The President’s Road to Nowhere
by Srdja Trifkovic
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
Last Thursday President George W. Bush delivered a major speech on Iraq, after weeks of carefully orchestrated White House campaign that sought to shift the terms of debate about the war in his favor. Delivered in the stern tone of a sub-headmaster aware of the breakdown of discipline, Mr. Bush merely confirmed what we have known for years: that he has no strategy for ending the war, and no ability, or willingness, to devise one. He confuses transient tactical successes of the “surge” with strategy, and fails to grasp that military efficiency is merely the precondition for political creativity. Four and a half years after he plunged into his Iraqi adventure, Mr. Bush is still “staying the course”. . . to nowhere.
The President opened with the assertion that, in Iraq, “an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival.” He asserted that “terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world” are the same as Prime Minister al-Maliki’s domestic foes: their goal is to “dominate the region, and attack us here at home. If Iraq’s young democracy can turn back these enemies, it will mean a more hopeful Middle East and a more secure America. This ally has placed its trust in the United States. And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one.”
The claim that Iraq is America’s “ally” that “has placed its trust in the United States,” is ridiculous: A comprehensive BBC/ABC News poll released last week shows that in two key areas—security and the conditions for political dialogue, reconstruction and economic development—more than two thirds of Iraqis say the U.S. “surge” has made things worse. Since last February, the number of Iraqis who think that US-led coalition forces should leave immediately has risen sharply, from 35 to 47 percent. Furthermore, 85 percent of Iraqis “have little or no confidence” in US and allied forces. These results will make grim reading for a country that is supposed to be a “young democracy” allied to America. In addition, sixty-one per cent of Iraqis say they have little or no confidence in the national government, and exactly two-thirds disapprove of Nouri al-Maliki’s handling of the job of prime minister. As the BBC commentator has noted,
The Bush administration will no doubt be deploying many statistics and examples to argue that there have been security improvements in the last six months, as well as some glimmers of political progress, that mean the surge should be given more time. And administration supporters may argue that there is bound to be a lag between actual events on the ground and public perceptions of them. But in the war of nerves that continues in Iraq, perceptions and public opinion are critical elements. The surge was meant to provide a breathing space in which political progress could make headway. This survey suggests that the public atmosphere in which any political reconciliation must take place remains hugely challenging.
In other words, Iraq’s “allied” population heartily loathes the helper no less than the Czechs loathed their Soviet rescuers from the clutches of “counter-revolution” in August 1968. But the notion of an “alliance” with a predominantly Muslim country has been a Washingtonian pipe-dream for decades. At all times at has rested on wishful thinking, ideological schemes devoid of empirical basis, and plain ignorance of the Muslim mindset.
The President invoked the testimony of General David Petraeus to Congress to assert that “conditions in Iraq are improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy and that the troop surge is working.” It was noteworthy, however, that he had replaced the goal of “victory,” advanced in his previous speeches, with that of “success” in his latest address. He paid a tribute “to an Iraqi government that has decided to take on the extremists” and should now proceed to achieving reconciliation.
Only one day later, however, and with no pomp, the White House issued a new report which stated that the government of Iraq had made almost no progress in achieving stability and reconciliation across the country’s ethno-sectarian divide. The report suggested that in previous two months Prime Minister al-Maliki and his team had made headway on only two of the 18 stated “benchmarks” for political progress. The assessment further validated the findings of the National Intelligence Report announced last August and the Government Accountability Office report published on September 4. In addition, the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, headed by retired Marine Gen. James Jones, determined on September 6 that the Iraqi army “cannot yet meaningfully contribute to denying terrorists safe haven.” All four studies flatly contradicted Mr. Bush’s claim that political progress was being made to match military improvements.
The highlight of Mr. Bush’s speech was his announcement that 21,000 American soldiers would be withdrawn by next summer. He failed to mention that those troops would have to be withdrawn anyway—unless he were to extend deployments of units due for rotation, which would be politically disastrous. If effected, the announced withdrawal would merely bring the number of American soldiers in Iraq back to the pre-surge level of last January. But since the target of his speech was not so much his Democrat opposition as the Republicans weary of the war, the President’s domestic objective may have been attained. The promise of even partial pullout has bought him another six months with several wavering GOP Senators, and he needs to hold the support of only 34 of them to sustain a presidential veto of any unwanted mandates Until next spring at least, the Democrats won’t be able to muster enough Republican votes to break a Senate filibuster and pass legislation that would impose a withdrawal timetable.
