundamental misjudgment of invading Iraq in the first
place. Once the enormity of that error is grasped, the case for pulling
out becomes easy to see. </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Look at John Kerry's
utterly absurd position during the presidential campaign. He said
"It's the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time," but then
went on to explain how he expected to win it anyway. Even the voter
with no interest in foreign affairs was able to recognize it as an
absurdity. If it was the wrong war at the wrong place and time, then
it was never in our interest to fight. If that is true, what has
changed to make it in our interest? Nothing, absolutely nothing.</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">The US invasion of Iraq only serves the interest of:</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><strong>1) Osama bin Laden</strong>
(it made Iraq safe for al Qaeda, positioned US military personnel in
places where al Qaeda operatives can kill them occasionally, helps
radicalize youth throughout the Arab and Muslim world, alienates
America's most important and strongest allies ¨C the Europeans ¨C and
squanders US military resources that otherwise might be finishing off
al Qaeda in Pakistan.);</p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><strong>2) The Iranians </strong>(who were invaded by Saddam and who suffered massive casualties in an eight year war with Iraq.); </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><strong> 3) And the extremists in both Palestinian and Israeli political circles</strong>
(who don't really want a peace settlement without the utter destruction
of the other side, and probably believe that bogging the United States
down in a war in Iraq that will surely become a war between the United
States and most of the rest of Arab world gives them the time and cover
to wipe out the other side.) </p>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> </p>
The wisest course for
journalists might be to begin sustained investigations of why leading
Democrats have failed so miserably to challenge the US occupation of
Iraq. The first step, of course, is to establish as conventional wisdom
the fact that the war was never in the US interest and has not become
so. It is such an obvious case to make that I find it difficult to
believe many pundits and political leaders have not already made it
repeatedly.<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>We Are One World<br>Eve Lyman<br>Director<br>Boston Mobilization<br>30 Bow Street<br>Cambridge, MA, 02138<br>617.492.8899<br><a href="http://www.bostonmobilization.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
www.bostonmobilization.org
</a><br><br>PLEASE SIGN ONLINE PETITION ON BIOLABS<br><a href="http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/637198817" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/637198817
</a><br><br>"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." -- The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
<br>
<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>We Are One World<br>Eve Lyman<br>Director<br>Boston Mobilization<br>30 Bow Street<br>Cambridge, MA, 02138<br>617.492.8899<br><a href="http://www.bostonmobilization.org">www.bostonmobilization.org
</a><br><br>PLEASE SIGN ONLINE PETITION ON BIOLABS<br><a href="http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/637198817">http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/637198817</a><br><br>"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." -- The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
<br>