How to deal with Iran

By Rick Morris

Rumors have run rampant for years now that the Bush administration plans an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities before it leaves office in January 2009. Certainly, the move by the mullahs to acquire nuclear weapons is a frightening one that should be focusing our energies on how best to protect our interests in the Persian Gulf.

But military intervention is not the only avenue open to us in the area. My longtime friend Scott Pullins has announced that his Pullins Report is part of a wide coalition dedicated to pursuing other means of addressing our very real issues with the regime in Tehran.

Ironically, while I'm a bit unsure as to the utility of free and unfettered talks with Iran right now, I support Scott's general efforts 100%. As with his stance on the treatment of detainees, I may differ with him here and there, but I think his general focus is exactly right.

He and I have traveled down parallel political paths, which helps me to understand and to support his present direction a bit better. We were both of college age at the end of the Cold War and we were both very hawkish given the realities of the day. Essentially, while shooting in that war was rare and generally confined to proxies (i.e. Vietnam, Afghanistan), it really WAS a war and we needed to be on a war footing when dealing with a grim enemy which hungered for nothing less than world domination. Ronald Reagan's method of confronting the Soviets directly, which was totally unprecedented, was appropriate and it worked -- and Scott and I supported him.

But we are now in a different time. The conservative movement long ago fractured into the (completely dominant) neoconservative wing and my paleocon wing. The neocons never moved from the "war footing" mentality and seemed well before 9/11 to be searching for any excuse to project American military might upon the world. For all the talk about how Eeee-Vil Republicans tried to destroy the Clintons with the impeachment saga, the neocons stood behind Bubba steadfastly as he wagged the dog with a completely unnecessary war in the Balkans in 1999.

George W. Bush, about whom I can honestly say I was skeptical from the very beginning given my aversion to Republican Establishment figures, came to office promising a humble, respectful foreign policy. But, as the cliche goes, "9/11 changed everything."

The foreign policy "realists" that Scott and I scorned in our youth were wrong then -- I will always believe that. But, given today's circumstances, they are right in this climate.

I have said on The FDH Lounge program that George W. Bush and Bill Clinton each accomplished the same dubious action -- by opposite means. Clinton destroyed American deterrence in the '90s by turning a blind eye to each successive attack by bin Laden and establishing us as a paper tiger. Bush destroyed American deterrence by getting us bogged down in Iraq from the end of the first phase of the war in April '03 until he FINALLY delivered the surge in 2007 -- thus reestablishing us as a paper tiger after restoring our global prestige by winning swiftly in Afghanistan in late 2001. Imperial overreach and pacifism both lead to disaster and to America's enemies licking their chops.

The neocons are right in the very narrow sense about staying on the offensive against Al Qaeda worldwide and this is a job that our special forces should continue to be pursuing in every nook and cranny of the globe regardless of who gets elected president in November (although I'm admittedly scared that Barack Obama will not agree with this basic common-sense point). But starting full-on conflagrations against other governments without fully thinking through the consequences -- haven't we been here before? Every Deskbound Rambo who proclaimed in 2002-2003 that Iraq would be a cakewalk should be permanently prohibited from being taken seriously.

George W. Bush and Karl Rove, who openly dreamed of creating another longstanding Republican dynasty in the mold of William McKinley, have seen their dreams die in the sands of the Middle East much in the same way that Jimmah Carter's aspirations did. To the extent that their militaristic brand of neoconservatism is left to define the Republican party and the broader American Right, then the party and the movement will never recover. That's why, in addition to personal friendship, I support Scott's efforts as strongly as I do. The school of thought about what's best for this country, as well as the country itself, is too important to be left to the rotting corpse known as GOP leadership. Whether you support every individual thread of anti-neocon policy, it's time to get with the program and work for the clear best interests of this country. If opposition to rampant militarism is ceded to the peaceniks and pinkos, we all lose.

