CAMPAIGN OUTSIDER Questioning
to win in Iraq By Muhammad
Cohen
HONG KONG - General David Petraeus
isn't the only one trying to find and sell a
winning strategy for Iraq. The three presidential
candidates are also looking for ways to make Iraq
a vote-getter for them. So when Petraeus and
ambassador Ryan Crocker testify before Congress
this week, the contenders will be looking for
answers to different questions about the war. But
there is one question that can work for all three
candidates and for unraveling the mess in Iraq.
Senator John McCain will want to talk
about the so-called "surge", the increase in US
troop strength he championed that is credited with
reducing violence in Iraq. The presumptive
Republican nominee takes full credit for the
benefits of the "surge". From the start of the
war, the former navy flier and descendant of
admirals
contended the George W Bush
administration hadn't deployed enough troops in
Iraq.
McCain is now crowing because of the
apparent success of the "surge", and the Arizona
senator will want Petraeus and Crocker to join his
chorus. As has been true throughout the American
invasion of Iraq, the definition of success curls
to conform to circumstances. No weapons of mass
destruction? The goal of the invasion was to bring
democracy to the Middle East. No democracy? The
goal was to topple Saddam Hussein, and he's dead,
so gotcha, pal, as the increasingly irrelevant
resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue might say.
The "surge" was supposed to reduce
violence in Iraq, and it has. By some counts,
attacks have fallen by 60% and sectarian killings
by 95%. But increased US presence was supposed to
be a temporary step to provide the security cover
for the Iraqi government to tackle key political
issues and prepare to govern the country with a
greatly and permanently reduced US presence.
Spread the cheer As
McCain cheers, Petraeus and Crocker will cite a
long list of achievements by Prime Minister Nuri
al-Maliki's government in the year since the US
poured in 30,000 more troops. By one Republican
senator's count, the Maliki government has met or
exceeded 80% of the benchmarks set out for it by
the US. Expect to hear plenty of such happy talk
on Capitol Hill this week.
In truth,
though, the Iraqis, regardless of who is supposed
to be in charge, are no more ready to run their
own country than they were a year ago, or five
years ago when US forces marched into Baghdad and
drove Saddam out. In the decades ahead, the Bush
administration's postwar planning for Iraq will
get the sort of laughs now reserved for Dick
Cheney's marksmanship or the vice president's
warmth. But for now, it's no laughing matter.
There are few signs that Iraqis are ready,
willing or able to pull their country into any
semblance of a cohesive nation-state. Much of what
Petraeus and Crocker will cite as the apparent
successes of the "surge" have come through
recognizing and acknowledging how badly things in
Iraq are broken. Putting up blast walls between
Shi'ite and Sunni neighborhoods - and surely
someday you'll be able to buy chunks of American's
Baghdad Wall on eBay - and paying off militias to
stop shooting at the troops writing the checks
have been major factors in reducing violence.
They're hardly signs of Iraq progress toward
reconciliation and responsibility.
Same
Shi'ite, different day Maliki's
botched attempt to subdue Shi'ite militias in the
southern city of Basra indicates just how little
progress has been made. That Maliki reportedly
made his decision to go on the offensive in Basra
without consulting the US (although this is
unlikely)underscores, among other things, a
complete lack of communication and understanding
between the Baghdad regime and its guarantors as
well as arrogance on a par with its sponsors in
Washington. Just like his patrons on the Potomac,
Maliki can rely on the bravery and dedication of
the US military - and some Iraqi soldiers - to
keep him from paying full price for his
incompetence and miscalculations.
McCain
hopes he, like Bush, can also count on the
stupidity of American voters when it comes to
Iraq. So far his campaign seems to be succeeding
in portraying his position on Iraq as a drive to
end the war, but to end it in victory with honor,
a stark contrast with the Democrats grasping for
defeat and dishonor, even now, despite all of the
progress Petraeus and Crocker will report this
week.
The Democrats should have an easier
sell on Iraq, but they always manage to stay just
out of step with the American people. In 2004,
rather than John Kerry's "yes, but" on the war,
Democrats should have said the war was wrong and
had to end. Selling that position and showing some
backbone and leadership to the electorate might
have beaten Bush. Four years later, Americans have
already decided they're against the war, though
Democrats are learning that doesn't necessary mean
voters are ready to vote against victory. As
Richard Nixon did in 1972, McCain will promise
peace with honor, and the Democrats don't yet have
an equally simple, compelling response to that
proposition.
Running for the
exit The chance to question Petraeus
and Crocker may not give the Democrats much help
in finding that winning message if they stick with
their current tack. They may be able to poke holes
in arguments about the the alleged success of the
"surge", but that doesn't necessarily advance the
Democratic candidates' current narratives.
Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
are fighting each other over how the US got into
Iraq. Whether or not that matters to voters,
Petraeus and Crocker can't contribute much toward
settling that debate. The Democratic contenders
are also arguing about getting out: which one
would do it faster, and, more broadly, which one
is more sincere about their pledge to end the war.
The general and the ambassador might be of limited
help on that score, but they will be more inclined
to tell Congress why America can't withdraw now
rather than help formulate an exit strategy.
For Democrats, there's very little to be
gained from pursuing any of the available lines of
questioning. Yet there's one huge question that -
given all candidates' desire to end the war - they
should be posing to Petraeus and Crocker. It's a
question that the visitors may be inclined to
answer honestly, in part because it shifts the
debate in a practical rather than an ideological
direction. It's an issue that matters to all
Americans, not just the vast minority with loved
ones in service there. (It is to McCain's great
credit that, unlike most of the Bush
administration's top hawks, he's not only seen
combat himself but has a son fighting in Iraq
right now.) Asking the question first this week
will win some points; providing the best answer
over the course of the campaign will likely win
the election.
The senator ready to elevate
the Iraq debate to a new, meaningful level should
ask Petraeus and Crocker in turn, "How can the
United States best help Iraq avoid becoming a
failed state?"
After five years, more than
4,000 American lives and US$3 trillion, that's now
the best outcome that the US can expect. It's also
the least that America can hope for, the lowest
achievable benchmark for extricating itself from
combat there with both honor and finality. It's a
clear, practical goal that takes into the account
the real US security concerns that have arisen
since the invasion, without consideration (or
blame) that there were no such legitimate concerns
prior to the invasion.
Now that we know
the question, let's see which candidate, general
or ambassador can come up with the most sensible
answer. We'll likely see them moving into the
White House in January.
Former
broadcast news producer Muhammad
Cohen told America’s story to the world
as a US diplomat and is author of Hong Kong On Air (www.hongkongonair.com), a novel set during the 1997
handover about television news, love, betrayal,
high finance and cheap lingerie.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times
Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us
for information on sales, syndication and republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
