St. Petersburg Times, Sept. 2007: End Bush's failed Iraq war

Ah, the wisdom of The St. Peterburg Times' editorial pages.

Less than one full year ago, following the testimony before Congress of Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker, the Times knew that it was time to end Bush's failed war right then and there.

Nothing the Congress and the public heard last week changed the choice we face as a nation - either continue with Bush's ill-defined and open-ended military commitment to Iraq, or begin an orderly and strategic withdrawal of U.S. combat troops in concert with a full-scale diplomatic surge in the region. We strongly come down on the side of those, including a majority of the American people, who believe it's time to start winding down the war and for the United States to put the responsibility for that miserable country's future where it belongs, in the hands of the Iraqi people and their leaders.

The United States is 4 1/2 years into this disastrous war at a cost so far of nearly 3,800 Americans killed, thousands more horribly wounded and almost $1-trillion in national treasure. Yet, the president refuses to acknowledge that his way has failed. If there were ever any doubts, Bush's speech made it clear that he has no strategy for ending this war, much less winning it.

With the shoe apparently now on the other foot, it remains to be seen whether the Times editorial board will acknowledge that they were flat wrong.

Petraeus and Crocker presented clear evidence that the new strategy was resulting in improvement. Many simply refused to see it. And what about that Bush speech, by the way?

Eight months ago, we adopted a new strategy to meet that objective, including a surge in U.S. forces that reached full strength in June. This week, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress about how that strategy is progressing. In their testimony, these men made clear that our challenge in Iraq is formidable. Yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy, and that the troop surge is working.

The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides, they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. For lasting reconciliation to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it. As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home.

(whitehouse.gov)

Hmmm. It is supposedly clear to the editors that Bush has no strategy for ending or winning the war. Yet a scant 12 months later we've clearly got the upper hand in Iraq. Could the Times have been more disconnected from reality? Could Bush's speech have been more accurate?

Bush revealed none of their doubts in his speech to the nation. He maintained that enough military progress has been made to justify continuing his policy, even though by his own standard the troop surge has failed. He told the nation last spring the surge's goal was to give the Iraqi government more time to bring about political reconciliation. That hasn't happened.

Notice the shell game the Times pulled in that paragraph. Under the shell goes the goal of the surge: "give the Iraqi government more time to bring about political reconciliation." Then they lift the shell and the goal has changed: "That (political reconciliation) hasn't happened."

The goal of the surge succeeded overwhelmingly: The Iraqi government received more time to bring about political reconciliation. Success in achieving security gave the negotiating parties confidence that the national government was secure enough to make negotiation a sensible thing to do. There's no use working hard at negotiations with an entity that will become irrelevant in a year or two. The Times ignored the political progress that had been made as of September, and implicitly made the bold prediction that the progress would not be likely to continue as the surge strategy continued.

Not only was it apparent to the editors that the lack of progress meant it was time to get out, it was also apparent to these media sages that the Democratic candidates for president were not forceful enough in calling it a day in Iraq.

When you get past the sound-bites and antiwar rhetoric of the leading Democratic presidential candidates, they are outlining positions that could leave the United States involved in Iraq for years. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York would leave a residual U.S. force to fight terrorism and protect the Kurds in northern Iraq. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has said he would keep some troops in the region to respond to Iraqi genocide and to provide border security. And Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois said last week he would withdraw all U.S. combat troops and leave behind a force of unspecified size to battle terrorists, train Iraqi soldiers and protect American interests. They need to be more specific, as do the Republican presidential candidates.

The Times wanted the Democratic Party to share its position in advocating a rapid and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, with a clear political choice come election time.

It is in America's interest to change course in Iraq, the sooner the better. However, that is not likely to happen unless voters send a unequivocal message to Washington in next year's presidential and congressional elections that they want this war to come to an end. As the campaign goes forward, Democrats need to offer clear alternatives to the Bush policy, including a military and diplomatic strategy for managing what everyone acknowledges could be even worse sectarian violence in the aftermath of a U.S. withdrawal.

So. The Times advocated withdrawal even though they expected a worsening of sectarian violence in its aftermath. But of course we need some sort of strategy for "managing" the aftermath. Perhaps a diplomatic surge?

Nothing the Congress and the public heard last week changed the choice we face as a nation - either continue with Bush's ill-defined and open-ended military commitment to Iraq, or begin an orderly and strategic withdrawal of U.S. combat troops in concert with a full-scale diplomatic surge in the region. We strongly come down on the side of those, including a majority of the American people, who believe it's time to start winding down the war and for the United States to put the responsibility for that miserable country's future where it belongs, in the hands of the Iraqi people and their leaders.

Iraqis have endured miserable conditions for decades, but it is not a miserable country. Bush made the right call. Instead of leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves in dealing with sectarian violence, our great nation adopted appropriate counterinsurgency tactics and coaxed the democratic Iraqi government toward health. And we dealt a terrific blow to Al Qaeda in the process.

The strategy advocated at the Times was irresponsible and foolish.