Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Victor Davis Hanson :: Townhall.com Columnist
Hope Yet for Iraq?
by Victor Davis Hanson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Iraq for most Americans is now a toxic subject - best either ignored or largely evoked to blame someone for something in the past.

Any visitor to Iraq can see that the American military cannot be defeated there, but also is puzzled over exactly how we could win - victory being defined as fostering a stable Iraqi constitutional state analogous to, say, Turkey.

But war is never static. Over the last 90 days, there has been newfound optimism, as Iraqis are at last stepping forward to help Americans secure their country.

I spent last week touring outlying areas of Baghdad and American forward operating bases in Anbar and Diyala provinces, talking to Army and Marine combat teams and listening to Iraqi provincial and security officials.

Whether in various suburbs of Baghdad, or in Baqubah, Ramadi or Taji, there is a familiar narrative of vastly reduced violence. Until recently, the Americans could not find enough interpreters, were rarely warned about landmines and had little support from Iraqi security forces.

But now they are being asked by Iraqis in the "Sunni Triangle" to join them to defeat the very terrorists the locals once championed. Anbar, a province that just months ago was deemed lost by a U.S. military intelligence report, is now in open revolt against al-Qaida.

Why the change?

Officers offered a number of theories. The surge of American troops, and Gen. David Petraeus' risky tactics of going after the terrorists within their enclaves, have put al-Qaida on the run. Likewise, in the past four years, the U.S. military has killed thousands of these terrorists and depleted their ranks.

Sunnis - angry over their loss of power to the historically discriminated-against Shiites - discovered their al-Qaida allies to be worse than their Shiite rivals. We forget that jihadists drew in not merely religious fanatics but also repulsive common criminals and psychopaths who extort, butcher and mutilate innocents.

Iraqis of all tribes and sects are also growing tired of the nihilistic violence that is squandering the opportunity for something better than Saddam's rule. The astronomical spike in oil prices has resulted in windfall profits of billions of dollars for the Iraqi government - and with it the realization that Iraq could someday become a wealthy advanced state.

Iraqis told me that their widely held fear that Americans are going to leave soon has galvanized Sunnis to finally step up to secure their country or face even worse chaos in our absence.

The result is that ordinary Iraqis are increasingly willing to participate in local government and civil defense. Such popular engagement from the bottom up offers more hope than the old 2003 idea that a democratically elected government could simply mandate reform top down from their enclaves in the Green Zone.

So we are at yet another turning point in the constantly changing saga of Iraq. On this recent trip to Iraq, I rode on highways that just a few months ago were nearly impossible to navigate without being blown up by improvised explosive devices. Soldiers now train Iraqi security forces as often as they fight terrorists.

But there is also a new sense of urgency on the part of the military that Iraqis must seize this new opportunity before it fades. Unless the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government steps up to reconcile with the Sunni provinces and begins funding social services, the insurgency will only rekindle.

The Iraqi army must be freed up to police its porous borders with Iran and Syria. That's impossible without a national police force inside Iraq's cities that is both competent and law-abiding. So far the police are not quite either.

The Shiite community must appreciate that it has won the political struggle and finally achieved political power commensurate with its numbers. This majority must now take on Shiite death squads and their sympathizers inside the Iraqi government. Otherwise, an intolerant Shiite-run Iraq will either become a pawn of Iran or fight a perpetual war with the country's Sunni provinces.

Meanwhile, the American military, after four years of hard fighting in Iraq, is strained, its equipment wearing out. America's finest citizens, fighting for an idealistic cause that has still not been well explained to the American people, continue to be killed by horrific murderers.

If the unexpectedly good news about the surge has given Gen. Petraeus another six months to improve further the situation, the political debate at home has changed only from "Get out now!" to "Victory still isn't worth the cost in blood and treasure."

Lost in all this confusion over Iraq is the fact that about 160,000 gifted American soldiers are trying to help rebuild an entire civilization socially, politically and economically - and defeat killers in their midst who will murder far beyond Iraq if not stopped.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.

