(No) Four More Years

Today is a very sad anniversary for America. We've lost over 4,000 lives (including contractors, who are people too) and wounded 25,000 American men and women in service to a cause that has not brought peace to the Middle East, but indeed has plunged the region into more chaos and threatened a full Sunni-Shiite war. The Iraqi people have no confidence that an American occupation which has brought nothing but additional misery and fear to their lives will ever be able to "succeed," and it's completely unclear what that definition of success even is anymore.

The President, when not sounding belligerent in making political points in a commemoration of the war's beginning, sounded like a junkie, again pleading for more time, more resources, not to cut off his habit. This war has gone on longer than World War II. We achieved many of our stated objectives in the first month, but could not win any kind of sustainable peace. And we could not settle on a consistent reason to have gone to war in the first place. When you embark on a war based on falsehoods, it should not surprise that it will be difficult to achieve victory.

This is not a conservative war. Conservatives opposed entry into WWI and WWII and even the American Revolution. Democracy promotion is not a conservative value, as we know from then-Governor Bush's constant belittling of the concept of nation-building. The problem is that you have a neoconservative government trying to impose a liberal value through conservative means (namely, intimidation and the barrel of a gun). They cannot possibly promote democracy effectively because they have no real interest in Democratic institutions. They were asking potential recruits for reconstruction and civil infrastructure in Iraq what their views were on Roe v. Wade. They cannot promote civil society because they don't know how, and furthermore they don't want to know how. What we're seeing in Baghdad is a police state, and while that may be effective in restoring temporary order, it will not succeed in keeping Shiite militia and Sunni insurgents from just moving elsewhere:

Yesterday, for instance, we had a teleconference with Colonel David Sutherland of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, based in Diyala province, and Lieutenant General Shakir Halail Husain of the Iraqi Army's 5th Division. Sutherland and Shakir are experiencing an increase in attacks "that replicate those normally seen in Baghdad," the colonel said. While sectarian violence is down since July in this mixed province by 70 percent (measured by the number of murders and kidnappings), indirect and direct fire attacks, suicide bombings, suicide car bombings and complex attacks (more than one method of assault) have risen significantly since the New Baghdad Security Plan was put into place.

Basically, it's the belief of Sutherland and Shakir that Sunni insurgents have moved out of Baghdad and into Diyala. So Sutherland requested his own mini-surge: a battalion from the 5th Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division. "Make no mistake," he said, "we will establish security in Diyala."

But that raises the question: if Sutherland succeeds in Diyala, where will the insurgents go next? He conceded that "the movement of terrorists and insurgents around the country is an effect we may have as a result" of securing Diyala, but as a brigade commander in Baquba, "inside Diyala is what I'm concerned about here." It's perfectly understandable from Sutherland's perspective. But get ready to hear the same contention from more and more commanders.

We're doing nothing but playing Whack-a-Mole, securing one area of the country while endangering others. And we don't have the troops to tamp it all down. That's why you're seeing this mission creep of needing more and more and more troops, throwing more American lives into the meat grinder.

What I would like to see from these Democratic candidates for President, any of them, is for them to announce that they will immediately cease all campaigning and instead move to Washington to do whatever they can to end this occupation and bloodshed. If it's a sitting federal legislator they can use their vote and the powers of their office. If it's someone outside of DC like Edwards or Richardson they can plant themselves in the Capitol and hold daily press conferences pressuring lawmakers. All right, Richardson has another job so I'll cut him a little slack. But Iraq should not be a campaign issue, it should be a campaign, a persistent campaign to change the dynamic of dependency in that country and move toward a regional solution to the conflict.

Furthermore, it'd be nice for one of them to point out that, once the President is given the appropriation, regardless of the language in it (withdrawals or readiness reports or whatever), he can either sign it and take the money or veto and leave the money on the table. Congress' role, short of an override, is then done, and it will be on the President's head for cutting off funds for the troops because he didn't want to feel constrained. Congress has no role once funds are authorized, and should not be expected to pass a new bill. Right now the pressure is on the Congress, when it should be on the President to sign and take his money.

I'll be out at a vigil tonight, remembering these soldiers who lost their lives serving their country, and reflecting on how the country failed to serve them. This war is a great stain on our national character, and I hope that everyone, particularly our Representatives in Washington, have the courage to understand that it must end.