Complete Victory in Iraq?
by Donald Devine

“I am sick and tired. Sick and tired of how some in this country are turning their backs on our troops at a time when they need our support the most! This is why I am taking action to speak up, and in particular, why I am helping to lead the “THESE COLORS DON’T RUN” national pro-troop/patriotic caravan being organized by Move America Forward.”

That is self-identified “Marine Mom,” Deborah Johns, talking about her tour beginning tomorrow, March 8 in San Francisco and ending with a giant a pro-troop rally in Washington, D.C. March 17, 2007. She explained:

I know the American People want change in Iraq, our military wants change and so do their families.  The change we want is for everyone to stop undermining the war effort and support our troops so that they may achieve a complete military victory in Iraq and Afghanistan alike. Please, as a Mother of a Marine serving his third tour of duty, on his behalf, on the behalf of his brothers serving along side him, our troops, and their families, lay down your anger towards one another and do what is right and in the best interests of our Military. God Bless them until they come home, God Bless those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, God Bless their families who are Always Faithful and God Bless this Country.

How could anyone not be sympathetic? After three tours of duty, she deserves her frustration against accepting less than complete military victory. The nation could not survive without the deep patriotism so magnificently expressed by her and her son’s sacrifice, to say nothing of those killed and wounded shouldering the nation’s burden. Our nation can never repay them. But do we not owe our heroic Marines and soldiers the duty of asking, what is “complete military victory”?

The original plan for victory in Iraq was to draw down troops by the end of the first year, 2003. When I visited Iraq that November (http://acuf.org/issues/031204news), the generals were up-front about withdrawing to isolated forts or even leaving by mid 2004 and President George W. Bush mentioned possibly drawing down troops by spring. Four months before there was a war to undermine, I had urged action against Saddam Hussein but not nation-building in such a violent country, citing candidate Bush’s opposition to the idea. I warned that “Since Iraq was drawn on the maps of a faraway colonial office in 1921, it has generated dozens of coups, eight Kurdish revolts, nine Shi'ite uprisings and three pogroms,” before Saddam, while “revolts since then have killed 100,000 Iraqi Kurds and 30,000 Shi'ites. Playing well with others is not a high priority in old Mesopotamia. While of pluralism there is aplenty, it is not the benign type required for a democracy.” (http://www.conservative.org/columnists
/divine/021120dd.asp)

After initially achieving a military victory, the generals’ plan to withdraw was replaced by the idea that Iraq could be made into a democracy by adopting a Western constitution and elections to become a model to spread to the entire Middle East. The soldiers had won but military victory was not proclaimed. Rather, the mission was expanded beyond the capacity of the troops available. As a result of the experience on the ground since then, the president subsequently narrowed the goal to the more achievable one of stability. But much had happened between 2004 and 2006 that deepened sectarian divisions and fed expectations in each faction that it could gain from violence. By 2007, Iraq was nearing civil war.

In response, the president proposed a surge of 21,500 troops to force security. Johns is correct to distain opposition to the surge. Nothing can stop it. By the time Congress could act, the surge will be completed—the forces will be in place by May. The only issue is what happens at the end of 2007. Perhaps the biggest military hawk in Congress, Sen. John McCain, has reluctantly concluded that although he would like to keep fighting until complete victory, if the surge fails nothing could stop a U.S. troop withdrawal imposed by Congress. No less a tough guy than former UN ambassador John Bolton agreed that late 2007 is the endgame. There will not be a second chance.

What is possible by then? Certainly, the 1,400 year Sunni-Shiite conflict will not be healed. The equally long Arab-Kurd divide will not be solved. A nation that has only lived in peace under dictatorial government will not become democrats. At best, a rough order can be set that allows U.S. troops to take advantage of the lull and withdraw to remote fortified positions and begin reducing the number in the country, leaving policing and insurgent control to the Iraqi government. Renewed conflict is inevitable but American soldiers can be out of harms way. Why could this not be called a victory?

What would constitute a “complete” military victory? Even the neoconservative optimists say a 20 year occupation would be necessary. Or would it take longer? Should the U.S. ally with the Shiites to beat down the Sunnis once and for all, whatever it takes? What about the secular and Sunni Kurds if they demand to “keep” the northern oil or Kirkuk against Shiite demands? Will the American people accept the ruthlessness required? What happens if the surge does not work to quell the violence? Should the president send more troops even if Congress tells him not to? What would that do to the troops caught in the middle? Are there any circumstances when the troops could leave with less than complete victory?

When is victory ever complete? The Soviet Union was defeated in the Cold War but has not become a true Western democracy and now Russia sometimes votes against U.S. actions in the U.N. Should we knock down the only nation in the world that actually has the nuclear missile force to annihilate America? What regime could be worse than North Korea? Yet, the president just concluded a deal with Kim Jong-Il that just might buy him off from flattening our allies in the region, even if it is less than perfect and will need constant supervision—which it will. Serious foreign relations are never resolved once-and-for-all but require persistence. Iran? Actually, it does not have the capacity to strike American soil but if we or Israel hit its nuclear sites, the large Iranian army would have a great advantage—at least in the short term--over the now surge-disbursed American forces.

What about the rest of the Middle East? Even Bolton says the goal is to assure terrorists cannot have a safe haven there, not to bring democracy or even to insist on one as opposed to three governments in Iraq. After three years of intervention and democracy-building, a Zogby Poll last year of six countries considered friendly to the U.S.—Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates—found 65 percent not believing building democracy was America’s real goal in the region but that it was to gain U.S. advantage there. Asked what counties had democracies only 14 percent said the U.S. had one, way behind France and Germany. Only 12 percent had over-all favorable views of the U.S. and when asked who was the world leader they disliked most even Israel’s Ariel Sharon (at 11 percent) and Ehud Olmert (at 7 percent) were less most disliked than George Bush, at a worldwide high of 38 percent most disliked.

It is necessary to control terrorism but it will never be complete. Insurgency control is not a war that begins and ends at a point in time. Attempts to escape the continuing challenge are utopian. Even a Germany democratized after World War II often defies American desires. We need to work with other countries to handle their own extremists and we need to control cross-border movement. Otherwise, we must manage the worldwide insurgency patiently, and keep the big stick of our massed forces in reserve for rapid in-and-out strikes, not nation-building. There is nothing Iraq can do to really hurt the U.S.--and Iran can do little more—unless we place our own troops at risk within their grasp.

By all means have a patriotic, pro-troop celebration but do it confident in our beliefs by not demanding “complete” victory when those values teach nothing is complete in this world. These colors don’t run but they maneuver. After some mistakes, U.S. policy is turning toward the only resolution possible given world realities and that should be considered a victory of sorts.

We must honor the sacrifice and bravery of our troops first by leading them well.

Donald Devine, the editor of Conservative Battleline Online, was the director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management from 1981 to 1985 and is the director of the Federalist Leadership Center at Bellevue University.