Ron Paul withdrawal story FAQ

By Rick Morris

Yesterday, I reported on our blog a straight news story about the Ron Paul campaign for president shutting down under the pressure of his congressional reelection campaign back home. As I fully anticipated, this has touched off a storm of reactions both in the wider Internet world and also to some extent here in our comment section. In order to correct the false statements about our blog that are being made, I decided that the most comprehensive and (equally important) least dreary way to correct the record would be in the form of an FAQ with the questions being posed (accusingly) by A Typical Ron Paul Supporter. Now, before anyone complains that I am lumping all Paul supporters together, that is untrue. I know that there are many sane and measured ones, but they are hugely atypical. Scan the Web and you'll see I'm right.

Frankly, the conclusions being drawn about me and my associates are clearly the work either of those with no capacity for reading comprehension (possibly) or are coming from extremely lazy folks who don't feel the need to educate themselves at all before they bellow incoherently out their cakeholes (more likely). In either event, the copious links in my answers should aid greatly in educating folks, at least those (likely few) capable of absorbing such a schooling.

Without any further ado, the questions and answers:

Q: We Ron Paul supporters know that you're just another ranting neocon ...

A: Hold up there, Chachi, you can't get me on that. I've said many times here that I'm a proud paleocon ...

Q: Did not!

A: Excuse me, yes I have. I did it this time, too.

Q: Did not!!!!!

A: Ooohkay. I heard this was how you Ron Paul people argued. Anyway, I'll get back to the point about my political philosophy and how that's relevant. Let's start with how this story came to be.

Q: Yes, let's do just that, you Tool of the GOP Beltway Power Elite!

A: Tool of the Beltway Power Elite (chuckles). Wow, didn't think I'd live long enough to hear myself called that. I'm certainly a shamefully ineffective one, then, having called Junior Bush less popular than gonorrhea right here just a few days ago. I'm a lot closer to getting myself audited by the IRS than I am to getting invited over to the White House to watch Texas Rangers games with Dubya. But don't let the facts get in the way of your name-calling. OK, back to the account. I was called out of the blue yesterday by the source I referenced in the story, someone with access to Paul's congressional campaign. This is someone I previously knew to be involved in the story in the Texas 14th and someone I've dealt with previously in a number of ways -- and I'm not going to be any more specific than that. I don't burn sources. Now, from what I read from Justin Higgins at Right on the Right, he very likely had the same source I did as I was also quoted the specific numbers from the internal poll, 43-32 Peden. I chose not to make mention of that as I wasn't sure at the time that exposing the specifics of the poll numbers wouldn't burn my source. As I piece together the timeline, it speaks well of Justin's character that he gave credit to us for being first on the story because he probably got his info not long after me and very easily could have pulled a "yoink" on us, but he chose not to. Well played, Justin, I appreciate that.

Q: Blah blah blah, you and your boring facts. Do you have a point?

A: Yes, actually, I do. I, a previously established paleocon, ran a straight news story here without any agenda whatsoever. I received the information, then, lacking any other sources involved in that race, I relied on the research I could do in the public domain to see if I believed it. I am, I must say, one heck of a researcher, and I found pieces of information to corroborate at least this general trend. As this blog entry indicates, Paul had already indicated that he was scaling back his presidential campaign -- and that was before his people got the shocking results of the internal poll! So given what he had been saying recently, combined with this new information, yes, I was convinced.

Q: Still convinced?

A: Glad you asked so I could state it loudly and clearly: yes, I am convinced we will see Ron Paul withdraw from the presidential race before March 4. I am fully and personally accountable for that and if I am proven wrong (which I will not be), then the fault is mine and mine alone and I will not make unsubstantiated assertions such as, "Well he was going to drop out but reconsidered." Nope. I've got my story and I'm sticking to it.

Q: Even despite these denials in the comment section of your story thread?

A: Oh, touche, one person flatly says it's not true with no evidence, one person quotes a pro forma campaign denial and some Johnny Anonymous wants us to believe he talked to a key decision-maker in the organization. Well, I'll say this for them, they're as credible as any other Ron Paul supporters I've ever seen!

