Ed Koch takes on both sides of the aisle Posted by: McQ
on Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Ed Koch levels criticisms, appropriately in my estimation, at both sides of the political isle in his op/ed:
We can argue every day about whether the war was a wise choice. With the benefit of hindsight, everyone now agrees that the intelligence provided by our security agencies was just plain wrong. There is no question that while Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in the 1990s and used poison gas against both Iraqi Kurds and Iranian soldiers, somewhere along the line, it disposed of those weapons without establishing when and how to UN inspectors. To date, no WMDs have been found in Iraq.
I supported the war and believe it was the right decision on the basis of the information provided by the CIA, then under director George Tenet. Tenet has since been rewarded with the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his service. “Slam dunk” Tenet and Paul Bremer, the top civilian administrator in post-war Iraq who also received a Presidential Medal of Freedom for his achievements in Iraq, failed in their responsibilities. Tenet’s failure to provide good intelligence and Bremer’s awful decision to demobilize the entire Iraqi army are the main causes of the challenges we now face. Tenet and Bremer deserve censure by the Congress, not honors from the president they misguided. Their medals should be withdrawn.
The many Democrats who initially supported the war would like to explain away their votes by claiming they were misled by the President. That claim is the real lie. Bush relied on Tenet, who was appointed not by him, but by President Clinton.
Yes we can (and do) argue everyday about whether the war was a wise choice, but at this moment in time, it's an argument in irrelevancy. We're there, we have an obligation and the disucssion now should be centered on how we discharge that obligation properly. It shouldn't, as Joe Lieberman has said, be centered on what may or may not have happened 2 1/2 years ago. There is and will be a time for that, but it isn't now.
And I agree with Koch's point about the lack of accountability, at least as it pertains to Tenet (I'm still not convinced that it was Bremner's decision to unilaterally disband the Iraqi Army of Saddam, nor that it was necessarily a bad idea). Tenet deserved to be held accountable for the shortcomings and failures we've since discovered in the intelligence agency he oversaw and the estimates he sanctioned and backed. He didn't deserve the Medal of Freedom for it.
So here we are, two and a half years after the second Iraqi war was proclaimed to have ended, still mired in Iraq, unable to agree on an exit strategy. Our NATO allies, led by Germany and France, have betrayed us by declining to send their military forces to Iraq; the same is true of our regional allies in the Middle East—Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
Mired? Hardly. Unable to agree on an exit strategy? I didn't realize consensus was necessary. There is indeed an exit strategy. The problem is, and this was demonstrated last week with the attempted Levin amdendment in the Senate and the Murtha call for immediate withdrawal, Democrats don't like the present exit strategy and pretend it doesn't exist. That is a baseless argument. It does and has existed for quite some time and has been articulated many times by both administration officials and commanders in Iraq.
But calling the war unwinnable is not an argument, it is an opinion, and it is inappropriate when we have troops in combat.
Gen. John Abizaid makes an interesting observation, one of which I'm inclined to agree:
Gen. John Abizaid, the top commander for Iraq, told The Washington Times on Monday that Washington needs to be patient. He predicted that Dec. 15 elections to pick a permanent Iraqi government and the maturation of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) will lead to progress in 2006 in subduing the insurgency.
"It's not hard to deal with patience in the Middle East. Everyone is patient," the four-star general said.
"The only problem [is] that there appears to be a patience problem ... within the Beltway," he said. "When I talk to civilian audiences, I don't get the same sense of impatience that I detect here in the Beltway."
Patience, at least in political circles, is no longer a virtue.
Naturally Koch has his own plan for Iraq, and naturally it focuses on withdrawal instead of success:
I believe that Democrats and Republicans who are unhappy with the current state of affairs should rally around my proposal on how to leave Iraq. I propose we put our NATO and regional allies on notice that unless they come to Iraq and place boots on the ground and bear their share of the casualties and costs of the war, the U.S. and its allies in Iraq will leave within six months.
Sorry, I can't agree with this one either. Again the arbitrary and artificial timeline. First of all NATO isn't going to do this. So we put ourselves in a corner with little hope of success (in terms of getting NATO to commit troops) and we hold as hostage success in Iraq. If they're not ready in 6 months, then what? Do we pull out anyway to show NATO we're "serious"?
But then Koch says something with which I can completely agree:
In the meanwhile, until we reach a consensus, let’s stop destroying the country we all love. The Democrats and their leaders, Senator Harry Reid and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, should stop calling the President a liar. The Republican Party, with the President, joined by Speaker Hastert and Acting Majority Leader Roy Blunt, should apologize to Jack Murtha for their outrageous attack upon him. The recent praise of Murtha by the President and Vice President Cheney is not adequate.
This is the time to understand that we are at war, and young people we sent into harm’s way in defense of our country are dying on the battlefields.
A common sense plea which has been largely ignored. There is a time and place for recriminations, attacks and partisan politics, but it isn't while we're at war. And it is here Koch makes a good argument. Everyone should take a breath, step back, acknowledge that we're at war and we shouldn't be sending mixed signals to our troops or their enemies.
It is indeed a time to put partisan bickering aside and unite behind the common goal of making Iraq a success. The benefits of doing so greatly outweigh those of ending the mission before the job is complete.
And as a final note, Koch reminds Clinton (and hopefully Carter but I wouldn't bet on it):
A word to former President Clinton: there is something to be said for old time virtues, one of which is not to attack the country’s foreign policies or the President while we are speaking in other countries. We should reserve those criticisms for our appearances and statements here at home.
