We’re losing the war in Iraq.” Or so a very prominent conservative writer, who strongly supported the original decision to go to war with Iraq, recently told me over drinks. When I asked what metric he used to reach that conclusion, he replied “public disorder.”
Indeed, the contrast between the peaceful, albeit somewhat decadent, scene as we drank wine by the pool of one of the trendiest hotels in Los Angeles surrounded by the glitterati of Young Hollywood and the now all too familiar images of daily life in Baghdad could not have been more extreme.
Improvised explosive devices. Death squads. Sectarian militias. Power outages. Reporters said the military will not show them success stories, lest they be targeted by the insurgency. The symptoms of disorder are rampant in Iraq. Killing al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi didn’t change that dynamic. Central authority is not yet established and the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are scrambling to get as much power for themselves as possible.
The American people get it. According to a recent CBS poll, about half of the American people think Zarqawi’s death won’t fundamentally change the amount of violence in Iraq. More than half think the war in Iraq is going badly. More than 80 percent recognize that we’re facing a civil war between Iraqis.
In this context, Bush’s recent visit to Iraq may appear to be little more than a publicity stunt. After all, more than two dozen people died in insurgent attacks the day before Bush arrived. And the intense security surrounding Bush’s visit to the heavily fortified Green Zone itself demonstrates just how bad the security problem remains.
Yet, there’s nothing wrong with a publicity stunt when you’ve got an important message to get out. In my view, Bush’s trip sent an important signal to both the Iraqis and the American people.
Bush told new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, “I have come to not only look you in the eye; I’ve also come to tell you that when America gives its word, it will keep its word. And it’s in our interests that Iraq succeed… .
And when Iraq succeeds in having a government of and for and by the people of Iraq, you will have dealt a serious blow to those who have a vision of darkness, who don’t believe inliberty, who are willing to kill the innocent in order to achieve a political objective.”
This is a critical message for both the Iraqis and those of us here at home. As an Army brat growing up during the Vietnam War, I saw the damage our strategy of just declaring victory and going home did to Army morale and prestige, to the tone of our national politics and our nation’s standing in the world. Later, we cut and ran from Lebanon. More recently, we cut and ran from Somalia. I have no doubt that this pattern of cutting and running emboldened al-Qaida. We simply cannot afford to cut and run from Iraq, lest our foes be emboldened to new and even more devastating attacks. A global hegemon that keeps running away when the going gets tough will not command any respect.
In sum, even if attacking Iraq was imprudent, we have to stay the course. There could be nothing less prudent than cutting and running. Our permanent national interests now require that we win the peace.
The American people seem to get it. They recognize that while we’re currently losing the war in Iraq, we have not yet lost. Despite the pessimism inherent in the polling data cited above, the same polls find that 60 percent of the American people still think we will succeed and almost half think troops should stay as long in Iraq as necessary.
Americans know that we’ve fought many wars in which there were times when it looked like we might lose. In most, we stayed the course and eventually came out on top. Only when we cut and ran did we lose.
President Bush needs to seize the window of opportunity still available and the reservoir of support for staying the course. In conjunction with his military advisers, and the new Iraqi government, he needs to find a way to restore public order. If that means more men and more money so be it. If that means new people with new ideas at the top, even better.
Professor Stephen Bainbridge of UCLA Law School is a member of The Examiner’s Blog Board of Contributors and blogs at ProfessorBainbridge.com.