Q: Somehow I don't think that's a compliment.

A: You got that right. Anyhoo, let's move on to the falsehoods about this site. After I posted the news story, my colleague Tony Mazur posted a column about his ill feelings about the Paul campaign. Now, this site is mostly analysis; we don't break much original news like the Paul story here just because we're not inclined to put the resources into it. We prefer to focus on what we do well, which is to break down anything relevant going on regardless of subject. So Tony was merely doing what we do here, giving his two cents worth on the Ron Paul "Revolution." Somehow, that gets made by many to be justification for trashing the validity of our story. Some comprehension-challenged Einstein even posted in the thread for my story that MY hatred was causing me to spread propaganda. TONY said that he hated the Ron Paul supporters. Learn to read, doofus.

Q: Speaking of which, I'm sure you're censoring the comment section here.

A: Actually, no, I haven't had to disallow any comments yet. In the words of the great Brodie Bruce, "the usual vault rules apply." Keep the language at least PG-13 and stay away from any extremely over-the-top personal attacks and we'll publish it. I make no apologies for controlling which comments get posted here because we were hit with a spam attack previously, but we'll publish even ones we disagree with as long as they meet the very basic, very generous above criteria.

Q: Well, what are your feelings about Ron Paul? You say you are a paleocon.

A: Yes, I am a paleocon as I have said. Now, I was never a Ron Paul supporter because I believed strongly in the candidacy of Fred Thompson. Plus, while I'm with Paul on many of his domestic policies, I'm against him on foreign affairs. While I'm certainly not a neocon, and I ripped them a third cornhole here, my sense of "conservative realpolitik" does not extend to the point of what I believe to be Paul's isolationism and liberal pacifism. It's one thing to say as I did that if I could magically unilaterally turn back the hands of time and prevent mistakes that I would have kept us from going into Iraq, it's quite another thing to be in favor of capriciously quick withdrawal of our troops regardless of facts on the ground and to be such a hippie that you would have been against the Civil War. I'm not with him on nearly enough to be a supporter of his, but I do have a soft spot for politicians to the right of the Republican Establishment (as he is domestically) who are willing to play the irritant role. I said so right here.

Q: Liar! You, sir, are a lying liar who lies! I have read attacks on Ron Paul right here on your very blog!

A: Yes. You most certainly have. Our Senior Editor Jason Jones denounced him pretty harshly right here (plus, when he was discussing his most hated political figures with me today, he referred to him as "Mitt Romney's red-headed bastard brother"). And we already covered the fact that Tony disemboweled him with his keyboard right here. Frankly, out of all of The Dignitaries of The FDH Lounge, only Nate Noy has been known to agree with me on any of the areas of domestic policy where I think Paul is right, so I'm in the minority around here. But guess who has posted more political columns here than anyone else? That's right, it was me! So you can't accurately call something a Paul-hating blog when the most prolific political columnist on that blog doesn't even remotely hate Paul. Nice try.

Q: But (long pause) ... you're saying your blog had nice things to say about Paul and also mean things? Hulk confused!

A: Yes, we have had both good and bad things to say about Ron Paul. I hope this doesn't cause your uncomprehending head to explode. I have had some (moderately) good and (moderately) bad things to say about the congressman and Jason and Tony have unloaded on him with both barrels. Here's a hint, though. CHECK THE F'ING BYLINE!!! We all speak for ourselves around here! Aren't you Ron Paul "Revolutionaries" supposed to believe in autonomy and being accountable for your own opinions and lives? Well, we practice that around here. The straight news story I wrote had nothing to do with any opinion piece penned by any columnist around here before or since. The same is true in reverse, of course, and nobody else around here should get the sack dance performed on them except me if I am proven wrong (which again, I won't be).

Q: How can you be even somewhat sympathetic to Ron Paul and harsh on his supporters like you do?