Buying more time is meaningless in the absence of a strategy to end the war—and Mr. Bush has none. He is staying the course to nowhere. His last attempt at devising a coherent strategy, as presented last January, treated the military “surge” as a tactical device to buy time for the Iraqi government to achieve reconciliation and bridge sectarian divides. That expectation had always been the weak link in his plan. It postulated the favorable development of a “known unknown” that is, and has always been, outside American control. According to Mr. Bush’s own standards, which were established when the surge was announced, the strategy has failed: Iraq’s collapsed society has been unable to develop institutions and mechanisms capable of bridging ethno-sectarian divides.
A rare moment of technical accuracy in Mr. Bush’s address came when he said that “the vision for a reduced American presence . . . has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities” and that American engagement will extend beyond his presidency. The former has been true ever since the occupation began. The latter is inevitable since Mr. Bush is both unwilling and unable to contemplate a plan that would enable the United States to start disengaging before January 2009. On current form, as per Gen. Petraeus, we shall need five to ten years for Iraq to be stabilized enough that U.S. forces may withdraw.
Iraq is with us to stay, then, and even after Bush a hasty withdrawal would be neither prudent nor moral. American interests are threefold: to disengage without appearing utterly defeated, to leave behind the least undesirable status quo by separating warring factions into three self-governing units, and to counter as much as possible the advantage gained by America’s rivals and enemies. In particular, the creation of an anti-Shia, anti-Iranian, nationalist Sunni-Arab entity in central and western Iraq would be the best possible bulwark to Ahmadinejad’s intention to create a Tehran-dominated belt that would extend over Iraq and Syria to the Hizballah-controlled redoubt in southern Lebanon.
Mr. Bush has warned that if we were to be driven out of Iraq, “extremists of all strains would be emboldened” and the country would face a humanitarian nightmare. Of course the quagmire is of his own making—Iraq gave a boost to al-Qaeda’s propaganda, recruitment and fundraising and provided a targeting and training area for terrorists—but a hasty withdrawal would indeed turn the current disaster into catastrophe. His successor will inherit the moral obligation to the people of Iraq to make amends for his predecessor’s criminal folly by managing disengagement in the least harmful manner possible. In addition, an obvious humbling of America by the combined efforts of al-Qaeda, the Badr Brigades, Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army et al would do wonders for the jihadist cause world wide.
The President’s reiterated vision of “a free Iraq,” “critical to the security of the United States,” which will deny al-Qaida a safe haven, “counter the destructive ambitions of Iran,” “an anchor of stability in the region,” and “our partner in the fight against terror,” is unattainable. Devising a viable disengagement strategy demands discarding the illusion that Iraq can be a “democracy” as well as an American “ally.” Yes, said Austrian Emperor Franz II, on being told that a certain gentleman was a patriot, “but is he a patriot for me?” When praising democracy in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, Mr. Bush should ask himself if the project’s actual or potential beneficiaries are democrats for us.
Iraq can be ruled as it had been ruled before March 2003, and as the bulk of the Arab world is still ruled today: as an autocracy, with occasional sham elections perhaps, but with a firm hold of the security services on the political life always. Such an Iraq could indeed be a partner of sorts, like the Hashemites in Amman or Hosni Mubarak are American partners. A “free Iraq,” on the other hand—free from American military presence, and with the ruling political elite representative of the will of the majority of its citizens—will either disintegrate into three monolithic ethno-religious entities, or else it will become a Shi’ite-dominated theocracy closely allied with its neighbor across the Shat-al-Arab, with Sharia as the law of the land.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 19 September 2007:
Whether the issue is the fool’s errand in Iraq or illegal immigration amnesty(aka demographic revolution), President Bush’s major policies threaten to decimate the Republican Party in 2008. He’s either irresponsibly stubborn, obtuse to reality or just doesn’t care. Maybe he’s a mesh of all three. Or is he mad?
