Iraq, navigating between black and white in a sea of grey

Making sense out of the Iraq situation is difficult at both the political and military level. That the political and military are intermixed is part of the dilemma of deciding which way to think, and go. There is the effort in D.C. that is still muddled at the Executive level even after four years, and all this is further muddled by Democratic Party’s disingenuous double talk under the guise of an election mandate, which did not occur. The Country appears to still be evenly divided on its support for the war in Iraq. And then there is the effort in Iraq which has also been just as muddled as in D.C. due to lack of unity of command, i.e., one person in charge; and then there’s the time (years) that we have allowed our enemies to exploit their strengths and attenuate ours.

Most of us focus on the future out of common sense. Taking the time to focus on the past may have value in lessons learned, but that effort is for the historians and not we citizens concerned for our future here in America. The two black and white questions are: why make the effort today, and is our Country organized and actively prosecuting the war in order to win? The answers to both questions are grey, but they are still the basis for rational decision-making. Confusing the answers is the fact that there is more than one war going on at the same time. There is the war in Iraq, and the Global War on Terror. These are two distinct wars, each with its own strategic goals and forces, and one must try to distinguish between the two during decision-making. That many see these two wars as intertwined only adds to the confusion in many people’s minds.

Why make the effort in Iraq today? There is a threat even today. That threat is one of providing a future base for terrorists to attack the USA (and Western interests throughout the world), and also providing a future Shiite base for Iranian imperial plans in the region. Islamofascist elements cannot exist in a vacuum, they must have a base to operate from. Almost 30 years of Iranian foreign policy has included masking their land as a quasi operating and finance base, and Iraq is just such a good future choice due to Shiite religious identities, geographic collocation, and the opportunity to lessen US influence in the region and the world. If Iran should succeed in its regional imperial ambitions, expect its Sunni neighbors to aggressively fight back, as in regional wars.

There is a stated strategic objective today of democracy in the Middle East and Iraq in particular as a way to guide us in our actions. When there is future discussion and debate about Iraq, it should be about the threat, and the strategic goal. Anything less misses the mark about our National Interests. Even discussions that focus on the President’s mistakes being the reason to leave smack of throwing out the baby with the dirty bath water. These issues are more fundamental to our National Interests and our future. One discussion I still wait to listen to is one of middle eastern style democracy in an Iraq that has broken up into a federation or otherwise of three states.

The really grey area that has provided the greatest distraction from the fundamental questions of threat and national strategy is the second question. Is our Country organized and actively prosecuting the war in order to win? Please note I suggest the term “our Country” and not “our government”. Clearly no effort has been made to organize our Country in a WWII type of national effort. And it is apparent to many that the President and his hired minions have done a poor job up to the 2006 elections in organizing the government to prosecute the war both in D.C., and in Iraq. Hindsight is both wonderful and intellectually cheap, and one famous line in D.C. is “if only they had listened to me”.

But we have what we have, and the President has announced his newer courses of action and people assignments, and left some unannounced when covert in nature. This tells me there are lessons being learned, and something is being done, although most of us armchair Generals, and Secretaries of State and Treasury, and Librarians of Congress would probably do it differently. All this comes across to many as lessons are being learned and applied to the future in pursuit of the strategic objective and recognizing a threat still exists. To suggest otherwise, that good money is being thrown after bad, ignores the second question of whether we are actively organizing and prosecuting a war in Iraq. Any discussion of how well we are doing should always start with acknowledging that the government is actively organizing and prosecuting a war in Iraq. Criticism of how well the Executive has been doing is wasteful of time and effort if it focuses on the past, and not the future, the strategic objective, and the threat. If it does focus on the future, the strategic objective, and the threat, then it is well focused. If it also takes on the second question of how actively and well we are prosecuting the war and trying to win, then it is a well focused debate and discussion. Anything less misses the mark, and truly does threaten our National Interests and future.

Being a retired Marine, let me put this is my terms. A simple litmus type test will work just fine. If any discussion and debate about Iraq includes judgments about the threat and our strategic objective, that’s fair game. Any discussion and debate about the future performance in achieving the strategic objectives, that’s fair game. If any discussion and debate is about the past in all aspects, then it is political doodly squat and threatens our National Interests and future.