'Cut and run' would be the wrong answer

I was asked to respond to an article in The Atlantic magazine entitled “Why Iraq has No Army,” by James Fallows. (FYI- I’m linking to it, but the link may only be good to non-subscribers for a few days). Incidentally, this article was also sited on Meet the Press this morning when Tim Russert asked for a response to the article from Senator John McCain.

I love Tim Russert, but he seems to harp incessantly on mistakes made in the execution of the war. Certainly one of the primary purposes of the fourth estate is to do juts that, but he seems to revisit it over and over with every guest. This morning he asked Senator McCain (I’m paraphrasing), “One of the misjudgments made was that we would be greeted as liberators. Then the cost of the war, --- and then required troop levels – three fundamental misjudgments by the administration, is that fair? ”

McCain’s answer was that it was fair. Sometimes I feel like the there’s this opinion out there that says to the administration “you should have planned for everything. You should have anticipated everything that might have happened and planned for it.” Never mind that we were confronting what we believed to be a clear and present danger that needed to be addressed immediately. Has there ever been a war plan that worked out exactly as planned…ever? Where are these “perfect world” standards coming from that a war is the equivalent of a math proof that can just be worked out with enough elbow grease?

Earlier in the interview Russert asked Senator McCain for a reaction to the following quote from the Article in the Atlantic:

“In short, if American troops disappeared tomorrow, Iraq would have essentially no independent security force. Half its policemen would be considered worthless, and the other half would depend on external help for organization, direction, support. Two thirds of the army would be in the same dependent position, and even the better-prepared one third would suffer significant limitations without foreign help."

“The moment when Iraqis can lift much of the burden from American troops is not yet in sight. --- Measured against what it would take to leave Iraqis fully in charge of their own security, the United States and the Iraqi government are losing ground. Absent a dramatic change—in the insurgency, in American efforts, in resolving political differences in Iraq—America's options will grow worse, not better, as time goes on.”

I think this was a good summary quote from what James Fallows advocates in this long twenty page article, but I’m not sure it tells all of Fallows' story. Senator McCain, probably hearing the quote for the first time, felt obligated to take it as an estimation that there was little or no progress happening, and to respectfully disagree with Fallows.

I found Fallows article to be a well told list of the mistakes made and the many the challenges to succeeding in Iraq, but also a description of the beginnings of progress in training Iraqi security forces. Clearly there have been plenty of mistakes and clearly there are many things the U.S. can improve and recommit to in order to ensure success.

At the same time, I think Fallows touches on what’s really important when he quotes General Petraeus on the importance of training Iraqi forces:

“The enemy recognizes that if Iraqi security forces ever really get traction, they are in trouble. So all of this (training) is done in the most challenging environment imaginable."

And later Fallows makes a conclusion similar to what I said the other day (that we’re not leaving anytime soon):

“Based on these interviews, I have come to this sobering conclusion: the United States can best train Iraqis, and therefore best help itself leave Iraq, only by making certain very long-term commitments to stay.”

In the end it is difficult to know who to believe on the current progress of training for Iraqi defense forces. I was listening to Rush this past week and he replayed Mary Matalin dressing down John Kerry on the Today show about this very topic. Her pronouncements of Iraqi security force readiness make it sound like massive progress is being made—and certainly echoed the end of the Fallows article (in spots). With nothing but partisan assessments one way or the other as inputs, how is average Joe citizen supposed to form an opinion?

For me it comes down to which side is doing a better job at confronting reality. We can’t just leave. We have to stay. In this morning’s interview Tim Russert asked Senator McCain if the situation is the same in six months as it is today, would he advocate a timeline for our pullout from Iraq. McCain responded with the following (good thing Tivo let’s me rewind!)

“I would say that we would have to evaluate our strategy, but We would also have to consider the consequences of failure. If we fail….don’t take my word for it, take Zarqowi’s-- Zarqawi and Bin Laden’s version of history is, we were driven out of Vietnam, we were driven out of Lebanon, we were driven out of Somalia , and they’re going to go after us and the United States of America, ---now that’s not my saying, that’s what they’re saying, this is why so much is at stake here. This is why I made the controversial statement that this is more important than Vietnam. The Vietnamese weren’t going to come after us, these people are dedicated to our extinction.”

I think that McCain’s response was the right one. It is imperative that we stand our ground and build a democratic Iraq. The insurgents know what is at stake, and are showing that in the way they’re fighting. I think those, like McCain, which are proponents of making Iraq a real victory, and not prematurely pulling out of that country, also understand what is really at stake.