Be the first to read Victor Davis Hanson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

This is The Last Chance
For Iraq to build a Working Democracy and THEY KNOW IT! If Iraqis are not AT LEAST 50% in control by Easter, our withdrawal should be executed posthaste!

Did Rudy lie?
Chris Matthews Calls Rudy Giuliani a Liar with Joe Biden

WATCH VIDEO


http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/chris-matthews-cal ls-rudy-giuliani-a-liar-with-joe-biden


Georgetwin
I don't think its feasable to expect 50% control by Easter. They can only train so many at a time and at the same time make sure they aren't training insurgents along with the Iraqis. 25 to 30% is more likely. Withdraw too early and we will be right back in a year or quite likely less. That doesn't take into consideration the danger to our troops by making a (as you call it) hasty retreat.

eastlake joe
" Withdraw too early and we will be right back in a year or quite likely less." Really! Why! If we Never went in the first place what difference would it had made and just what senario from our early withdrawal would force us back? I can't imagine it, maybe you can, I'd like to hear it.

Early withdrawl
Val,
I can see three situations which would force us back into Iraq if we leave before the Iraqi Army (IA) and more importantly the Iraqi Government are stable.

1, Massive genocide by unfettered tribal warfare. We stopped this type of genocide in Kosovo where we still have troops since 1999 ( I was there in 2000 protecting Moslems from Christian Serbs and have photos of the mass graves). In Bosnia we had troops for ten years to prevent that type of fighting and only recently took the last troops out (My 1996 deployment and direct support of the mission again in 1997-98). And we should be doing more in Darfur in my opinion to prevent the genocide there. We have moral obligations to do so.

2. Invasion of Iraq by Iran. A full military invasion of Iraq by Iran would be very much against US interests and the stabilization of the region.

3. A Sunni strongman taking control again by ruthless fighting and turning over control to AQI forces. (not extremely likely in the current environment but a possibility and one that would bring us back.)

Of all these courses of action the first option is most likely. Whether we should have came in or not we are here now and pottery barn rule is in effect. We broke it so we bought it. Moral responsibility.
And of course our Allies the Turks could invade the Northern provinces due to unfettered Kurdish agression triggering the invasion of Iraq by other regional powers, triggering LARGE scale war on the WWI and WWII size.

Withdrawal is almost impossible
In 1972, North Vietnam undertook its Ngyuen Hue or "Easter Offensive" into South Vietnam. At the time, the United States had approximately 160,000 US military personnel along with thousands of civilian contractors, American business people, missionaries, State Department and other government employees remaining in the Republic of Vietnam. Seventh Air Force in Saigon did a quick study addressing a rapid evacuation of US military and non-military personnel. The study found that rapid withdrawal was impossible. Why? The South Vietnamese would not let us go. They ran the ports and air ports, they had a large army that was desperately attempting to stop the North Vietnamese onslaught and meeting some success with the massive American air support that still was available. But in the final analysis, the US was hostage to its own policy. Withdrawing from Iraq would be just as difficult and the consequences will be far greater than those following our shameless bugout from Vietnam in 1975.

Strategically, an American withdrawal from Iraq will leave Iran the dominant power in the Persian Gulf region as well as the Near and Middle East. Imagine an apocalyptically-oriented, Shi'ite regime armed with nuclear weapons astride the world's energy ground zero. War, nuclear war, will be the inevitable outcome.

As the US withdrawal from Vietnam became more inevitable, some warned of a impending bloodbath which the left, naturally, pooh-poohed. It took place in Cambodia and Laos with a vengence. South Vietnamese soldiers, officials of the Saigon regime and religious leaders were executed or sent to spend long terms in "re-education camps." That happened in what is basically a Confucian society consisting of a handful of inter-related families. Imagine what would happen in Iraqa, a society far more conflicted with religious and ethnic animosities.