For the short term, look for a Republican debacle in 2008. Hillary Rodham Clinton will take the keys of the White House and Democratic support in the Senate will increase to about 54-57 seats. What to do in Iraq will be Mrs. Clinton’s problem. some form of universal national health care will probably pass. And, after a little bloodletting, the Republicans will have a chance at a little fresh air after eight years of mostly frustration under President Bush.
2 Comment by Michael Kenny on 19 September 2007:
A thought on Mr Leaberry’s comment. I suspect that the Bush clan wants to put a Democrat in the White House in 2008, saddle him/her with an insoluble mess and then run Jeb in 2012 (he’ll only be 59!). That would certainly explain why Dubya is running the Republican Party into the ground. Also, if that’s true, watch for air strikes against Iran in the dying days of this presidency, in the same way as Daddybird saddled Clinton with the invasion of Somalia.
3 Comment by Bob on 19 September 2007:
Mr. Trifkovic,
I have a serious question that I’m asking not from a desire to argue, but because I (thickheaded I admit) still don’t know what to think about the threat from Islam.
It is my understanding that OBL and other jihadists have said that they want control of the nations run by so-called secular or the less devout — Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia.
Is there not a threat that once in power (and is there reason to doubt that they will eventually control these nations?) they will immediately turn and use nuclear weapons (isn’t inevitable that they will attain these?) on Israel, Europe, and possibly us, when they have the chance? MAD played a part in the Cold War. Does it still with regard to these people?
I am so against this war in Iraq and the way the war on terror is being handled. But, alas, the world is small, and I fear that these sociopaths will indeed use horrible weapons on us — whether or not our foreign policies are wrong.
Any thoughts or articles you’ve written that I’ve missed or forgotten?
4 Comment by Bob on 19 September 2007:
I also meant to say that it is my impression from the your writings and Robert Spencer and others that the ultimate goal of these fanatics is world domination. If this is true, how do we combat that before it reaches our shores (though certainly in ways it already has)?
5 Comment by Nicholas G.P. MOSES on 19 September 2007:
“A thought on Mr Leaberry’s comment. I suspect that the Bush clan wants to put a Democrat in the White House in 2008, saddle him/her with an insoluble mess and then run Jeb in 2012 (he’ll only be 59!). That would certainly explain why Dubya is running the Republican Party into the ground.”
I have often thought so myself: a Democrat in the White House would not, contra the naïve wishful thinking of certain paleocons, spark any sort of soul-searching within the G.O.P., but shift the blame for our mishaps to the ideologically indistinguishable Democratic Party, thereby redeeming the credibility of their neoconservative critics in the eyes of the cynical but ever-increasingly stupid American public.
If you’ll pardon the crudity of the analogy, my country is going straight into the sewer. Our rulers are fighting over the toilet handle, and the few voices of sanity are drowned out by the flushing noise.
6 Comment by Nicholas G.P. MOSES on 19 September 2007:
Although, I suspect that the immigration nightmare and impending economic peril will catch up to both parties long before anyone will be held accountable for Iraq. There’s just no telling where this will end up. It is almost certain that the damage has not bottomed out.
7 Comment by Samuel Donaldson on 19 September 2007:
“Iraq is with us to stay, then, and even after Bush a hasty withdrawal would be neither prudent nor moral. American interests are threefold: to disengage without appearing utterly defeated, to leave behind the least undesirable status quo by separating warring factions into three self-governing units, and to counter as much as possible the advantage gained by America’s rivals and enemies. *In particular, the creation of an anti-Shia, anti-Iranian, nationalist Sunni-Arab entity in central and western Iraq would be the best possible bulwark to Ahmadinejad’s intention to create a Tehran-dominated belt that would extend over Iraq and Syria to the Hizballah-controlled redoubt in southern Lebanon.* -Dr. Trifkovic
It is full circle coming back to how and what Iraq was under the Sunni autocrat Saddam Hussein…before Bush II’s blunder into Iraq at the behest of AIPAC the Israeli lobby in the U.S. and their neocon operatives at all levels herein. IN the present lock-down of information in the United States when will a through discussion of why “Bush I” (Bush II’s father) after giving Saddam his reward of Kuwait, in payment for fighting Shia Iran to a standstill in the Middle East be put on the table for review in terms of “Bush I’s” doing a hairpin turn and launching the first Gulf War against Saddam & Iraq known as Desert Storm. That started this whole mess, and also was at the behest, and under the tremendous pressure exerted back then on ‘Bush I’ by the Israeli-American lobby AIPAC. And yet very little is ever written or said on or in the public media about these puppet masters the almighty AIPAC lobby of non-American Israelis and their U.S. counterparts pulling the strings of American politicians as if America existed to be the full-servant the man-servant of the nation-state of Israel. It seems to me they are in fact America’s full blown enemy? No? We ought to deal with them as such.
