A couple of days ago Brent Scowcroft penned an editorial in the New York Times. Scowcroft is smart man. He publicly warned against the invasion of Iraq and his concerns have borne out with alarming accuracy. In reading his recommendations I was struck by three things. First, I was struck by the clarity of his thought. He fully understands the stakes. We can see this in the following:
An American withdrawal before Iraq can, in the words of the president, “govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself” would be a strategic defeat for American interests, with potentially catastrophic consequences both in the region and beyond. Our opponents would be hugely emboldened, our friends deeply demoralized.
Iran, heady with the withdrawal of its principal adversary, would expand its influence through Hezbollah and Hamas more deeply into Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Jordan. Our Arab friends would rightly feel we had abandoned them to face alone a radicalism that has been greatly inflamed by American actions in the region and which could pose a serious threat to their own governments.
The effects would not be confined to Iraq and the Middle East. Energy resources and transit choke points vital to the global economy would be subjected to greatly increased risk. Terrorists and extremists elsewhere would be emboldened. And the perception, worldwide, would be that the American colossus had stumbled, was losing its resolve and could no longer be considered a reliable ally or friend — or the guarantor of peace and stability in this critical region.
The second thing that struck me was that Scowcroft suffers from the same fault that characterized the Best and the Brightest during Vietnam. This fault is in placing too much emphasis on keeping our word and maintaining the perception that we are reliable. We can see this in Scowcroft’s emphasis on “Our opponents would be hugely emboldened, our friends deeply demoralized” and “the perception, worldwide, would be that the American colossus had stumbled, was losing its resolve and could no longer be considered a reliable ally or friend.” Scowcroft returns to this theme in his conclusion:
As we work our way through this seemingly intractable problem in Iraq, we must constantly remember that this is not just a troublesome issue from which we can walk away if it seems too costly to continue. What is at stake is not only Iraq and the stability of the Middle East, but the global perception of the reliability of the United States as a partner in a deeply troubled world. We cannot afford to fail that test.
I’ll return to this mindset after I tackle the third thing that struck me about Scowcroft’s editorial. Scowcroft’s main proposal can be seen here:
A vigorously renewed effort to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict could fundamentally change both the dynamics in the region and the strategic calculus of key leaders. Real progress would push Iran into a more defensive posture. Hezbollah and Hamas would lose their rallying principle. American allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states would be liberated to assist in stabilizing Iraq. And Iraq would finally be seen by all as a key country that had to be set right in the pursuit of regional security.
Arab leaders are now keen to resolve the 50-year-old dispute. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel may be as well. His nation’s long-term security can only be assured by resolving this issue once and for all. However, only the American president can bring them to the same table.
Resuming the Arab-Israeli peace process is not a matter of forcing concessions from Israel or dragooning the Palestinians into surrender. Most of the elements of a settlement are already agreed as a result of the negotiations of 2000 and the “road map” of 2002. What is required is to summon the will of Arab and Israeli leaders, led by a determined American president, to forge the various elements into a conclusion that all parties have already publicly accepted in principle.
Now, whether we escalate in Iraq or we withdraw, I agree with Scowcroft’s analysis here. Our invasion of Iraq has inadvertantly empowered Iran’s Shi’ite regime. This may offer us a classic opportunity to make lemonade out of our lemons. Iran’s increased influence is now a greater concern to Arab Sunnis that the plight of the Palestinians, and America’s defeat in Iraq should certainly focus Israel’s mind on the need for an agreement that can provide for their security. We may have an unique window to hammer out a comprehensive peace agreement. But we have to remember who is in the White House.
If “a vigorously renewed effort to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict” is an essential ingredient in limiting the fallout from Iraq, then it is equally essential that we remove the present administration from office.
This is equally important when we consider Scowcroft’s concern with perceptions and keeping promises.
I think Scowcroft is basically dreaming if he thinks we can lose a war and not break any promises or let down any of our allies. No soldiers should be sent to fight for an impossible goal of maintaining perceptions. But, one way to minimize the negative consequences of losing the war in Iraq is to remove the President and Vice-President from office. By repudiating their terms in office, we also repudiate their manipulated intelligence, their decision to invade, and we reassure our allies that we are capable of dealing with a government that gets out of control.
Our allies need to be reassured that America will not go off half-cocked again and drag them along for the ride. If we tell the world that we agree with them that the Bush administration has been wrong and has not acted wisely or responsibly, it will do more to restore confidence in us than will two, three, or four more years of failure in Iraq.
Watergate offered our nation a much needed chance to make a reckoning of our epic blunder in Vietnam. No President has ever been granted the opportunity to clean up their own mess after embroiling us in an unwise war. Truman was replaced by Eisenhower, who negotiated a truce. LBJ was replaced by Nixon who, in turn, was replaced by Ford. Bush and Cheney need to be replaced for all the same reasons.
It’s not only their unwillingness to jumpstart the Middle East peace process, it is their total lack of credibility abroad and at home. We cannot begin to move forward until we have new leadership. It’s the same logic that is driving Bush to replace our commanders and intelligence chiefs. Those that preside over failure are ill-equipped to handle the aftermath.
This is something that Senator Lieberman doesn’t seem to understand.
“The president of the United States gets this,” Lieberman said. “I think he sees the moment that we are at in the larger war on terrorism and the significance of how we conclude the war in Iraq, how devastating it would be to the Iraqis, to the Middle East, to America if we simply withdrew. He needs our support.”
John McCain is of a similiar mindset. He says, “It’s just so hard for me to contemplate failure that I can’t make the next step.”
The war in Iraq has come down to this: Scowcroft, Lieberman, McCain, Bush and others are scared to death of the consequences of defeat. They are willing to pays billions of dollars and lose thousands of America lives in order to postpone the day of reckoning. And it won’t be merely a ‘day’, it will be a messy, uncertain future. Lindsay Graham was on Meet the Press this morning talking about Iran annexing the southern oil fields and the Turks invading Kurdistan. He is terrified and is willing to put a hundred thousand more troops in and fight for years to try to prevent the worst.
My message to all of these people is pretty simple. The war is lost. Scowcroft is right that we must have ‘a vigorously renewed effort to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict’. We will not get that under neo-conservative leadership. I call on these Republicans to support the drive to force the resignations of Bush and Cheney, using the same process that drove Nixon from power.
Our national security and the welfare of the world demands that we do this. And we need your support.