A: Because you are like a freaking cult. Y'know, I'm a Constitutionalist, too. I holler about the Tenth Amendment myself all the time. I get all worked up about the original intent of the Founding Fathers. So I'm with Ron Paul there and I appreciate that he's the rare libertarian who doesn't think it's cool to use forceps to squash the skull of an unborn baby. But for me or anyone else who disagrees with RP on even some issues, why we're Enemies of the Republic! You people are by and large fanatics who would make even Tom Cruise say, "Whoa, back away from the Kool-Aid, fellas!" At this rather cynical point of my evolution as a political observer, there aren't many politicians I can get behind at all. But the ones I support -- I'd never, ever reflect on them as poorly as you folks reflect on Ron Paul. It's like I stated to Jason in our aforementioned conversation: "I don't think Ron Paul is a kook, but his followers sure are."

Q: Hey ... why am I getting this warm, pleasant feeling in my head? I've never had that before.

A: It's called knowledge. I'm glad I could impart some on ya.

Is waterboarding torture?

By Rick Morris

Listeners to The FDH Lounge program are aware that fellow Lounge Dignitaries Burrell Jackson and Chris Galloway are good friends of mine dating back to our days navigating the political sphere at Ohio University. The same can be said of Scott Pullins, Ohio's foremost lawyer/political advocate/lobbyist/etc.

Scott penned a short introduction to a piece on his site last month denouncing our government's practice of waterboarding on terrorist suspects. Frankly, this is a strange topic for me in that I don't have a fierce and unshakable take one way or another, as I almost always do on any subject. I know that our government has considered it torture in the past and that it is not wise or moral for our government to indulge in torture. Without wanting to resort to something as cliche as the "Jack Bauer exception," I would probably be in favor of desperate measures under the most extreme circumstances (i.e. a nuke about to be detonated), but I would not want it to be standard operating practice.

But just the fact that I am at least somewhat sympathetic to Scott's arguments would put me afoul of the absolutists he references in his post. Now, I know from many, many conversations that I am way more of a paleocon than any of my fellow members of "The OU Mafia," so I won't associate Scott or anyone else with what I'm about to argue.

What Scott references, the people who can't form a single cogent thought beyond "Support the president" or any other cliche -- they are the neocons who have taken over the conservative movement and the Republican party. Revisionism aside, unrestrained militarism was never a cornerstone of the conservative movement. How many hot wars did Ronald Reagan engage in on his way to bringing down the Soviet Union? He showed that he was prepared to commit the military where necessary (Grenada, the Libyan president's mansion), but used proxies in other instances (Central America, Afghanistan). In short, he used the full range of options for every situation, unlike today's hairy-chested tough-talkers like Bill Kristol -- whose response to the Israeli-Hezbollah War of '06 was to call for the United States to invade Iran!

Somewhere along the way, those of us on the right side of the spectrum have allowed the neocons, who have historically not placed a tremendous amount of importance on traditional conservative issues like the right to life, to hijack this ideology and to paint anyone with legitimate questions about any aspect of American military or foreign policy as un-American. I will note in the very same breath that many on the left deserve the vitriol of the neocons and are actually interested in undermining our nation's standing in the world. But for the main conservative organs in this country, such as National Review, to act as though neoconservatism is the only legitimate strain of thinking is a slap in the face to those of us who read it and cherished it for the decades prior to its decline into intellectual sloth. To disagree, from another vantage point on the right, from the doctrine of Jonah Goldberg or Hugh Hewitt is not to be lacking in patriotism, it is to live up to the definition of the word. And whether Scott Pullins and I agree on every last point on political or military policy, that is definitely a point of agreement for us both.

Morris Report on Iraq ratified!

By Rick Morris

... on a program where I am the co-host and co-executive producer. Stop the presses!

On The FDH Lounge this past Sunday night, we unanimously approved the content of the war FAQ document posted here last week. Too bad Mr. Neocon Chris Galloway was not on the panel that night to cast a dissenting vote!

