15 August 2007

Wes Clark at Yearly Kos

Wes Clark gave a pretty good speech at Yearly Kos this year (I wonder if Adam saw it in person, you lucky bastard). He brings up a lot of good points, a lot of widely varying points. It was definitely more of a rallying cry than a call for the implementation of specific policy. My shitty internet prevents me from linking to it right now, but try googling “Wes Clark: Iraq- Military and Diplomatic Solutions.” I agree with a lot of what he says, especially his analysis of Bush, and especially his call for Bush to defend his policy without falling back to the senior generals.

Clark lists a number of things (a lot of them straight from the Administration’s own ridiculous rhetoric) that he feels we can’t manage in Iraq – and he’s right. But then he lists the things he things we can manage –

"But what we can hope for still is a state that holds together, that doesn't break apart. And we can hope for a state that tries to work law and order issues with its own, within its own territory and doesn't become a breeding ground for future terrorist activities or for exporting violence in the region. And we can hope for a state that in some way will allow the wonderful, industrious, smart and capable people of Iraq to make their own way forward. And we can hope for a state in which thousands of Iraqis aren't dying every month. Those are pretty modest, those are pretty modest objectives, and as we move toward those objectives, if we do it the right way, I think we can protect the larger U.S. interests in the region and we can withdraw our troops, but we can't do it without a change in the United States strategy of engagement in the region. "

and here is where begin my problems. While none of the propositions in the first paragraph are particularly spectacular things to hope for, they are by no means modest. Iraq is a very long way from being “a state that tries to work law and order issues with its own, within its own territory.” Having worked with the Iraqi Army and Police (and having spoken to Audrey, I imagine she’ll largely agree), law and order are not high on the ISF priority list – though you can get SVU if you have a satellite dish. On a small unit level, the Iraqi Police are largely cowardly (not unreasonably so in many cases), on a larger scale they are corrupt and incompetent. In Diyala they’re either afraid of, or working for a local militia. Depending on the station, or who you ask, they’re infiltrated by Jeesh al Mahdi. Individuals in the Iraqi Security Forces (IP and IA) may be dedicated to law and order, but on an institutional level they’re dedicated to graft and survival.

Iraq is already “breeding ground for future terrorist activities or for exporting violence in the region,” and it’s sure as hell not going to get any better soon. The best thing we can do in this respect is to get US forces out Iraq as soon as possible (not necessarily my position on the overall war). The fewer US forces that JAM/ISI/AQIZ/1920s have to practice against, to hone their skills against, they more will their training decline. The fewer people (civilian and otherwise) US forces kill in Iraq, the less likely it is that their loved ones will want to attack us (export violence). The “fight them in Iraq instead of Kansas” argument is not valid (read and read – both are good arguments and very funny), and us not being there has the added benefit of not killing Americans. It is tragic that thousands of Iraqis are dying every month – I’ve met a number of Iraqis that I like and respect - but thousands will still die with or without us. Thousands of people are being killed in underdeveloped nations around the world every month.

But the one argument that grabbed me first was “And we can hope for a state that in some way will allow the wonderful, industrious, smart and capable people of Iraq to make their own way forward.” We don’t need to hope for this one. It’s already happening – two million Iraqis have already left this country, with another two million internally displaced. The smart, industrious, capable people of Iraq have left to places where they can be smart, industrious and capable without their work and lives being destroyed. They’re making their own way forward – out of Iraq. There, of course, is the other set of smart, industrious, capable Iraqis that have remained in Iraq – leading new movements, creating new technologies – but the US is actively working to kill or capture them because they’re insurgents.

I agree with a great deal of what General Clark said, but to call any of those objectives modest is to be pathologically optimistic (reminds me of the Administration) or to casually minimize the chaotic political and military situation in the nation.

posted by Interested Soldier @ 08:39