8 Comment by Johan Dieckmann on 19 September 2007:
(Re. comment #7)
“… It is full circle coming back to how and what Iraq was under the Sunni autocrat Saddam Hussein…before Bush II’s blunder into Iraq at the behest of AIPAC the Israeli lobby in the U.S. and their neocon operatives at all levels herein. IN the present lock-down of information in the United States when will a through discussion of why “Bush I” (Bush II’s father) after giving Saddam his reward of Kuwait, in payment for fighting Shia Iran to a standstill in the Middle East be put on the table for review in terms of “Bush I’s” doing a hairpin turn and launching the first Gulf War against Saddam & Iraq known as Desert Storm. That started this whole mess, and also was at the behest, and under the tremendous pressure exerted back then on ‘Bush I’ by the Israeli-American lobby AIPAC. And yet very little is ever written or said on or in the public media about these puppet masters the almighty AIPAC lobby of non-American Israelis and their U.S. counterparts pulling the strings of American politicians as if America existed to be the full-servant the man-servant of the nation-state of Israel. It seems to me they are in fact America’s full blown enemy? No? We ought to deal with them as such. …”
You said it. I would gladly sign my name to this.
Indeed, America does not exist to be a man-servant of an alien country and their Fifth Column here.
The original statement
“… Iraq is with us to stay, then, and even after Bush a hasty withdrawal would be neither prudent nor moral …”
is, of course, an utter nonsense.
9 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 20 September 2007:
Mr. Leaberry (1). The decimation of the Republican party will not be a disaster, it is a vitally necessary first step to recovery. We must stop thinking that our fate depends on the Republican party, which is the surest possible route to destruction.
10 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 20 September 2007:
Although I have no love for the Republican Party as an institution, presumably George W. Bush does. Certainly his sidekick Karl Rove is devoted to the Republican Party. Are both men so detached from reality that they don’t realize how much havoc they have caused their own party? I question the wisdom of Bush and Rove not only for their many failed public policies(so many that I won’t waste time detailing them) but for their failed mission to make the Republicans the dominant party of the early 21st Century. Instead, it seems more likely that the Democrats will dominate politics over the next twenty years.
11 Comment by Trifkovic on 20 September 2007:
TO BOB: Containing Islam is achievable, of course. What we need is the will, political will, to enforce:
1. Political & military disengagement from the Muslim world;
1a Development of alternative energy resources;
2. Quarantining the Muslim world (strict cordon sanitaire);
3. Immediate and total ban on immigration from the Muslim world;
4. Repatriation of all immigrants who support Jihad & Sharia;
5. Swift and devastating military response to any attempt of the Muslim world to expand its domain.
Whenever left to its own devices, Islam declined. Whenever devoid of external outlets for aggression, it focused its energies on internicine fights.
MAD is of dubious value vis-a-vis millenarian visionaries a la Ahmadinejad, but the problem is most acute for Israel which should deal with it as she deems fit.
12 Comment by Bob on 20 September 2007:
Dr. Trifkovic,
Yes, those are the points you make in your book (Defeating Jihad) and in your writings. You say, “Whenever left to its own devices, Islam declined.” I have always taken your writings seriously. But I don’t know why I am having my doubts more than ever lately. I think part of the reason may be that of your list of imperatives, and in light of a world that is too often ruled by sociopaths and numbskulls on all sides, at best probably only part of the things you list would ever get implemented, and that would leave huge gaps which could after all be the death of the West and America.
Thanks.
