Withdrawal Is Not an Option

Last summer, Joe Biden's debating skills spurred me to write an op-ed on withdrawing from Iraq. The op-ed was never published, but you can now read it at JonathanRick.com. Here's an excerpt:

“If we started today, it would take one year—one year—to get 160,000 troops physically out of Iraq.” Indeed, 19 years ago, it took the Soviets nine months to extract 120,000 men from Afghanistan, and they were simply going next door.

Slowing things down further is the staggering amount of stuff we would need to take with us—or destroy or sell if we couldn’t, lest it fall into the wrong hands. According to Time magazine, the U.S. currently has 45,000 ground-combat vehicles in Iraq, spread out across 15 bases, 38 supply depots, 18 fuel-supply centers and 10 ammo dumps. Equally daunting, equipment re-entering the United States must be inspected for any microscopic diseases.

Moreover, the price of pulling out prematurely is gigantic and grave. In the north, Kurds and Arabs would do battle for oil wells, as Kurdistan drifted toward independence, instigating skirmishes with, and possibly an invasion by, Turkey. In the south, an emboldened Iran would stop pussyfooting and uncork its influence, establishing a theocratic Shiite foothold, with neighborhoods controlled by militias like the Badr Organization and the Mahdi Army. The middle of the country would erupt in a bloodbath.

Those who contend that Iraq cannot get much worse than it is now would do well to remember that this was the same refrain about Lebanon before civil war enveloped that country and about Somalia before the U.S. rushed out in 1993. In short, the only thing standing between the shaky stability of present-day Iraq and an ethno-sectarian inferno scorching the Persian Gulf is the United States armed forces.

[continue reading...]

When Did Oversight Become Micromanaging?

In May, I asked,

If the legislative branch disapproves of an action taken by the executive, what should it do? To wit, what should Congress do with respect to war, so as not to "micromanage"? Is oversight limited to such things as a (toothless) Sense of the Congress resolution? Or, since Congress has the power of the purse, should it defund the war by withholding money or tying money to certain conditions (say, that Iraqi oil pay for 25% percent of our expenses)?

In his column today, George Will provides the answer:

American history is replete with examples of Congress restraining executive warmaking. (See Congress at War, a book by Charles A. Stevenson.) Congress has forbidden:

Sending draftees outside this hemisphere (1940-41); introduction of combat troops into Laos or Thailand (1969); reintroduction of troops into Cambodia (1970); combat operations in Southeast Asia (1973); military operations in Angola (1976); use of force in Lebanon other than for self-defense (1983); military activities in Nicaragua (1980s). In 1993 and 1994, Congress mandated the withdrawal of troops from Somalia, and forbade military actions in Rwanda.

When Congress authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force" against those complicit in 9/11, Congress refused to adopt administration language authorizing force "to deter and pre-empt any future" terrorism or aggression.

[continue reading...]

The Daily Digest

Ice Hotel in Sweden

How would you feel if your advocacy of the Iraq war directly inspired someone to enlist—who shortly thereafter perished from an IED? Christopher Hitchens measures his words against a family's grief and a young man's sacrifice.

Josh Levin laments what Sports Illustrated has become: "Sports Illustrated is allowing market research to masquerade as editorial judgment. Perhaps it's effective from a business standpoint—the mag has maintained its huge circulation lead over ESPN the Magazine, and a recent industry survey showed an increase of 14 percent in readers between ages 18 and 24 the last two years—but it's making the magazine an inferior product. . . . The old SI used sports as a window onto life and culture beyond the playing field or, failing that, as a vehicle for great writing. The new SI uses sports as a window onto itself or, failing that, as a vehicle for cringe-inducing anecdotes."

Mrs. Jerry Seinfeld tells the NYT how she met her husband.

What does it mean to be an American? Surely one of our defining characteristics is productivity, such that multimillionaire 30-somethings, instead of basking in their earned retirement, continue to work 15-hour days, in search of the next big thing.

[continue reading...]

The Daily Digest

Maureen Dowd reviews Rudy's performance at the recent NRA conference.

Shorter David Broder: Newt is good for America. Shorter Debra Saunders: But not as a politician.