The Iraq War: An FAQ

By Rick Morris

The Iraq War is the single most divisive issue of our time, with most elements of it still remaining confusing to the American public nearly 4 ½ years into this conflict. As previously stated, my position on domestic and international issues is that of the paleoconservative, as opposed to that of the somewhat militaristic neoconservative wing which dominates the Republican Party and the pacifist philosophy of the Democrats. I believe strongly that the paleo position is the one most in touch with the approach of the American people on this most difficult of matters. As such, I’m going to apply my paleo philosophy to the dominant questions of this war and create a “Morris Report” of sorts. On The FDH Lounge program this Sunday night, we will hold a straight up-or-down vote on the contents of my answers to ascertain what my fellow Lounge Dignitaries think. I believe that they will agree with me that it is a fairly accurate unified position of what the American people feel deep down about this war.

Was the initial invasion a mistake?

This is the question that sets the tone for how almost every person reacts to everything that has happened since – which is certainly not wise. It is also a question which most people consider to be a fairly easy one in one direction or the other – which again, is certainly not the case.

On the positive side of the ledger, we must admit that by 2003, Saddam Hussein was wiggling its way out of the post-Gulf War “box” that we had fashioned for him. Aided by the usual leftist demonstrators in this country whining about the effects of U.N. sanctions on the Iraqi people, Saddam was constructing a strong case of “punishment fatigue” in the world community. As we have subsequently learned, Saddam made a mockery of the Oil-For-Food Program by getting governmental and non-governmental stooges from England, France, Russia and a number of other countries to help him evade the world body’s limits on his weapons programs. If left in place in 2003, Saddam Hussein would surely not be nearly as boxed in by the U.S. and the U.N. as he was in the initial years after the first war.

Additionally, we must disregard the spurious surface logic of anti-war demonstrators that Saddam, as the perpetuator of a secular regime, could not possibly be in cahoots with terrorists who were religious fanatics. The Middle East as a whole is rife with countless examples of the old phrase “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” – and among anti-American actors in that corner of the world, the United States and Israel are always the instruments of the devil no matter what. So every time you hear a leftist raise the differences between Saddam and terrorist groups as evidence they would never work together, you are listening to the perfect embodiment of smug faux intellectualism. Hussein’s Iraq did have links to numerous terrorist groups and even had training facilities in Baghdad – although this admittedly was all-too-common in the Arab world and there was in all likelihood no connection between Saddam and 9/11. While it seems like more jihadists are materializing there every day, we are killing a boatload of them in Iraq and our successes in Anbar province at the expense of Al Qaeda have reversed most of the propaganda gains they chalked up during the war.

The other obvious positive involves the fact that many stretches of the country, especially those in the Kurdish north, are better off than they were before our invasion and most people in the affected areas are greatly appreciative of our help. And it should not be minimized that, although chaos has ensued since the war began, we saved Iraq from genocide by Saddam Hussein. This actually starts the segue to the other side of the ledger, however, since mass killings take place in other regimes around the globe and our country has never thought of itself as a global policeman.

The negative side needs far less explanation, because these points have been drummed into our heads for most of the duration of the war. Let’s start with Iran, which unquestionably has a nuclear weapons program underway and has always been a graver strategic threat to us than Iraq. Iran is much stronger without the Iraqi counterbalance in the Gulf region, and has been emboldened by sectarian rivalries in Iraq and the fact that we have gotten bogged down there and are automatically less of a threat to confront them militarily. The strengthening of the mad mullahs of Iran outweighs our total gains in and of itself. And all of our enemies in the Arab world have reveled in the propaganda gains we have handed them during the course of the war, with the Abu Ghraib scandal topping the list. These enemies have also had forces coming in and out of Iraq all throughout the war as that country has served as the training ground for urban warfare that Afghanistan used to be.

