I was told by a McCain supporter today that our getting into Iraq was nothing more than “spilled milk” and to stop crying over it. “Anyone with sound mind” knew that the original intelligence on Iraq pointed to imminent threat. “Even Obama acknowledged that”.
Funny thing – I remember Obama speaking vociferously against the Iraq war here in Chicago in Daley Plaza. Was it all a dream?
McCain supporters seeing their “straight talker” morph into the Bushian “speech/truth mangler” are trying to make us all think it so – “please, just go back to sleep, everything will turn out just fine with the SURGE”…while telling us that Obama wants to “take our victory away” by leaving Iraq to the Iraqis.
My response:
Anyone with "sound mind" did not, in fact, think Iraq was an imminent problem IF they had read (or were given access to) the underlying intelligence of the delayed and then finally produced NIE "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction". This NIE, requested by Congress in the run-up, was supposed to provide the basis for determining whether Iraq was a true, imminent threat. In fact, the final NIE was judged accordingly by the 2004 Report on the Prewar Intelligence Assessments: "Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence." I won't use up any more space going through the remaining 5 conclusions - each more damning than the first - but it was not the underlying intelligence originally brought in by our analysts, Clinton or confirmed by foreign services - but the packaging of that intelligence for our consumption in the final NIE - that pointed us in the wrong direction. Obama, being of “sound mind”, and other, very courageous patriots, did not parrot the talking points and did their best to stop the train wreck. Now that we're in this mess (as Obama has acknowledged - the bus is in the ditch) what is the best approach? I think Obama has been clear that there needs to be a new mission with the generals laying out the tactics for that mission. The Surge, as a tactic, has “succeeded” - I agree – with a superficial lull. But it is not the mission. Nor does it appear sustainable as a tactic based on the multiple tours and stretching of resources. Meanwhile, what’s with McCain supporters and this apparent Mission of "winning" through military means in Iraq?
Right now, I am convinced that winning in Iraq can only occur through a balance of security (short term surge - while it can last) and on-the-ground diplomacy with a more realistic assessment and leveraging of group differences toward their own goals.
This is why there is mention of a timetable of which to hold the Iraqi groups responsible. Even McCain is following Obama's lead by targeting a date now! It is arrogant and naive to think we can accomplish this otherwise. Meanwhile, the surge is only a means to create enough security to do so in a timely way - it is not sustainable otherwise. Take our victory away? “Our” victory is when Iraq is self-governing and we don't need oil.
Comments are closed for this post.
