The missing debate

Former CIA director George Tenet says in a new book that there was never a debate within the Bush White House on the merits of going to war with Saddam Hussein. The White House counter claim is to say there was a debate, it's just that the director of the CIA was not in a position to be aware of it.

I don't know which is worse: that there was never any debate at all, or that the alleged debate went on without the head of the country's intelligence agency being aware of it.

The United States needs to fight terrorism. But military strategists from Sun Tsu on down have emphasized the importance of picking the field of battle that is most advantageous for your own side. Iraq is not the only option for our field of battle in this war.

Gen. David Patraeus, commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq, has said that he will give us an assessment in September on whether he thinks the current "surge" strategy is working. Let's hope that he will give us an honest assessment, and he will not be tied to the notion that we must stay in Iraq for no other reason than the fact that we are already there.

No surge in Washington

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, says he needs more time to tell whether President Bush's "surge" strategy will work to improve the situation in Iraq. What is already clear, however, is that it has already failed in Washington.

If President Bush wants an open-ended scheduled for the involvement of U.S. troops in Iraq, then he needs to come up with a credible explanation on how this is going to improve the situation there. Just saying that if we don't fight terrorists in Iraq we will find ourselves fighting them here is not enough. Part of the burden of taking a democratic country to war is that the President must take upon himself the responsibility to maintain the support of the public.

Given the history of how the United States got involved in Iraq, and given the various statements by the administration about progress in the war that were later shown by events to have been overly optimistic, President Bush cannot expect Congress to give him the open-ended commitment that he seeks. Not under the current conditions.

Recall Sen. Reid

The constitution gives Congress power to declare war. In this age of undeclared wars, that power has been greatly weakened. So Senate majority leader Harry Reid apparently has decided that Congress ought, instead, to have the power to declare defeat in wars.

The leader of the Democratic majority in the Senate told journalists Thursday:

"This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week."

He says he told the President the same thing Wednesday, when Congressional leaders met the President to discuss the war funding bill.

I have no problem with that. What the senator tells the President in private is entirely up to him. But to make such a statement on the record is inexcusable. In some twisted political calculation, it may be beneficial for the Democratic Party. But Sen. Reid seriously undermined the national interest of our country, and he needs to be called to account for that.

Sen. Reid's remarks have more to do with the civil war between Red and Blue that is going on in America that it does with any effort to do what is best for the United States as a whole in Iraq and the Middle East.

Last Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney speculated that the Democrats would come around eventually, because defunding the war would mean the Democrats would have to shoulder responsibility for the U.S. defeat that would surely follow such a move. Sen. Reid's remark today was calculated to counter the Vice President's strategy. If the war is already lost, according to Sen. Reid's implied calculation, the Democrats cannot be blamed for it no matter what happens from here on out.

Sen. Reid gave no thought to the strategic effect that his public comment would have on the country. He critically undermined the national interests of the United States in making this remark.

The people of Nevada should recall Sen. Reid, and elect someone who cares about the country.

Robert Gates, Secretary of Reconciliation?

The news on Iraq today is that U.S. defense secretary Robert Gates is in Iraq to "spur reconciliation" (AP headline). It's good that such a high level Bush administration official is in Baghdad to tell Iraqi leaders that they must not assume that U.S. forces will be around forever, and that they need to figure out a way to live together.

I am not so sure though, that the "secretary of defense," backed up by the strongest military in the world, is the right person to send if what is needed is someone to spur reconciliation among the various Iraqi factions. Right job, wrong person.

Reconciliation among various political and religious factions in Iraq is crucial to the success of the U.S. effort there, and so a focused effort toward this objective should have been launched much earlier.

It is not too late for the U.S. to begin such an effort, but it needs to involve a much broader spectrum of people than just the secretary of defense. Leaders from civil society, particularly religious leaders from the Islamic communities in the United States, must become involved.

The saga continues on Iraq war funding bill

Congressional leaders have been invited to a meeting with President Bush today to discuss the impasse over the war funding bill. It appears unlikely the meeting will serve to narrow the divide between the two sides.

(Sure enough! Here's the report.)

At this point, it is important for President Bush to realize that there are certain definite limitations when a free and democratic society such as the United States chooses to prosecute a war. The government cannot keep the country in a war for an extended period without firm public support.

Today, that support does not exist. It is time for the President to consider how to accomplish the objectives of the war through other means. Many of the assumptions behind the decision to go to war have been demonstrated to have been wrong. In such a situation, it is only natural that the country would want to pull the troops out and rethink our strategy for the region.

True, there are times when a leader must take an unpopular course of action. But President Bush should not cast himself in such a heroic role, because that principle does not apply here. It would be one thing if the public were saying, "We think you're wrong, but because we believe in you and you have a track record of good leadership we are going to give you the benefit of the doubt." That is not what the public is saying today.