13 Comment by Bob on 20 September 2007:
I speak as a illiterate, so forgive my remarks. As for swift military action when Islam attempts to expand its domain, lately I have been wondering if any heresy that oppresses and enslaves people as a matter of doctrine has claim to any land whatsoever, its history notwithstanding.
I don’t know. I will continue to read and pray and fight my doubts. Fear and doubt are terrible things.
14 Comment by Trifkovic on 20 September 2007:
Indeed, it’s like a doctor telling a freefalling junkie that unless he kicks the habit (in our case, nihilistic seculairsm) he will die.
15 Comment by G.S. on 20 September 2007:
“Indeed, it’s like a doctor telling a freefalling junkie…”
Of course it’s actually much worse than that — imagine that the voices of the one or two decent doctors are drowned out by about ten thousand quack doctors, all assuring the junkie that continued heroin use will help him curb hunger pangs and hence preserve his slender, trim figure.
16 Comment by Aldebanlohoperaldi Huffghaffson on 20 September 2007:
Israeli Control of the Mass Media & the 9-11 Cover-Up
By: ChristopherBollyn
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=108923
The government and controlled media have lied to the public about 9-11 for 6 years.
Those who have discerned and exposed the lies about the “false flag” terror attacks
and the fraudulent “War on Terror” have been treated like madmen and criminals.
It’s time for this criminal nightmare to end.
17 Comment by Sean Scallon on 21 September 2007:
Dr. Trifkovic should know well the dangers and difficulties of “partition.” Unless one has total control of the political and military situation, which the U.S. does not have, a smooth partition of Iraq is virtually impossible anymore than blood-free partition of Yugoslavia was possible.
Any orderly withdrawl (and that’s only withdrawl we’re are going to make) from Iraq will take at least two years to accomplish. The only way to extracate strategically from the mess we’ve created in Iraq is a rapprochment with Iran. Just as Nixon’s to China gambit diluted and negated the damage from Vietnam, such such diplomacy will do the same in the case of Iraq. We must acknowldge the reality of the situation, that Iraq is over 60 percent Shiia and because of this and because Iran is next door, it will have a say on how Iraq is governed (although Arab nationalism may limit such a say). By arming the Sunni tribesmen of central and western Iraq, hopefully that will keep Mahdi army at bay and basically a loosely federated Iraq can exists, perhaps as a fiction but useful fiction nonetheless.
A diplomatic breakthrough with Iran basically quiets Mesopotamia and stablizies world oil markets, stablilize Lebanon and Israel by quieting Hezbollah and gives a visbile split in the Islamic world which would doom any chance of a restablished Caliphate. Plus, Shiite Islamism has never been expansionist type, at least outside of Shiite areas. Because they are a small minority of the Islamic world (10% I do believe) they are no threat to anyone and indeed, provide a counterbalance in the Middle East and Central Asia to Sunni extremism. The U.S received Iranian help to defeat the Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan and the Shiite clique in Syria helped the U.S. provided intelligence to the U.S. to hunt down terrorists. It seems to me, the biggest success the U.S>. has had in the so-called War on Terror, has been when they’ve worked with the Shiites against a common foe.
18 Comment by Yankee Doodle on 22 September 2007:
Bob,
You bring up some good points, as does Dr. Trifkovic in response to your questions.
“As for swift military action when Islam attempts to expand its domain, lately I have been wondering if any heresy that oppresses and enslaves people as a matter of doctrine has claim to any land whatsoever, its history notwithstanding.”
The “heresy” may not, but the “heretics” do.
There are Muslims in the world with whom the West can be friends, friends as we in the West understand the term.
We must act and be ready to act against those Muslims who not only threaten us kuffar (infidels), but who threaten takfir (Muslims who are considered not faithful enough) as well; we do have a common enemy.
Based on your use of the word heresy, it seems you feel Islam is evil and, presumably (?), Christianity is good. Assuming that, I would like to point out that just as there are “Christians” who do evil in the name of Christianity, so are there Muslims with whom we should have no practical problem.
My concern is that when they commit crimes, Christians are going against both the actions and the teachings of their “Prophet”, whereas Muslims committing certain crimes are doing as their prophet did and as their prophet taught; thus the deck is stacked against those “heretics” who really believe that Islam is a religion of peace, and who act upon that belief.