Val34
One other reason is instability in the entire ME would not be in our best interests. While this war was not about the oil, think about our economy if Saudi looses its ability to pump for say one month. You won't even be able to afford food let alone clothes, Heat, and other essentials.

Simple Minds
keep going round and round with anecdote after anecdote about safe streets, a helpful Iraqi here and there, some soldiers passing out candy and donating textbooks, etc. And that is what my fellow conservatives have fallen to in defense of staying the surge.
The more serious ones talk of Iran, an attack here, and/or the possibility of genocide in Iraq as compelling reasons to stay.
Well, we'd be in a better position to deter Iran from local bases with rested and ready soldiers.
We are told by homeland security that an attack here is "when" not "if".
And the problem with the chaos argument is that no one talks about what will happen anyway once we "unsurge".
There, all three primary arguments refuted.
The anecdotes are great and testify to the greatness of our soldiers, but military policy they do not make.
It is time to get real. Chaos and inter religious murder in Iraq is also a "when", not an "if"..
There are higher priorities for our military than to stave off the inevitable there.

Good Job!
Very Insightful and thought provoking once again, Dr. Hanson. Keep up the good work informing Americans about contemporary history!

Some things you can't change

All the analysis in the world isn't going to change the innate nature of the Semitic character, and that is that no one can tell them anything. Us - them, each other, what have you.

There will always be problems there, have been since biblical times, and no-one is going to change that.

Forget trying.


Victory requires a stronger military
ApolloSpeaks writes: "Our troops can't be defeated in Iraq, nor can they triumph without invading its neighboring countries and destroying their wicked regimes, which they can't do."

That's because our military is undermanned and undersized. We have had just enough troops to fight a holding action in Iraq, NOT to fight the global war for Western civilization that Bush Administration spokespersons have always claimed was really happening.

Bush's rhetoric--comparing the War on Terror to World War II--has always been inconsistent with the Bush/Rumsfeld minimalist approach to waging war.

The top priority for the next President must be to revitalize our Army, Marines and Special Forces. That means another 100,000 men, all equipped with the very latest in modern equipment. That's the only way we can credibly deter other nations like Iran while still maintaining an effective presence in Iraq.

Thanks Davis
For an actual report that isn't from a reporters hotel room. So in a way all the whining of the Democrats has actually helped. I still can't see how we won't have some force there for a very long time as we do else where in the world. Nice to see, we have won world wars, that strained our resources much more we should be able to take care of Iraq but it is only a small piece of the puzzle which is terrorism today. A stable and hopefully thankful Iraq would give us a place to make a stand from in the Middle East.

I a surprised how view comments there are for such a volitile subject. An Ann Coulter article will get pages and pages and pages, and it sometimes can be dribble. That wasn't mean as a slam to Ann I like her but sometimes the subject matter isn't as strong as this one.

Want to argue with me barrym@tds.net


More neocon babble.
So it now is the mission of the U.S. military to rebuild an entire civilization, socially, politically and economically?

Costs are approaching one trillion dollars and, more importantly, many U.S. soldiers are either not coming home, or coming home with horrible injuries that will haunt them for the rest of their lives.

Whatever happened to the notion of personal responsibility? If we "broke" it, we have an obligation to fix what we broke. But that does NOT include rebuilding an entire civilization.

This neocon blather is just more bilge.

Our infrastructure is decaying. Even the main civil engineering society of the U.S. grades our bridges and roads are barely adequate..with some being outright dangerous.

Ellis Island is decaying before our eyes.

Parts of the Smithsonian Institution are now off-limits, or soon will be, due to ageing and decaying buildings.

Our electrical grid is barely able to handle the strain of providing electricity to the nation.

Yet hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars are tossed away in Iraq, alot of which is swallowed by endemic corruption among Iraqi officials and the Iraqi government.

I admit we can't leave an Iraq that descends into a terrorist haven.