There were periods in his administration when he had command of such respect. After the 2004 election, he claimed he had "earned political capital" and told us he intended to spend it. In 2006, the electorate transferred ownership of that capital to the Democrats and President Bush needs to acknowledge this fact.

The leader of a democratic society can go against the tide of public support only for so long before his righteous conviction to principle becomes obstinate refusal to consider other options. Presidents are elected to four-year terms, but that does not mean a President can ignore changes in public opinion after he is elected.

President Clinton was often criticized for governing by opinion poll. President Bush appears to have taken the matter to the other extreme, and it is even more problematic for the country.

What comes after U.S. pulls out of Iraq?

U.S. defense secretary Robert Gates met Jordan's King Abdullah II on Tuesday, and discussed peace in the Middle East. The resulting news article is very frustrating to read, because it says just enough to let you know that there is much more that is not being revealed.

Let's hope that they discussed a scenario for Iraq that begins with the pullout of most or all U.S. forces. The United States will need to remain involved in Iraq after the pull out in order to do whatever it can to maintain some semblance of stability in the region. Specifically, it will need to avoid a Sunni massacre by Iraq's Shiite majority, which has a lot of anger pent up after being ruthlessly suppressed by Saddam Hussein's Sunni regime.

A solution for peace in Iraq at this point, needs to begin with the withdrawal of U.S. troops, but that withdrawal must happen in conjunction with other efforts aimed at preventing the situation in Iraq from deteriorating even further after U.S. forces have left.

"Surge" too little too late?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a news conference today with retired Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr. and retired Brig. General John H. Johns. Sen. Reid's repeated his point on the ongoing conflict with the President over the war funding bill.

The Generals spoke in opposition to the current "surge" strategy. One point made was that the current strategy might have worked if it had been implemented years ago, but now it is just too little too late. The troops are not trained to perform the mission they are not being asked to perform. U.S. ground forces are being seen as unwelcome occupying forces, and this is not likely to change.

Their input needs to be taken seriously.

It has been clear for a long time that the solution in Iraq is not military. Neither is it political, despite what the politicians in Washington like to think. The solution must involve the religious leaders of the various communities in Iraq.

In Iraq, first get the troops out

The good news in Iraq is that things have at least not gotten any worse under President Bush's new "surge" strategy. The bad news is that no progress is being reported toward a structure where Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds would govern the country jointly.

My hope for the "surge" strategy is that it will create an exit point where the U.S. can withdraw its troops with some semblance of security in at least Baghdad. There should not be any expectation that this strategy will lead to the realization of President Bush's pre-invasion Utopian goal that Iraq become a "place where people can see that the Shia and the Sunni and the Kurds can get along in a federation" or that it serve as a "catalyst for change, positive change" in the region.

U.S. withdrawal may well lead to greater bloodshed in the short term. But it is clear that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is not moving the country toward peace. Military force cannot force sworn enemies to live together. If this is what President Bush wants, he will need to reach out to the religious communities in Iraq, using the religious communities in America.

The report that Middle East nations will gather in Egypt next month to discuss security issues involving Iraq is encouraging in that it appears to signal a greater willingness among surrounding states to take a more direct role in the Iraqi situation.

After the withdrawal of U.S. troops, the U.S. will need to continue its involvement in Iraq through through non-military channels. Surrounding countries will also need to take a much more active role so as to steer the region away from a direct military confrontation between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran, which is what many see as a worst-case scenario.

The solution in Iraq is not military or political

President Bush has yet to announce his new strategy for Iraq, and yet there is already much analysis on what it is expected to contain.

In response to reports that the President will send more troops to the battlefield, Democrats are lining up with the mantra, "There is no military solution. There is only a political solution."

It takes a politician to feel such conviction in the power of politics. What track record is there that tell us that politics can bring peace to Iraq? There is none.

The course of the war in Iraq is at a critical juncture. One comment to an earlier post on this blog referred to speculation about how people in a prosperous Iraq 40 years from now might look back on this war and the U.S. role in it with gratitude. If that prosperous Iraq is to come about, things need to start going very well right now.

Egypt's president is saying that his country needs a nuclear deterrent. He's known for many years that Israel has nuclear weapons, but it is only now, when Iran is acquiring nuclear weapons and appears to be ascendant in Iraq, that Egypt decides it needs nuclear weapons, too. Clearly, he is preparing for the possibility that the war in Iraq expands into a regional conflict. If that happens, Iraq 40 years from now is not likely to be prosperous, and it is not likely to look back with gratitude on what we Americans are doing in their country today.

The Bush administration can increase the number of troops, but at best that will only buy some time to put into effect a genuine strategy for peace that is neither military nor political. The administration needs to reach out to every American who is passionate about ending the war, including people such as Cindy Sheehan. It needs to get these people to Iraq working to bring peace.