Nation-Building >> democracy: our only hope | return to front page

Charles Bird posts a litany of demands of the Administration, naming himself a mamber of the "Dissatisfieds", conservatives who supported George Bush but feel that the war is on track to failure rather than victory if there is not change. I feel his pain here, because though he and I disagreed on which candidate in 2004 was going to get the Job Done, we did agree on what a Done Job should look like.

That said, I doubt his critique is going to gain much traction. Here's why:

Donald Rumsfeld fired, to be replaced with someone who can put together a workable and executable plan for helping deliver a free, peaceful, democratic non-theocracy in Iraq.

Who? Names, please. The only person I can think of is John Abizaid, but is that even remotely going to happen? Morelikely is a cosmetic change of leadership at Dod if anything, which will simply reinformce existing policy. The thing to change is not Rumsfeld, but the President and Vice President's attitude towards the threat. See below.

Enough troops (both Iraq and coalition) to mount successful clear-and-hold counterinsurgency operations.

how many? numbers, please. Where do the troops come from? how soon can they be mobilized? Can present recruiting sustain them? What level of incentives are we prepared to offer? Are we going to lower or raise physical and mental standards for new recruits?

A more concerted effort to get Iraq trained to Level 2 status or better

I think Charles is being unfair here. It seems clear that the best possible effort has already been made to do this. The problem is not lack of effort, its lack of resources.

Better border security, keeping out Iranian infiltrators in the east and Sunni paramilitants in the west.

utterly impossible, as pertains to the Iranian border. As far as Iran goes, the Administration is trying its best to paint Iran as an actionable threat. A diplomatic approach, with security guarantees, would be the better route with Iran. Most of Iran's interference in Iraq, and its nuclear ambition, is driven by its need to have a security posture with respect to us and Israel. The Administration is pursuing a direct confrontational approach, which is the opposite of what is required. Diplomacy with Iran would actually help stabilize Iraq, and the threat to Israel from Iran's nuclear ambitions is a deterrable one through conventional MAD (last I checked, blood enemies India and Pakistan have cooled down their animosity once they both joined the nuclear club, despite analogous hateful rhetoric. After all, autocrats are not bred for suicidal impulses).

A better information war.

Better? in what way? how is our information war underperforming? Specifically? Keep in mind that Hizbollah and the insurgency in Iraq have dramatically different organization and goals.

I believe that I have a single counter-proposal that would, if enacted, immediately improve the prospects for our victory in our long term project in Iraq. And that quite simply is, to be willing to treat each threat as a separable one rather than lump them all together. A refinement of terminology is the first step - especially given the damage that the present lexicon in use does for our prospects.

As Kevin Drum states, we don't have good options. I presently believe that despite popular opinion, keeping a significant troop presence in Iraq will lead to the less-horrible outcome. All outcomes are civil war at this point, though some forms of civil war are more uncivil than others.

I believe that the best we can do is to believe that democracy - even when it results in Islamist gains - is genuinely transformative in the long run. Our troops are, for better or for worse now, the only thing that can buy us that time. Maybe.