Solving the Mess in Mesopotamia, Part One

I’m not a soldier, intelligence expert, or diplomat, and the closest I’ve been to Baghdad is Venice, Italy.

Please understand that.

If you believe – as many do – that the only proper foundation for national leadership is real-world, hands-on experience, I’m not your guy.

On the other hand, I’m a lifelong student of History, which Machiavelli – that most tough-minded of political realists – identified as the essential study of leaders.

I’m also a student (and actor) of Shakespeare, himself the greatest of all students of human nature.

If nothing else, I have those two things – History and Shakespeare – in common with Mr. Lincoln, who did a fair job of leading the nation despite a complete lack of previous executive experience or foreign travel and a military career limited to a few months as captain of volunteers in the Black Hawk War, during which his only combat was with mosquitos. (Lincoln’s witticism, not mine.)

I offer this rather lengthy disclaimer because, in Part II of this posting, I propose to set forth the course of action I would adopt Iraq if I woke up tomorrow and discovered that I was President of the United States.

For the fact is that, were I President, I would act along lines entirely at odds with anything suggested by President Bush, most of those running to replace him, the great majority of Republicans and Democrats in Congress, or the distinguished elder statesmen of the Iraq Study Group.

For all their vast and diverse experience – none of these hard-headed, real-world leaders seems to have the vaguest idea how to extract the US from Iraq without leaving behind a power vacuum which would invite intervention by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey – and probably Israel – as well as a safe haven for Al Qaeda in Anbar province.

Which is not to say that our political leaders are incapable of devising a way forward. Success in Iraq simply isn’t their highest priority. The simple fact is that – since the midterms – few of our leaders nearly as concerned with the ultimate fate of Iraq as they are eager to catch up with public opinion.

And public opinion is, once again, headed over a cliff.

Having been duped into supporting an unnecessary and ill-considered invasion of Iraq, the American people have finally exercised the democratic equivalent of the “lemon law”. On November 7, they voted to return this lemon of a war to the folks who sold it to them.

The people want their money back.

Sadly, a war is not a used car. The harm done – to thousands of American troops; tens of thousands of Iraqis; and America’s armed forces, national debt, and credibility as a world leader – cannot be undone. The brutal regime which held together the centrifugal religious and tribal communities collectively called “Iraq” has been dismantled – replaced by a comic-opera parliamentary regime with absolutely no roots in the history and culture of Iraq.

And the fault is ours.

Mr. Bush may have led us into this war, but the great majority of Americans were credulous enough – and ignorant enough – to follow him. All but a handful of our political leaders lacked the good sense or moral fiber to try to slow him down. And those of us who knew better were too intimidated, or too fatalistic, to make much noise at the time.

We all have blood on our hands.

Nonetheless, the American people seem prepared to wash their hands of the whole business, and those who profess to speak for them are now demanding a pullout that will only compound the follies of 2002 and 2003..

But vox populi, vox whatever... If the people demand withdrawal, that’s what they’ll get, and the discussion of our options – from now on – will have more to do with affixing blame and saving face than with the future of Iraq.

Indeed, the dozens of options now under discussion seem to boil down to “cut and run” or “cut and stroll”. With the exception of Senator John McCain, no one is seriously talking about sticking around until Iraq is sufficiently pacified and well-governed to have some chance of surviving.

The Bush Administration seems to have decided on setting “benchmarks” for the Iraqi government – with the obvious intention of blaming the Iraqis when they fail to “take responsibility”. Of course, the Iraqi government has no chance of imposing order – and about the same prospects of surviving an American pullout as the former government of South Vietnam. But as long as the President can blame the Iraqis, he can bring the troops home and start planning for his presidential library.

Congressional Democrats seem content to cling to their pre-election strategy. They’re perfectly willing to place the blame on the Administration, so long as no one asks them for a constructive suggestion.

Most of the presidential wannabes – regardless of party – seem primarily concerned that America’s involvement be ended before November, 2008 – or at least January 20, 2009.

The most interesting approach is that expected from the Iraq Study Group, headed by Bush family consigliere* James Baker. The Group’s main suggestion will apparently be to begin a gradual withdrawal of combat units while inviting neighboring countries – particularly Iran and Syria – to help with the pacification of Iraq.

In realistic terms, this is nonsense. Given the hostility of both regimes to American interests, they can scarcely be expected to make things easier on us. Their interest is to reduce Iraq to a puppet state, and steps in that direction would almost certainly spark counter-intervention by the Saudis, probably the Turks – and, inevitably, the Israelis.

The Iraq Study Group’s recommendations offer an unpleasant future for Iraq – and long-term problems for the US. Indeed, these recommendations are make sense only when seen in terms of Mr. Baker’s loyalty to the Bush family – i.e., as an attempt to shift blame for Iraq’s destiny onto a pair of unpopular states – thus beginning the process of salvaging the historical “legacy” of Bush the Younger.

In short, nothing now being discussed in Washington makes sense in terms of America’s national interests. If we, the people, insist upon getting out of Iraq at any price – and allow our politicians to consult their own interests in doing so – we will be buying temporary relief at the price of future disasters which will make the present war seem like a mere unpleasantness.

Which is why, were I President, I would disregard the voices of nearly everyone in Washington and act decisively – even ruthlessly – to foster America’s national interests.

And I’d start with a change of vocabulary: I’d stop talking about Iraq, and start talking about Mesopotamia.

-30-

Note: I'd written this piece before reading Paul Krugman’s column of this date, but I give him credit for being the first I’ve seen to refer to Mr. Baker as the “Bush family consigliere”. At any rate, if I was ripping anyone off, it was Aaron Sorkin, for Leo McGarry’s line, “I’m a wartime consigliere.”