But from there, we have a death toll of what will likely exceed 5,000 of our best and bravest and an injury assessment several times in excess of that. As brutal as this statement may be, death and destruction are inevitable in war, and we lost far more men than this at the Battle of the Bulge alone. But with the Axis powers posing a global threat, we knew that this blood had at least been shed for a vital and necessary purpose. Unforgivably, we cannot with certainty say the same of our fallen heroes in Iraq. To add insult to their deaths and injuries, many units were not properly equipped with body armor and other defense against the merciless enemies we have faced – and they were saddled with a failed status quo policy for almost four years until the 2007 troop surge turned the tide somewhat. The years of wasted motion while we lingered without a credible counterinsurgency strategy represent one of the greatest blunders in American history. We have an exhausted military, with much degraded and destroyed weaponry needing to be replaced at great cost. And we have soured the American people on the very concept of war when it may be necessary in our clear national interest against some other entity in the near future. The overreach of the 2000s has been every bit as damaging as the pacifism of the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘90s.

We addressed the blood, now let’s examine the treasure. It’s almost inevitable that over $1 trillion will be spent in the desert of Mesopotamia by the time we cease serious combat operations. At a time of reckless pork-barrel federal spending (the bill for which will be passed on to our grandchildren), underfunded port security and a looming entitlement crisis that will bankrupt this country soon enough anyways, it’s more than an understatement to say that we could sure use that trillion dollars back.

So the answer, while not as overwhelming as the knee-jerk anti-war protestors would have you believe, is that the decision to go to war was not worth it. Even given the fact that the intelligence community for whatever reasons put forth the notion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, every other justification for war was flawed even when viewed through the lens of the time (and I was one who was queasy about our decision to invade). As addressed above, we had no semblance of a counterinsurgency strategy to follow the first part of the war when we would topple Hussein. We willingly put ourselves in a position to be ganged up and marginalized in the world community by opportunists in the French and German governments and countries looking to assert themselves on the world stage at our expense in Russia and China. We put all of our propaganda hopes on the swift success of democracy, when centuries of human history have shown it to be an institution that can only work well amongst a people who have taken the time to embrace and understand it. Democracy itself has been discredited in the eyes of countless Arabs, a blunder of historic impact. And by toppling a minority Sunni government and empowering the Shiite majority, we ensured that their co-religionists, our enemies in Iran, would inevitably be strengthened. Of course, the neoconservative war theorists believed that we could march right into Iran after we pacified Iraq, but we’re years away from that possibility as the Iranian nuclear program becomes more of a threat each day. Also, the Sunni-Shiite-Kurd rivalries frozen by the Saddam Hussein dictatorship were very reminiscent of the Balkan feuds kept under the surface by Communist rule – as it turned out in both instances, once the totalitarians were gone, vicious rivalries never firmly settled reemerged with a vengeance and toppled any attempts at regional stability.

On balance, the war was not worth it, certainly in retrospect and arguably at the time. Given the best we are likely to still accomplish in Iraq, it is very unlikely that history will be kind to the decision to invade.

Did Iraq possess weapons of mass destruction?

Notwithstanding the answer to the first question, and the fact that the absolute consensus seems to be that they did not, I am still a bit uncertain on this issue. Rumors have floated for years that Baathist thugs trucked the WMDs across the Syrian border to be stored by their allies in the Damascus dictatorship. It seems highly unlikely that the Bush administration would keep that information under wraps, especially given its need to defend an unpopular war – but, with the urgent imperative to keep Israel from engaging in shooting wars unhelpful to us in Iraq, anything is possible. Even if Iraq did have WMDs, however, I still believe that we should have held off on invading, at least at that time – because we did face reality and realize that invading North Korea was a bad idea and we haven’t invaded Iran (yet).

Should we own up to the fact publicly that the idea to go to war was a mistake?

No, there’s nothing to be gained by it in any sense, morally or logically. First and foremost, we would be dishonoring our troops by undermining the rationale of what we professed to be accomplishing with their blood. The wounded and dead and their families don’t deserve that, not by a longshot. Also, any goodwill we would regain with any erstwhile allies would be more than negated by the fact that our enemies would be emboldened by a public admission of failure.