Yesterday, the Council for National Policy issued a resolution that “if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate [i.e., Rudy] we will consider running a third party candidate.” The NYT's David Kirkpatrick reports (see also WorldNetDaily and Salon), "The group making the threat . . . includes Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who is perhaps the most influential of the group, as well as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, the direct mail pioneer Richard Viguerie and dozens of other politically-oriented conservative Christians, participants said. Almost everyone present expressed support for [the] written resolution."

George Will poses 17 questions for Obama. For example: "You advocate leaving in Iraq 'some' U.S. forces for three missions—fighting al Qaeda, training Iraqi security forces and protecting U.S. forces conducting those two missions. . . . What is your estimate of the numbers required by your policy? How, and in consultation with whom, did you arrive at your estimate? As to fighting terrorists but not insurgents—how would soldiers and Marines tell the difference? If, while searching for terrorists, they make contact with insurgents, would your rules of engagement call for a full-force response? You say all 'combat brigades' should be out of Iraq 'by the end of next year.' Even if al-Qaeda is still dangerous? Who, after the end of next year, will protect U.S. noncombat forces that you say 'will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities' and to 'train and equip' Iraqi forces?"

[continue reading...]

The President, Candidates, Pundits and Reports on Iraq

Slate keeps innovating:

[continue reading...]

The Daily Digest

Did Rush Limbaugh plagiarize Matt Lewis?

One of my pet peeves is the importance of tax reform. Dave Weigel points to heartening news in this regard: six of the 11 GOP presidential candidates—Fred Thompson, John McCain, Tommy Thompson, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee—favor the Fair Tax (a 23 percent sales tax), and a seventh (Ron Paul) wants to abolish the IRS.

Are average attacks per day up or down in Iraq? What about coalition fatalities? Or oil production? Or electricity? Using a slew of snazzy charts, the recently overhauled Victory Caucus Web site has the answers.

In 1930, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act became law. The protectionist measure was vigorously opposed by 1,028 of the nation’s top economists, who rightly predicted that the tariffs would devastate the economy. Now, some in Congress are considering ways to enact similar policies, this time against China. Once again, 1,028 of America’s top economists, from all 50 states and top universities, have signed a petition in opposition.

[continue reading...]

The Logistics of Withdrawing from Iraq

Last night, Joe Biden returned to his old self, overpowering his opponents with knowledge and passion on the most important issue in this election: Iraq. Example:

It's time to start to tell the truth. The truth of the matter is: If we started today, it would take one year, one year to get 160,000 troops physically out of Iraq, logistically.

Time's Michael Duffy elaborates:

The reality is that it's difficult to get out fast. It took the Soviets nine months to pull 120,000 troops out of Afghanistan. They were simply going next door, and they still lost more than 500 men on the way out. Pulling out 10 combat brigades—roughly 30,000 troops, along with their gear and support personnel—would take at least 10 months, Pentagon officials say. And that's only part of the picture. There are civilians who would probably want to head for the exit when GIs started packing. They include some 50,000 U.S. contractors and tens of thousands of Iraqis who might need protection if we left the country.

Slowing things down further is the sheer volume of stuff that we would have to take with us—or destroy if we couldn't. Military officials recently told Congress that 45,000 ground-combat vehicles—a good portion of the entire U.S. inventory of tanks, helicopters, armored personnel carriers, trucks and Humvees—are now in Iraq. They are spread across 15 bases, 38 supply depots, 18 fuel-supply centers and 10 ammo dumps. These items have to be taken back home or destroyed, lest they fall into the hands of one faction or another. Pentagon officials will try to bring back as much of the downtime gear as possible—dining halls, office buildings, vending machines, furniture, mobile latrines, computers, paper clips and acres of living quarters. William (Gus) Pagonis, the Army logistics chief who directed the flood of supplies to Saudi Arabia for the 1991 Gulf War and their orderly withdrawal from the region, cites one more often overlooked hurdle: U.S. agricultural inspectors insist that, before it re-enters the U.S., Army equipment be free of any microscopic disease that, as Pagonis puts it, "can wipe out flocks of chickens and stuff like that."

I'd like to hear why Bill Richardson, who wants to "bring all the troops home . . . in six months, with no residual forces," thinks his knowledge of military matters trumps that of the guys doing the heavy lifting.

[continue reading...]