But it is crap, utter nonsense, to conclude that we have some heroic mission to squander our finest Americans and loot our treasury, on idiotic schemes to rebuild civilizations.

Iraq never posed any danger to us. Saddam was a thug. But ridding him should not cost us one trillion U.S. dollars, and thousands of American troops.

The notion
that we would need to invade Iran is perplexing. Why do so many feel that ground troops would be needed to deter Iran? I don't believe that an abundance or shortage of troops has anything to do with it. It is a shortage of will. You only need ground troops if you plan to secure ground. We could easily handle Iran strictly with air power. If we were to say annihilate a munitions factory every time an Iranian made IED or weapon was used against our troops, I'd bet we would suddenly see a dramatic decrease in Iranian IED's in Iraq. Iran would not be so foolish as to attempt an all out attack on Iraq. If they did, our air power would eliminate them before they could mount an effective assault. This notion that we cannot deal with Iran because we are already over stretched in Iraq is nonsense.

Eastlake joe
As to instability bringing the U.S. back into the ME opon our withdrawal, I will respond that much of the instability in the region is due to our meddling in the first place. Saddamm was our best tool for keeping our enemies (and our friends ) in line and we threw him out and created this mess.

Tinsldr 2
Your comments are well taken but I think wrong. AS to mass genocide by way of tribal warfare, If this were to occur it would not be in our interest to intervene nor would we be under any moral obligation to do so.
If Iran were to invade (highly unlikely) it must be remembered that they would face not only Iraq but much of the Arab world. If we did decide to aid Iraq then it could done with our fleet in the Persian Gulf without the need for ground troops.
As to the take over by a Sunni strongman like Saddamm is highly unlikely as it apeers that any dictator will arise from the shia majority.

Turkey not a model for Iraq
Victor:

Per you sentence:

"Any visitor to Iraq can see that the American military cannot be defeated there, but also is puzzled over exactly how we could win - victory being defined as fostering a stable Iraqi constitutional state analogous to, say, Turkey."

I fail to understand how Turkey can be considered Secular when it is 99.8 % Muslim. Their Pogroms over the years have eliminated all Non Muslims.

Its so discouraging we are fighting for the Religious intolerance (Iraqi Christians forced to leave) we hate.
However, we must be geographically embedded in the middle of the Islamism enemy.

I was hopping the Iraqi Constitution would trump religious intolerance and denial of basic freedoms but it looks now to be impossible for Non Muslims and even Muslims, as Sharia Laws are eventually implemented as in Afghanistan.

Turkey not a model for anyone
Victor:

Per you sentence:

"Any visitor to Iraq can see that the American military cannot be defeated there, but also is puzzled over exactly how we could win - victory being defined as fostering a stable Iraqi constitutional state analogous to, say, Turkey."

I fail to understand how Turkey can be considered Secular when it is 99.8 % Muslim. Their Pogroms over the years have eliminated all Non Muslims.

Its so discouraging we are fighting for the Religious intolerance (Iraqi Christians forced to leave) we hate. However we must be geographically embedded in the middle of the Islamism enemy.

I was hopping the Iraqi Constitution would trump religious intolerance and denial of basic freedoms but it looks now to be impossible for Non Muslims and even Muslims, as Sharia Laws are eventually implemented as in Afghanistan.

anti Iraqi war
Re: The anti Iraqi war pacifist pull out advocates.

I am of the opinion that the abandon Iraq advocates aren't advocating our exit for anti-war peaceful altruistic reasons but are in reality greedy bloodthristy opportunists like hyhenas drooling at the thought of the chaos of an Iraqi civil war and coinciding bloodbath so they can slide in, sell weapons in an unregulated forum and buy Iraqi petro assets at steep discounts before Iraq re-stabilizes and rebuilds its economy.

I wish somebody would write about the underlying motives of the anti-war coalition.

George Soros did well with the disintegration of the Soviet Union didn't he?

