11 Feb “Victory is Not an Option”: General Odom’s Op-Ed
General William Odom has a thoughtful op-ed in today’s Washington Post with the title quoted above. He begins by debunking what he views as four myths concerningt he war (includng we must continue fighting to prevent Iran from gaining power in Iraq and we must continue fighting to prevent a blood bath). He then goes on to explain why we should leave, which I find is rarely discussed beyond saying the public is against the war and leaving will save American lives.
He writes, in part:
The first and most critical step is to recognize that fighting on now simply prolongs our losses and blocks the way to a new strategy. Getting out of Iraq is the pre-condition for creating new strategic options…
Second, we must recognize that the United States alone cannot stabilize the Middle East.
Third, we must acknowledge that most of our policies are actually destabilizing the region. Spreading democracy, using sticks to try to prevent nuclear proliferation, threatening “regime change,” using the hysterical rhetoric of the “global war on terrorism” — all undermine the stability we so desperately need in the Middle East.
Fourth, we must redefine our purpose. It must be a stable region, not primarily a democratic Iraq. We must redirect our military operations so they enhance rather than undermine stability. We can write off the war as a “tactical draw” and make “regional stability” our measure of “victory.”…
This is one of the best arguments I’ve seen in favor of withdrawal. Nonetheless, I just don’t know if a complete withdrawal will cause more harm (for regional stability as a general matter and for average Iraqis, more pointedly) than good.
Regardless as to your own proclivities, Odom’s piece will probably give you food for thought.
Hat tip: Talking Points Memo
I don’t see any point in attempting to negotiate with Iran or Syria. They are our enemies and care only to negotiate in so much as it gives them time to build a stronger position. Time is on there side, and not on ours, unless we are hoping for a technological revolution to remove the primacy of oil.
That oversimplifies things, somewhat. I am not sure if you are implying we should actually go to war with Iran, but I’ll use your comment as a launching point to deal with that issue that everyone seems to be talking about. First, Iran is a complex state with power split up among various factions and groups. The Pasdaran (the revolutionary guards), in particular, have been attacking and killing U.S. citizens since the Iranian Revolution. They are our enemy, no doubt. However, the growing middle class in Iran has a much greater interest in rapprochment with the US. Attacking Iran will more likely destroy the chance of Iranian moderates gaining power in our lifetimes than prevent Iran from getting nukes in our lifetimes. Which brings me to my second point… The lack of solid military options regarding Iran. I haven’t heard anyone credible say we can actually deny Iran the ability to get nuclear weapons. We aren’t sure where the centrifuges are and, when we do know where they are, we aren’t sure we can get into those hardened bunkers without our own use of tactical nukes. So, let’s review: using tactical nukes in a highly populated Islamic country with very… Read more »
First, Iran is a complex state with power split up among various factions and groups. The Pasdaran (the revolutionary guards), in particular, have been attacking and killing U.S. citizens since the Iranian Revolution. They are our enemy, no doubt. However, the growing middle class in Iran has a much greater interest in rapprochment with the US. I should have been more careful in my wording. Consider my original post to be amended to “the current governments of Syria and Iran.” Attacking Iran will more likely destroy the chance of Iranian moderates gaining power in our lifetimes than prevent Iran from getting nukes in our lifetimes. Which brings me to my second point… We’ve been hoping for a revolution on Iran for decades now. It still hasn’t occured, and I can’t say it’s likely to occur in the near future. I concur, more or less that a quick surgical strike without follow up is unlikely to halt Iran’s nuclear plans. Admittedly, destroying the plant and their centrifuges would be a setback, but they have the know-how, they’d just have to rebuild them an conceal them elsewhere. Any plan that doesn’t involve toppling the Iranian government is destined to failure. Perhaps the… Read more »