Friday, August 19, 2005
Pundit RhetIraq: From the Right
Source: Washington Post
Quotes: From transcript of Live Discussion titled, "Troop Withdrawal and the War In Iraq"
(Note: Bolding is mine)
KAGAN: The key point here is that people are not being killed simply because of our presence in Iraq. The various opposition groups actively oppose the idea of creating a democracy in Iraq, some, like Zarqawi, because of their anti-democratic ideology, others because they are confident that they will not benefit from a democratic Iraq. Many of the former Ba'athists and Sunni revolutionaries fall into this category. These groups will not stop attacking the nascent Iraqi democratic regime just because America withdraws. On the contrary, there is every reason to expect their attacks to increase in intensity if we leave prematurely. One of the keys to political success in Iraq is to convince all of the discontented parties that there is no solution for them in violence. The U.S. presence is helping with that process and will continue to help. It would be dreadful to withdraw prematurely and thereby stoke the hopes of those unhappy with the new order that they might be able to destroy it rather than persuading them that they must work within it to achieve their goals.
KAGAN: ... I am confident that it makes a great deal of difference whether we withdraw now or in several years' time. The outcome of the democratic experiment in Iraq is still very much in doubt. There is no way to know what the Iraqi government will ultimately look like until there is a stable democratic process up and running. The insurgents are trying their best to prevent that from ever happening, and our presence or rapid withdrawal will play a critical role in determining whether or not they will succeed. The development of a theocracy in Iraq is, of course possible, but by no means a foregone conclusion.
... It does seem that there is confusion within the administration about priorities, with some preferring for a variety of reasons to push for withdrawal as rapidly as possible, and others, including the President, arguing for the importance of staying until the mission is really accomplished. It would definitely help the President retain and improve public support for the war if he could establish a single agreed-upon policy for Iraq accepted throughout the administration.
WASHINGTON DC: What sort of message should the Bush administration be sending to the American people? ... Is it too late for the administration to send out a credible message on Iraq, given their early insistence that it would be a short war of liberation and their unwillingness to admit to having been mistaken?
KAGAN: I think that the truth would serve here very well. The Iraqis have taken great strides both in establishing a new government in a short period of time--something that is amazingly difficult to do well--and in crafting a military from scratch in the midst of an insurgency. U.S. soldiers and civilians are helping in both tasks every day and are essential to success. The road from this point forward will not be short, but with a real commitment to pay the necessary price, there is every reason to believe that victory will be ours. The lack of candor in the administration's response to its mistakes in the past has certainly been harmful, in my opinion, but I don't think that a mea culpa by the president would help now. I think we need to see a more positive and less defensive message from the White House.
KAGAN: We went into Iraq with too few troops and an insufficiently developed plan for the post-war situation. We focused too heavily on destroying Saddam's regime and not enough on what would come after that. We were then too slow to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq as it became clear that international assistance would not be as forthcoming as some had hoped and as the insurgency took root. These were all disappointing decisions. I am hopeful that we are finally beginning to recover from them somewhat, as the military situation improves (despite the suicide bombings) and as more Iraqi troops come on line. If we can stay the course over the next two years, I think we stand a good chance of seeing excellent progress.
KAGAN: I think we are really beyond the point, unfortunately, where we can increase the troop presence in Iraq for any period of time. ... But if we would only sustain the current troop level now, the situation will gradually improve as more and more trained Iraqi troops become able to walk the streets and perform key missions. I would propose, therefore, holding the U.S. military presence pretty constant until at least the summer of 2007, when we can re-evaluate. Should the situation suddenly deteriorate, of course, we would need to be able to reinforce our presence there; should it miraculously improve sooner than that, we could certainly think about withdrawing more quickly, but only if we are confident that we are leaving behind an Iraqi military and police force able to handle the challenges it will continue to face.
KAGAN: Fred Kagan: ... Numerous reports from U.S. soldiers working with the Iraqis now make it clear that the Iraqis are indeed fighting bravely and with determination to secure their country.
