Sunday, July 31, 2005
U.S. losing aversion to talk of Iraq exit
Is this Rumsfeld? He beams as Iraqi leader
calls for speedy departure of coalition forces
It was a remarkable scene Wednesday in Baghdad. There was
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld beaming as interim Iraqi
Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari made his government's position
clear:
"The great desire of the Iraqi people is to see the
coalition forces be on their way out as they take more
responsibility," said Mr. Jafari. "We have not limited to a
certain schedule, but we confirm and we desire speed in that
regard."
Within moments Gen. George Casey, commander of U.S. forces
in Iraq, chimed in: "If the political process continues to go
positively and if the development of the security forces
continues to go as it is going, I do believe we'll still be
able to take some fairly substantial reductions after these
elections in the spring and summer."
Nobody countermanded the commander in chief's well-known
aversion to a hard deadline for beginning American withdrawal
(although ironically enough Mr. Rumsfeld strongly urged the
Iraqis to stick to various hard deadlines, beginning with an
August 15 one to draft a constitution). Gen. Casey seemed to
be advancing at least a soft deadline. And that's not a bad
development.
Administration officials have taken to talking about "a
global struggle against violent extremism" rather than a
"global war on terror." Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen.
Richard Myers specifically objected to the term "war on
terror" in an appearance last Monday, "because if you call it
a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the
solution." Gen. Myers thinks the solution "is more diplomatic,
more economic, more political than it is military."
All this suggests that the government is finally
recognizing a few realities that have been obvious to critics
of the war in Iraq for some time. The insurgency or terror
campaign in Iraq has not abated over the past year, and it
seems unlikely that U.S. forces will get it under control.
That is in part because the very presence of U.S. troops in
Iraq serves as a recruiting tool for terrorists. Things might
continue or become more violent for a while when U.S. troops
leave. But foreign troops cannot control this campaign of
terror bombing.
The ongoing commitment in Iraq has also hurt military
recruiting and reduced U.S. capacity to respond to potential
crises in other parts of the world. It has proven to be
inordinately expensive. And while it may lead to a reasonably
stable regime in Iraq that does not threaten its neighbors, it
is unlikely to create a model democracy that will lead to
liberal democracies throughout the Middle East. Reality bites
back.
These are welcome signs of a new recognition of reality in
Washington. If they are followed by a more thoroughgoing
reconsideration of the policy of intervening in regional
quarrels that do not affect core American interests, that
would be even more
welcome. |