Hopes
We hope for some degree of security. The rule will inevitably be Shia. The Sunni's may or may not accept some state within this area that permits those living there to practice Islam in the context of their interpretation - as opposed to that of the Shia's. Those in the mixed areas such as Baghdad will almost certainly have to accept Shia law. The Kurds will remain separate - and will continue to move toward the greatest degree of independence they can have without necessarily causing Turkey to intervene. Much remains to be settled. I'm discouraged as to the number and nature of the refugees, left to wonder as to how or when then can return and be housed and fed, saddened by the decimation of the Christian community that had existed there since the time of Christ, and regretful or our failure to understand the situation sufficiently to put the boots on the ground three years ago - that we have today. Some of which may have prevented much of what we now see. I do not think that we can arbitrarily or quickly pull out, and believe that we will never be able to separate the Shia's in Iraq from the Shia's in Iran in the way we sometimes think we can. The realities that bind them together are greater than those that bind them to us. Like it or not, we have assured the ascendency of the Shia's in this region - and can only expect that they will often act in concert downstream to assert that reality. That's human nature.


Cont'd.
My hope is that sometime, somehow, we can reduce the hostility that exists toward us from the rulers of Iran. I'm not convinced that bombing can accomplish such a mission. It could drive the Shia's in both countries more closely together, is unlikely to eliminate the leadership, and could lead to greater suppression and suffering among a people, a majority of which we have repeatedly seen, are not hostile to us in the way that their rulers are. And that, in turn, could alienate that people and provide the basis for another round of terrorism.

Never forget that the Shia political and religious leadership in Iraq is very closely connected to the Shia leadership in Iran. The Dawa and SIC and its leadership was fostered and fed by Iran for 20 years. Sadr, Sistani, and many of the cleric's equally sheltered in that country. You cannot attack their friends and sponsors without having to expect that, downstream, there will be another price to pay.

Iran Restraint
conservativation writes:
"Well, we'd be in a better position to deter Iran from local bases with rested and ready soldiers. " Umm and why is this? If we had to go to Iran (hypothetical) how long would it take us to stage the necessary ground forces and heavy Armor to push up there? Currently Kuwait lets us use their ports and base some soldiers there to assist with the flow in and out of soldiers and equipment. Same with Turkey (which we just slapped for a 100 year old incident.) Iran knows that once we are home it would be extremely hard to send ground troops to them. Even if we pushed the heavy equipment back on to boats and got it back to Kuwait, it would still need to go back through a sovereign Iraq that might oppose us. From a military point of view it makes no sense to say we are more of threat from thousands of miles away then from next door.

But as to keeping them out, specially in the Eastern areas which are closest aligned to Iran and the very much needed city of Basra and the Faw penninsula, we are better able to do that with our forces here until such a time as Iraqi Military is ready to stop them. And the IA will be ready to do that in the near term but is nt there yet.

No Simple Answers
There are no simple answers. We can not just pull out now. Even if we wanted to it would take months to get all the troops and equipment out and that would ignore any fall out from our running away. Being seen as tucking tail and not having the stomach for the fight emboldens those who want to destroy our way of life, and make no excuses the Moslem Extremists want to end our way of life and destroy America.


The Mideast IS a STRATEGIC area that is vital to our interests. If the area here plunges into an all out war, our economy and lifestyle will be much worse and will take longer to recover. We are talking about more then just $5 and $6 a gallon gas; we are talking major electric shortages, failing energy needs, massive inflation due to costs of trucking and air cargo increases, etc. Now there are long term ways to fix this like building new Nuclear power plants, drilling in ANWAR and off the coast of FLA and CALI, more Wind Power off of places like Mass, more hydroelectric plants etc, and increased Solar usage, but these things take time to develop. And yes our leaders need to do more to develop these resources.

None, to you!
val34 writes: Friday, October, 12, 2007 12:42 AM
eastlake joe
"If we Never went in the first place what difference would it had made".

