I know it’s hard to understand, but the threat of terrorism isn’t like the threat of losing an election. You can win 70% of the vote, but if 5% of the population is unreconciled to your victory and is willing to commit and facilitate acts of random and targeted violence, you can have chaos. You can think of al-Qaeda as an organization made up of a small group of (mostly) Saudi and Egyptian political dissidents whose primary concern was opposition to their country’s regimes and those regimes’ tight relationship with the U.S. government. They were specifically outraged by the basing of U.S. soldiers and airmen within the Saudi kingdom. Toppling Saddam Hussein and stationing U.S. troops in that country on a more or less permanent basis was not an intelligent way of dealing with political opposition to the Saudi and Egyptian governments. It just added a new grievance by placing unbelievers in another Muslim country known for its Holy sites and shrines.
The New York Times Editorial Board seems to understand this:
The United Nations resolution authorizing the American role in Iraq expires at the end of this year. Since December, the two governments have been quietly negotiating their own deal.
Despite the importance of this issue, the White House is refusing to divulge details of its position. But according to Iraqi leaders, who went public with their complaints this week, Washington has been insisting on keeping more than 50 long-term bases in Iraq. The Iraqis also say that Washington is insisting that American forces have a free hand in launching military operations when and wherever they want.
If true — and a lot of this sounds disturbingly plausible — the Iraqis are right to object, and so should Congress and the American public.
These steps appear calculated to keep American troops in Iraq indefinitely — exactly the wrong course for both countries. Any talk of long-term basing rights, in particular, will only feed popular resentments. And the suggestion that America is prepared to continue the war indefinitely will, once again, relieve Iraq’s leaders of any pressure to take responsibility for their own security or their political future.
Part of the problem for John McCain is that he is advocating a policy that is designed to make it safe for American troops to stay in Iraq for 100 years. And he is trying to use metrics like the monthly casualty rate to argue that things are getting safer and thus progress is being made. But Iraq is still a lethal country for our troops and its population will never be reconciled to foreign occupation.
Moreover, we’re trying to negotiate a deal with a popularly elected government. It’s always possible for the Iraqi government to call off future elections, but as long as they are scheduling them (and they are), we have to recognize that politicians tend not to do things that are wildly unpopular in their districts and provinces.
And, for our own domestic political purposes, the problem for Bush and McCain is that they simply cannot articulate a rationale for an ongoing military occupation of Iraq. People can understand an effort to provide enough stability for the Iraqi government to take over for our soldiers, but they can’t understand why we are negotiating to have over 50 permanent bases in Iraq. The American people don’t support such a policy any more than the Iraqi people do. For this reason, Bush and McCain simply refuse to acknowledge what their policy is or to discuss any merits it might have. The New York Times concludes:
What makes this all the more confusing is that in recent months there has been some tentative progress in Iraq. American and Iraqi casualties have declined, and there are signs that the central government is beginning to assert its authority against Shiite militias in Basra and Sadr City and against allies of Al Qaeda in Mosul. Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain cannot have it both ways: insisting that American troops must stay if things go badly, and that they must stay if they go well.
Mr. Bush should start preparing now for an orderly withdrawal — and for a strategic review of America’s relationship with Iraq. Since he stubbornly refuses to do that, he should negotiate an extension of the United Nations mandate and leave any deal on future American-Iraqi relations to his successor.
I commend the New York Times for pointing out the inconsistencies in the policy, but they are beating around the bush. It is now evident that the policy hasn’t been to eradicate tyranny or to promote democracy or to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. The policy has been to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. What’s not clear is why.