Still, it is a fundamental tenet from the foundation of our nation that people have the right to seek their Creator in their own way; thus, we owe it to Muslims to allow them to be “heretics” without declaring war on them for their beliefs, per se.
What is left is this: the infidel world needs to monitor what Muslims say and how Muslims prepare, as we would with any other group of people, regardless of how benign that group may appear. If it appears they are preparing for war, we need to take prudent precautions. Prudent precautions may include pre-emptive strikes, a principle addressed in our Constitution. If attacked, we certainly need to be able to respond adequately, appropriately, and decisively.
Consequently, I find myself in general agreement with Dr. Trifkovic, with the following comments regarding his points:
1. We do need to protect our interests.
1a. Most emphatically we need new energy resources, for many reasons!
2. We may deal with certain elements of the Islamic world — indeed, we may need to — but we should do so with utmost caution.
3. Those immigrants who are legitimately oppressed in the Islamic world should be able to find refuge in the West, just as political refugees from communist countries did during the Cold War; Christian and other minorities come to mind here, as do women, quite frankly.
4. Agreed.
5. Agreed.
19 Comment by Iliya Pavlovich on 24 September 2007:
Sad but true. The events of the 10th and 11th Century only re-enforced Christianity’s failure to properly define Islam. The Crusaders helped bring unrest and later (indirectly) Reformation. During the Crusades the (seemingly) subjugated Islam managed to create an image of self-righteousness and elevate the cult of “victimhood” (martyrdom). Islam’s success was an integral part of Christianity’s failures. How else could we buy into the idea that Islam is a bona-fide religion? The ritual; the temple; the monotheism, are only some of the elements but not all of the elements that constitute a true faith (religion). Question of creed got superimposed into the mix and now in the 21st Century we have a powerful non-religion religion which seems menacing enough to most of the world. All that aside, since there is a fairly good curative approach outlined by Dr. T.:
“TO BOB: Containing Islam is achievable, of course. What we need is the will, political will, to enforce:
1. Political & military disengagement from the Muslim world;
1a Development of alternative energy resources;
2. Quarantining the Muslim world (strict cordon sanitaire);
3. Immediate and total ban on immigration from the Muslim world;
4. Repatriation of all immigrants who support Jihad & Sharia;
5. Swift and devastating military response to any attempt of the Muslim world to expand its domain.
Whenever left to its own devices, Islam declined. Whenever devoid of external outlets for aggression, it focused its energies on internicine fights.
MAD is of dubious value vis-a-vis millenarian visionaries a la Ahmadinejad, but the problem is most acute for Israel which should deal with it as she deems fit.”
There is a new problem with the cure also:
What if:
a) there are darker forces (black ops, military/industrial complex common interests), conspiracy-like sources which could exploit all of this?
b) The ultimate goal is not containing Islam but empowering Islam to act (unknowingly) against the vast Russian lands (not as far fetched as it seems – unite Bangladesh and Pakistan, develop links with Mongolia, Uzbekistan and you have a strong “Southern Front”. Moscow would be in a bind how to re-enact the 22nd Century battle of Kursk (closer to Armageddon).
c) For the most part (thank God for that) I was fortunate to have traveled very much (including Albania, sub-Saharan Africa, most of South America, most of Southern African countries as well. We are not half the world power that we think we are. Not too long ago a cup of espresso coffee at Zurich International airport set me back by $12.00 – ONE CUP. Friends in Johannesburg (I knew them in NYC) are showing me that Jo-burg is today a lot cleaner than NYC. Friends in Paris are cracking jokes about W. and Prince Charles in the same breath. Are we really the superpower everybody says we are? I kinda doubt it.
d) I will not (in all probability) accept any official views of the US Government until the day they disclose who exactly killed JFK.
e) In anticipation of a furious backlash I’ll remain a quiet distant skeptic. (even a backlash has to serve some purpose).
20 Trackback by Anonymous on 11 December 2007:
sex-pamela-anderson…
Shemalecocktial bare Jackie Ashe. Or driver, Kat Vixen since including simply, earliest parking. …