Can Bush finish a war?

Great Debates
21

No, I don’t think a successful resolution is possible at this point. I think actually securing the country would require troop numbers that the U.S. is not willing (or, barring a draft, able) to commit. I also think it would require a level of repression that would totally shatter any pretense of “liberation”.

So, yes, add three hundred thousand more troops, close the borders, and start publicly executing anyone who is even suspected of insurrection, and I’m sure the U.S. could eventually crush the Iraqis into abject submission. But the Iraq that would emerge would be far worse than Saddam’s Iraq. The U.S. would be shackled to a sullen, crippled client state for a generation or more.

Withdrawing abruptly is almost as bad for U.S. interests. A power vacuum would likely result in a three-way civil war between the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shi’ites. I’m betting that it would end in a partition. The Kurds would form an independent Kurdistan in the north, causing major trouble in Turkey, possibly sparking a low-intensity guerrilla war. The southern part of the country would wind up as a client of Iran. A small Sunni rump around Baghdad would remain, dominated by another Saddam-type strongman.

Perhaps the least bad is turning the whole mess over the U.N. Then the international community can enjoy 30 years of on-again, off-again guerrilla war and terrorism. Unless Europe gets fed up … in which case see above …

I think what will actually happen is that Bush will try to hold the lid on the crumbling American-led occupation until after the elections next fall. The Republican spin machine will be working overtime to sell the “it’s a long hard road/we must stay the course/we are winnng against the terrorists” message. Then in spring 2005 “victory” will be declared and we’ll pull out, leaving the Iraqis to themselves … .

So … can Bush finish a war? No. He’ll cut and run.

**

Invading in the first place. It’s like asking what’s the best way to fight a tar baby. The best way to fight a tar baby is to not throw the first punch.

**

It’s kind of hard to outline rational reasons why going to war is ill-advised while the other side is busy wrapping itself in the flag and calling you a traitor … .

22

From Pochacco

The other side of that coin is, its hard to have a discussion that is rational about where we are when the other side is saying Bush is the font of all evil, that he’s going to nuke Iraq any day along with our troops, that he’s either going to sic the CIA on the American people for another 9/11 style attack or simply let someone in the middle east do the dirty work, etc etc. The rabid foam flows on BOTH sides of the issue IMO.

I happen to agree with you that going there was stupid and a waste. Unfortunately, we ARE there. I’m not sure why you feel that the US has no chance of pulling this off, nor why you feel Bush will cut and run (except that if he’s re-elected he COULD do it, as a lame duck president I suppose). Certainly its a possibility, though the other side is also a possibility…that Bush will stick it out if he’s re-elected, or that whoever IS elected will have no choice but to do the same, and that the US will pull something out of this mess that resembles peace. To me its far from a forgone conclusion at this point, and could probably go either way atm. Why would Bush pull out and tuck tail if he DOES get re-elected though?

I just don’t see how, unless there is a huge ramp up in public protest (I’m not seeing that much atm), it would be in our best interests to bolt from Iraq (so there for, I don’t see how whoever is in the Whitehouse would justify it to themselves…let alone the American people)…after all, Iraq DOES have a vital international resource, to vital to simply let the country go completely tits up…no matter what the cost is.

-XT

23

Wha? My civics classes weren’t all that hot, but I didn’t think that primary elections could be “called off”. Do the other 48 states pick a Democratic challenger on their own? If so, how would that help Bush, given that there’s no guarantee that those two states would choose a strong challenger?

Could someone with a better grasp of the American political system help me out, please?

24

**

The reason that I’m not confident about the U.S. reaching a decent but muddled settlement is that there’s still way too much ideological rhetoric being thrown around and not enough hard-headed pragmatic thinking about the uses and limits of power. My low opinion of the current administration’s ability to handle this situation is largely a result of their seeming preference for wishful thinking over having the courage to confront unpleasant facts.

I also don’t think democracy is possible in Iraq right now. Or rather, I don’t think an externally imposed democracy is possible. Democracy, when it comes, will have to come as a grass-roots movement of the Iraqis themselves. But a grass-roots Iraqi democratic movement would probably not be friendly toward the U.S. (since it would have evolved under the shadow of occupation) and would probably align itself with the more radical strains of Islam – something the U.S. would not allow. So a peace acceptable to the U.S. can probably only be achievable by installing a U.S. backed strongman. Which takes us right back to square one.

As for why Bush would bolt after the election … well, I think he’s gonna bolt as soon as possible. Bolting in the spring or summer of 2004 would be political suicide. But after he’s re-elected there’s not much point in staying. By that point it will be obvious that a free, liberated Iraq is not gonna happen any time soon. We could cut a deal with whoever’s in charge of the relatively stable south to keep some of the oil flowing, declare victory, and be done with it.

**

Oh, I don’t think its in our best interests either. But right now it’s a millstone around the administration’s neck and it’s getting heavier every day. If Bush wants to do anything with his second term he’s got to wrap up Iraq as quickly as possible and move on.

And I suspect that even if the rest of the country goes to hell, we can still prop up the south enough to keep the oil flowing … .

25

I hope you are correct. But I fear the use of ‘rationalization’ regarding the use of nukes because the Times article resonates with the current admin’s desire to make the use of nukes defensible.

26

The answer to the (ancient) OP seems to be no. Look what is happening in Afghanistan. Despite the fact that the war was justified and supported by most everyone, and that we executed it very well, the Taliban is coming back, and we haven’t found Osama.

I’d bet that if Bush gets re-elected he will find some other place to invade, be it Syria or Iran, pull and pull the troops out. If we are lucky Iraq will become an Islamic state, only mildly anti-American. With another war, the public will lose interest in Iraq, just as it has lost interest in Afghanistan.

I agree that there is no real good solution, and I bet Bush will try to turn this into an asset in the campaign. (got any better ideas? if not, let me do it.) It is too bad that the “secret plan to end the war” trick has been used already.