Has this war damaged our deterrence factor?

No question about it. Sadly, it ruined the incredible level of deterrence we earned by accomplishing in months what the Soviets couldn’t in several years by wining in Afghanistan. Every tinpot dictator on Earth feels emboldened by the fact that Uncle Sam has his hands full with a ragtag terrorist network in Iraq – and since deterrence is more critical to keeping America safe than almost any other factor, we are likely to pay a dear price for our failures to date and will pay a bigger toll in the future if we can’t earn back more respect for our military capabilities by the time we inevitably draw down in Iraq. And a war-weary American public will be that much harder to rally when we face a legitimate threat, due to rationale for this war that was thoroughly discredited in their eyes.

What are the similarities and differences with the Vietnam War?

Similarities

^ Both wars lost the support of the American people, in part because many opportunistic and unprincipled politicians have succeeded in defining it narrowly as an unpopular president’s war as opposed to a venture in which we are all invested.

^ In both instances, American forces received inadequate military direction for the first several years of the war as the enemy utilized brutal terrorist techniques.

^ Our ineptitude at “telling our story” has cost us dearly on the global stage, as our rivals for global influence scheme and try to take advantage of our distraction.

^ The massacres in Southeast Asia that followed our pullout would be mirrored on a horrific scale in Iraq – additionally, our global prestige and deterrent threat would take an immense beating by pulling out of Iraq in defeat the same as in the Vietnam aftermath.

Differences

^ Without a military draft, opposition to the Iraq War is not as visceral because nobody can be sent involuntarily.

^ The North Vietnamese and Vietcong were never going to follow us to America and continue the war here after winning. The jihadists in Iraq want to kill Americans wherever they can and prefer a 9/11 type of attack on our soil.

^ Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were, for better or for worse, guided in Vietnam by knowledge of war they obtained firsthand in the military in World War II. George Bush’s military experience, such as it was, during the Vietnam era, did not infuse him with any battlefield lessons for the Iraq War.

Was the surge a good idea – and should we stay with it?

Yes and yes. This goes back to the unfortunate initial point about how one’s conclusions about whether we should have gone to war initially color people’s perceptions about what to do now. Regardless of whether anyone wants to admit it or not, we as a country own this war and the successes and failures, not merely George Bush and Dick Cheney. The surge of American forces has been successful enough that it’s possible to state with some confidence that if it were applied four years ago that it might have brought the war to an end in a reasonable period of time. The immense danger evident if we leave in allowing Iraq to devolve into an unchecked terrorist breeding ground and de facto satellite of Iran (in Gulf-bordering part of the country) justified our decision earlier this year to “double down” and try to salvage something from the disaster of the previous few years. Even after years of our sleepy inaction that allowed Iraq to spiral downward, we have still made great success in retaking key parts of the country and lethally countering terrorist networks. True, we can’t sustain the surge forever with our manpower limitations, but we can and must build on our progress for at least another six months so that we can try to ensure the situation we leave behind is not a festering sore.

Is Iraq legitimately a part of the Global War on Terror?

It is now. While it probably wasn’t involved to a critical degree before our invasion, it certainly is at the moment given Al Qaeda’s vast efforts to rebuild their network to full strength using Iraq as the main focus. Our battles against jihadists there are the same as any we fight around the globe, covertly or otherwise. Distinctions that politicians seek to make between terrorists in Iraq and others around the globe are artificial and a deliberate attempt to confuse the stakes we face so that our defeat might seem more palatable.

Can we still win in Iraq?

If by “win,” we mean leaving behind a country that is not a completely failed state and not a threat to its neighbors or us via terrorism, then the answer is yes. If by “win,” we mean leaving behind the vision of flourishing Jeffersonian democracy previously preached by George Bush and his neoconservative missionaries, then the answer is no. Fortunately, our military and civilian leadership seems to have pulled its collective head out of its collective posterior, so we now have a realistic chance to salvage the aforementioned modest definition of success from our years of hell in the sand.