July 13, 2007
How Not to Debate Iraq Posted by Alexander Burns at 06:00 PM EST An offhand comment in one of my posts, asserting that the Iraq war “continues to fail,” has sparked a larger discussion about the state of the war. Or, at least, it’s a discussion that’s nominally about the state of the war. John Steele Gordon initiated the discussion with this question, challenging my characterization of the war: “Is that the case as of today, July 11, 2007, or have things begun to change for the better in Iraq at long last?” Since Mr. Gordon asked that question, there have been a few attempts to answer it, including one by me. Unfortunately, most of the words composed in response to this prompt have not come close to offering a substantive reply, and, on the whole, constitute a great lesson in how not to debate Iraq. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Zeitz have done what a lot of pundits do these days, which is turn an objective, fact-based question about the Iraq war into a contest for civic virtue between liberals and conservatives. Mr. Gordon, the author of the initial question, has answered it by criticizing Harry Reid, The New York Times, the “mainstream media,” liberals, Cindy Sheehan and Mary-Jo Cooney, and Maureen
Dowd (for offenses, I suppose, distinct from those of The New York Times in general). He has made some spirited moral arguments: that withdrawal is equal to defeat, that defeat empowers the “enemies of civilization,” that empowering those evildoers will lead to another Darfur, that our losses in Iraq are a fairly small price to pay for averting such genocide, and that ending American involvement in Iraq is like applying euthanasia prematurely. The evidence he has presented in answer to his own query, however, is limited to a single op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Gordon’s arguments would be germane to a conversation about whether it would be desirable to succeed in Iraq, or about whether a hypothetical victory there would be worth the sacrifices Americans have made. But while I sympathize with some of what Mr. Gordon has to say, almost none of it is useful in determining whether the war effort is actually moving toward eventual success. For his part, Joshua Zeitz has responded to John Steele Gordon’s post in a manner to which I am also sympathetic, but which seems a little misguided. Mr. Zeitz chides Mr. Gordon for “impugn[ing] the motives of those with whom he disagrees,” and he is right to do so. But Mr. Zeitz does a disservice to his own antiwar views by engaging this element of Mr. Gordon’s post. The question that should determine the future of America’s Iraq policy is the one Mr. Gordon first asked, and that’s where any serious conversation should focus. To restate the question neutrally: Are our forces in Iraq closer to a victory now than they were four months ago? It’s good of Joshua Zeitz to stick up for Cindy Sheehan, Jim Webb, and the editorial board of The New York Times, but the reputations of those parties have very little to do with answering that question. It’s a mistake to treat the debate over Iraq as some kind of proxy for a larger struggle between left and right. The only people who benefit from that kind of discussion are those trying to dodge the question of our progress on the ground. So, with a few days having elapsed since my post and Mr. Gordon’s question, and with the first round of assessments on the President’s “surge” having been reported, let me re-ask the question: How much progress are we making in Iraq? According to the benchmarks set by Congress and the President, not very much. President Bush has said that our troops and allies in Iraq have made “satisfactory” progress toward 8 of the 18 benchmarks. This less than 50 percent success rate would result in a failing grade for the “surge” even if the President weren’t practicing grade inflation. Distressingly, the results of the “surge” policy have actually been even less impressive than that, as analysts note here, here, and here. While our soldiers have achieved some successes fighting insurgents, they haven’t been able to reduce sectarian violence in a lasting way, and their victories have not been matched by any political or organizational breakthroughs by the Iraqi government. These disappointing facts do not resolve the matter of what the United States should do next in Iraq, and Americans of all political inclinations should consider that question with open minds. But looking at the facts as of July 13, 2007, there is really no way around the sad truth that the war “continues to fail.”
|
