Iraq, Terrorism and Vietnam

Stories in various news media, notably the New York Times, indicate that military intelligence assessments of Iraq prospects are bleak, that things have gotten worse, and civil war a distinct possibility. These findings were presented to President Bush in July. Even as he never wavers on his blind course over the bluff, he continues to present sunny assessments to the American people.

Those July assessments, notes CNN, appear to be coming true in September. An article in the Los Angeles Times (linked here)
Democrat Takes Off the Gloves on Iraq Debate

says that a slight uptick in support for the Iraq war seems to be evidence that the Bushie strategy of positioning it as an element in the war on terror is working. The article goes on to say that this has persuaded the Kerry campaign to become bolder in exposing the ways in which Iraq situation is demonstrably adding strength and numbers to the al Qeda cause and to terrorism in general.

That the Iraq debacle is making America less safe is, first of all, demonstrably true, and secondly, an argument that can get the attention of voters, especially white women voters who (according to at least one respected analyst) are responsible for much of the up and down movement of the polls. When security is foremost on their minds, they track towards Bush. When they focus on health care, they go to Kerry. (National polls out today show Bush’s lead of the last week disappearing.) If they are persuaded that Bush's Iraq policy is making America less safe, is threatening homeland security, they will be more inclined to listen to Kerry.

It is at that point that Kerry should talk about his goals for Iraq, as we wrote in our previous posting. We would add to that, he should make prison torture part of the issue, and ending that excess as un-American and counterproductive, one of the goals. It was the prison torture scandal that turned the public against the Iraq war.

The increasing violence and death in Iraq is pushing anti-war Americans to more extreme positions, and threatening Kerry from the left. (It is probably responsible for Nader's 5% showing in one Minnesota poll.)

While the resemblance to Vietnam grows hourly, the situation is not quite the same. While the U.S. could have and should have withdrawn from Vietnam altogether (and as is becoming increasingly evident, would have, if JFK had lived and been re-elected in 1964), Iraq is in a different part of the world. The U.S. should withdraw militarily as rapidly as possible, but it cannot disengage diplomatically, and that's a complicated balancing act.

If the U.S. were to just walk away from Iraq completely, the consequences would be both quick and long-lasting. Because of the world economy's sensitivity to oil supply, the U.S. stock market could crash and the country could plunge into a deep recession almost immediately. The region is so volatile, with so many countries at each other's throats, some with nukes, that the consequences could be catastrophic.

That said, even if Kerry becomes President, it will take immense skill and leadership, and a lot of luck, to get the U.S. out of there without complete chaos. And that's if the current Iraqi "government" isn't overrun before January. It could even be the case that the insurgents are making a concerted push right now to be in control in case Kerry is elected, and might be able to set up negotiations with the large factions in the country, supported by the Iraqis who just want some security and peace, and running water. And to never see another American soldier or Republican again.

There is no future for the American military in Iraq, and no immediate future for American business. Once that is acknowledged, the real work of mitigating this immense disaster G.W. Bush has unleashed on the world can begin.