"Defeatist" Smear Is Indefensible

An hour ago, blogger N.Z. Bear e-mailed his Rightblogs ListServ to decry "defeatist rhetoric" about Iraq. Here's what he wrote (reprinted with permission):

We must use whatever power we have to ensure that our wobbly political class doesn't rob the troops in the field of the chance to win. That doesn't mean blind obedience to the administration's position, but it does mean combating the defeatist rhetoric that is now beginning to come from even Republican corners.

I asked N.Z. if by "defeatist rhetoric" he means that there are no honest arguments for any form of withdrawal? He responded as follows:

Not at all. But when people say thin[g]s (a la Harry Reid) like "the war is lost," I'd call that defeatist. And I'd call [Senator] Lugar's recent call for withdrawal because he thinks the surge isn't working—after mere weeks—defeatist as well.

I'm open to being convinced that we've lost the war and have been defeated. But I've yet to see any genuinely serious arguments to that end...

Without wading into the question of whether the U.S. has been "defeated" in Iraq (I prefer to ask if our presence there is worthwhile?), I strongly object to the word "defeatist," because it implies that anyone who isn't Cheney-esque about the war is actually hoping for an American defeat. People can reasonably disagree about our prospects for victory, but to impugn the motives of those with whom you disagree in this way is vicious and vacuous.

I'll leave the last words to Senator Chuck Hagel:

I am not, nor any member of Congress that I'm aware of, Tim, is advocating defeat. That's ridiculous, and I'm offended that any responsible member of Congress or anyone else would even suggest such a thing.

Update: N.Z. responds:

My quick response, for the record, is that "defeatist rhetoric" doesn't necessarily mean the speaker wishes for defeat—it means that the rhetoric itself makes it more likely that we will be defeated (by encouraging our enemy / discouraging ourselves). I'm not interested in or trying to attack someone[']s motives or inner feelings—I'm interested in the results of their actions.

That of course doesn't mean I never want to hear anything bad said about the war, but I expect that if someone like a U.S. Senator is going to say something bad, that it should be clearly based in fact and constructive. (Reid and Lugar's comments both fail that test in my mind.)

This is an important distinction, but it leaves a couple questions:

1. What about Lugar's critique is un-factual and unconstructive? Here's what he said: "The president has the opportunity now to bring about a bipartisan foreign policy. I don’t think he’ll have that option very long.”

(Lugar added, “Those who offer constructive criticism of the surge strategy are not defeatists, any more than those who warn against a precipitous withdrawal are militarists.”)

2. What is the responsibility of a member of a Congress who strongly believes the war is lost? If he speaks out, then, according to N.Z., he hurts the troops. But if he holds his breath, he betrays his conscience and surrenders leadership. Note: now that we're more than four years into the war, the usual answer—that he should express his disagreement in private—is obsolete.

[continue reading...]

The Daily Digest

Soren Dayton, the blogger behind Eyeon08, has been chronicling Mitt Romney's flip-flops: on abortion, gay rights, taxes, guns, embryonic stem-cell research, Ronald Reagan, the Contract with America, his draft dodging, education, immigration and campaign- finance reform.

Jeffrey Birnbaum documents how career politicians are extinguishing citizen legislators: "Thirty years ago lawmakers and many of their staffers accepted that their Washington careers were over when they left Congress. Not anymore. Now they look forward to lucrative second acts on K Street working for the same interests they were asked to judge impartially when they were on the government payroll."

Frank Zarb, Jimmy Carter's energy secretary (before it was called that), identifies one of the obvious, if politically treacherous, solutions to America's energy crisis: "Nuclear energy is the cleanest and best option for America’s electric power supply, yet it has been stalled by decades of unproductive debate. Our current commercial nuclear power plants have an outstanding record of safety and security, and new designs will only raise performance."

Shorter Nick Gillespie, from a week after the Iraq war began: I told you so.

[continue reading...]

The Daily Digest

Tulips in Washington Circle

The caveats regarding the blowback theory of U.S. foreign policy, recently popularized by Ron Paul, cannot be overemphasized. Radley adds some I missed: (1) This isn't some fringe idea common only to crazy September 11 conspiracy theorists; (2) It doesn't suggest that we deserve or deserved to be attacked; and (3) It doesn't suggest we shouldn't retaliate or have retaliated against those who attack us.

Another online boat I missed: a wiki for summarizing the meaning, arguments for and against, and the status of federal bills. The Politico reports: "So far, WashingtonWatch has thousands of entries on each piece of legislation moving through Congress. They're written, edited and frequently rewritten, as is the wont with wiki-ers."