We would never have cut the enemy right down the middle. The battle for Iraq was fought in the highest traditions of the military. We are now in a position to go east or west. Either direction will bring us to a new military victory.

Nothing makes a difference but winning. It does't make any difference how long it takes to win. If you don't fight you neither win, nor live.

Simple error.
Tinsldr2 writes: Friday, October, 12, 2007 9:28 PM
"Even if we pushed the heavy equipment back on to boats and got it back to Kuwait, it would still need to go back through a sovereign Iraq"

Into Iran?

Iran has a coast, it also has a navy, both of which are of no use to them. We have completed hydrographic surveys of every landing zone on the Iraninan coast. It will take less time to destroy Irans navy then it took to destroy half of it. When we sank half of Irans navy, we had to wait for them to leave port and ignore our warnings. This time the go down where they sit.

SteveL
I very much agree that a top priority of the next president is a revitalization of our military. Just don't look at Hellary to do it. We already know her stupider halfs concept of that. He stripped the military to the bare bones and there's no way that she will do any different. They both HATE the military and always have.

Val34
"Saddam was our best tool" Yup at the cost of thousands of khurdish lives, Hundreds of women raped, and uncountable children murdered. Good tool!! That man(?) was so unstable, I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did. He was about as stable as aged TNT.

ET1
What enemy did we cut down the middle? Its true that OBL is to the east but I don't think we are really trying too hard to get him are we? It would offend our gracious Pakistani allies now wouldn't it?
To the west lay Egypt where several of the 9-11 highjackers were from. Is that the enemy you talk of? Oh maybe not, we just gave them billions in arms and even though it is ruled with an iron fist by a near dictator named Mubarek Lets face it he is our friend too!
Maybe you didn't mean exactly East or West but South, ahhh! the Saudis, most of the highjackers on that fateful day were Saudi certaintly these are the enemy you speak of. No, come to think of it they are our greatest and closest friend in the whole ME.
Now I am confused, we cut what in two. We are in the middle of What!!!!To attack next where?

eastlake joe
Was Saddamm much worse than half of our "friends" are in the region now. Lets face it, if it wasn't for oil interests 5 Americans out of 100 wouldn't be able to find Iraq on the map and Saddamm could have piled the dead up 500ft. high and no one would care. When the Hutus were carving up the Tutsis where were all of you compassion driven conservatives then?
This is Bush's war plain and simple and it is primarily to protect Saudi oil interests.
We could have cared less how bad he was until he got a jump on one of our "friends."
One with a port on the Persian Gulf.

Val34
Aresounding YES he was worse than our so called friends. I was right there screaming about the fate of the tutsis as I was the Cambodes who were slaughtered to the tune of one million when the libbers made us leave RVN too soon just like you want us to now. I was also screaming for the Yards who fought so valiently alongside our troops in RVN and then abandoned by the USA at the behest of once again the libbers. There were also a lot of Viet Namese who were slaughtered in 1975 by the NVA and Viet Cong after we left. I could go on about more that the libbers made us cut and run on but I don't care to get any more incensed about it.

joe
Hey joe you left out lots more police work for the old U.S. We should be headed off to Burma right now, their suffering! Don't forget Darfur. The Cubans are right off our coast Why can't we give them a hand? Hell their neighbors!
The Tibetans are oppressed by the Chinese. Shall I go on? The truth is that we can't be the world cop and weren't given the job. Especially by the Constitution. Our Founders warned against just this very situation that we have now in Iraq and I'll trust their judgment over yours or GWs any day.

val34
You have not one constructive or useful thing to say. Why should anyone read your posts except for some emotional catharsis is on the anti war and anti bush side.

Len
It's more the lets not have any more wars because I'm too afraid to serve!!! He's worried the draft might be reinstated and he'd get called up.

Len
I'm waiting for some constructive and useful answers to my questions.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.