Speaking of ingenious ideas, NZ Bear, who previously brought us the magnificent Porkbusters project, is again proving why CPAC named him the 2007 blogger of the year. Soon after the electronic version of the immigration-reform bill was passed, the text made its way to NRO. But the file was a big and clunky PDF, so NZ "parsed it into a format that allows for easy browsing online." Features include an interactive table of contents, a highlights section, and the ability for anyone to comment on, and for anybody to link directly to, any section of the bill. As if that weren't enough, further proving that he cares more about getting things done than about who gets credit, NZ then teamed up with Heritage to make the text searchable.

Semantic insidiousness watch, courtesy of John Stossel: apparently, if you oppose school choice, you're "pro-education." Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor of the Post, documents why the exact opposite is true: "If it were up to the children and their parents, there'd be no question that the District's five-year experiment with school vouchers would be renewed for an additional five years or more. That's the most emphatic finding of an independent evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program published last week."

[continue reading...]

Hagel Was Right All Along

Each time I extol Chuck Hagel for his outspokenness on Iraq, I do so cautiously, knowing that many of my colleagues in the rightroots strongly disagree.

But now comes vindication (or at least cover) from no less than the Republican Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell:

Many of the predictions that Chuck made about how the war might go have come true.

McConnell's going to catch hell for this remark, but bully for him for adhering to what I've dubbed the GOP's 12th commandment: putting principle before party.

[continue reading...]

Why Congress Needs More Chuck Hagels

To speak truth to power, as a member of the party of power. As relevant today as it was five months ago.

[continue reading...]

What Constitutes Congressional Oversight?

Congress's "effort to micromanage the Iraq war," by sending the president a bill this afternoon with a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces, "is nothing less than shameful," argues Heritage's Peter Brookes.

Let's play devil's advocate for a minute. Fact: Each branch of government is supposed to act as a check and balance on the others. Question: If the legislative branch disapproves of an action taken by the executive, what should it do?

To wit, what should Congress do with respect to war, so as not to "micromanage"?

Is oversight limited to such things as a (toothless) Sense of the Congress resolution? Or, since Congress has the power of the purse, should it defund the war by withholding money or tying money to certain conditions (say, that Iraqi oil pay for 25% percent of our expenses)?

[continue reading...]

Defining Victory in Iraq

Demostrating yet again the power of the blogosphere, RedState has raised enough money to dispatch two bloggers to Iraq for a reporting field trip. Here's one thing that caught my eye:

The above photo is from Rear Admiral Fox's office, and describes the desired "End State" situation in Iraq. I think the use of the word "state" in the title makes for a nice double entendre, and as such, helps convey the magnitude and the situation and the size of the project. Also on the card, at the bottom and out of the picture, is this final line: "An ally in the war on terror."

[continue reading...]

Criticism Is Easy; Ideation Is Hard

You gotta give John McCain credit: he's sticking to his guns on Iraq—even as he uses them to shoot down his presidential prospects. In an hourlong interview with the NYT on Iraq, McCain admitted that

he had yet to identify an effective fallback if the current strategy failed.

“I have no Plan B,” Mr. McCain said in an interview. “If I saw that doomsday scenario evolving, then I would try to come up with one. But I cannot give you a good alternative because if I had a good alternative, maybe we could consider it now". . . .

Mr. McCain methodically dismissed as unrealistic every other plan that had been proposed by Democrats as a substitute for President Bush’s strategy, including those from Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Barack Obama of Illinois.

He said that if the Bush administration’s plan had not produced visible signs of progress by the time a McCain presidency began, he might be forced—if only by the will of public opinion—to end American involvement in Iraq.

In other words, McCain concedes that he lacks even a whiff of an exit strategy, which means he's advocating a fully open-ended commitment. In fact, to the extent that he cares about the will of the people, his timetable for victory is almost two years from now.

In January 2004, James Fallows wrote a much-discussed cover story for the Atlantic titled "Blind into Baghdad." Three years later, his point remains truer than ever.

Update: Steve Chapman points out that McCain gave the same answer on Thursday to 60 Minutes: asked "[i]f the surge strategy fails, what's next?," he replied, "That's what I don't know." Unbelievable.

[continue reading...]