Frankly I'd go further and remind them both that the "old virtue" says you just keep quiet about a sitting president's foreign policy, especially in time of war, but Koch is being generous here and pointing to what he deems "appropriate" times and places to put out criticism. Well, with the global reach of the media, it really doesn't matter where it is said as much as what is said. Criticism which attacks the nation's foreign policy in a time of war isn't appropriate from former presidents either here or abroad in my opinion.
Considering that the Muslims, Serbs and Croats have finally agreed to a more equitable sharing of political power in the Balkans - this ten years after Bill "what exit strategy?" Clinton’s excellent adventure and with our troops still sitting in the quagmire, the prospect of saying "six months, then we’re outta here - all yours, NATO" doesn’t fill me with hope for the future of a democratic Iraq.
BUT. . .while I generally admire Koch and I applaud his call for restraint and civility, I’ve gotta say it ain’t gonna happen. The GOP base has been clamoring for months, if not years, for the administration to pound the liars of the left into the ground. Had Bush sent the Secret Service out from Crawford to club Cindy Sheehan senseless before dragging her off to jail, there would have been waves of cheering from the right.
Why? Anger. Frustration. And plain, simple hatred. For the left, for a terrorist-supporting media, for a Democrat party that, justly or no, gives every impression of preferring - even salivating for - Iraq to collapse into a morass of thuggery and barbarism rather than allow Bush one small bit of triumph.
And then there’s the left. Barking mad over Bush. Over Clinton’s impeachment. Over a "stolen" election. The Swifties. The exit polls that showed Kerry sweeping the nation. Over Wal-Mart, a corporate-beholden media that won’t hold Bush’s feet to the fire. The fizzle of Fitzmas. The sour tang in the mouth of "false but accurate" TANG memos. A sense that the country is being run by oil-soaked oligarchs for their own nefarious purposes.
Now, I’ve gopt a lot of problems with Bush and the GOP. On the haphazard planning for the war, on spending, on immigration, on CFR and Kelo and half a dozen other issues. If a Democrat with solid national security credentials and a record of fiscal restraint hit the national stage, I’d be tempted to give a good, long look at them. But just because I’m dissatisfied with the right doesn’t mean I’m in sympathy with the left. Why should I be? I’ll be honest - after years of "Bush is a moron, Bush is corrupt, Bush is Hitler, the GOP is the home of racists, homophobes and Jesus freaks," I’m in no mood for civility. I truly despise the majority of the Democrat party. I want their leaders’ hypocritcal words thrown back in their face every day. I want people like Pelosi, Reid and Kennedy bitch-slapped and ground into the dust.
And I suspect MK feels much the same way from the opposite side of the aisle. So when will our rage finally burn out?
Just a note on one point. The demobilization of the Iraqi Army was NOT a failure, for three reasons: the actual state of the Iraqi Army, it’s historical role and it’s capabilities. First, the Iraqi Army had already demobilized ITSELF. The bulk of the force was Shi’i conscripts commanded by Sunni NCO’s and officers. The "army" saw itself as expendables assigned the mission of oppressing their own or defending the Sunni’s. By war’s end, the US Army reports that over 1/3 of the Army had SELF-demobilized, gone home to Momma, gone over the hill, had gone AWOL or deserted. At this point there was EFFECTIVELY no Iraqi Army. We didn’t demobilize the Army we merely recognized its dissolution.
Secondly, the Iraqi Army had been a bulwark in the defense of the Sunni’/Ba’athist Regime. Yes it had defended Iraq against the Iranians from 1980-1988, but that was in defense of Iraq from PERSIANS. The Army could defend Iraq from a foreign invader, but in the aftermath of the 1991 insurrections the Army was less a defender of Iraq and more a bulwark of a regime of Ba’athist and Sunni’s dominating Iraq, not to the advantage of the bulk of the troops, Shi’i. In Iraqi Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) the Army was maintaining an unpopular regime. To have kept it would have been to have allied with the traditional Sunni domination of Iraq, a domination by ~15% of the populace. The US and the Allies did not maintain the Wehrmacht in the aftermath of the Second World War. To have done so would have been to ally the occupation forces with the ancien regime. Neither then nor now was that the goal. The goal was a transformed Iraq and that was not achievable with the maintenance of the pre-war Army.
Further, the Iraqi Army was incompetent. It fought, but not well in the First Gulf War, 1980-88. It barely defeated its Iranian opponents, mostly because the Iranians were MORE incompetent, post-1982 than the Iraqi’s, not on the basis of any particular skill on its part. (Source Anthony Cordesman’s Lessons of Modern War Vol. II) It performed dismally in the Second Gulf War 1990-91, over 1/3 of the in Kuwayt, "self-demobilized" (the basis for the putative "100,000 Iraqi Dead" story). The Army was incompetent and the intervening 12 years had done nothing for its ability. It was short training, parts, and leadership in 2003. To have kept such an "Army" would have been a foolish waste of resources. The Iraqi Army would not have been able to defeat the "insurgents". It has taken several years and hard effort to create the forces that exist in Iraq NOW. The Iraqi military has never been that good and the US and its allies are trying to CREATE an effective force, not RE-create a force. We are attempting to create something that Iraq has not ever had, an EFFECTIVE, non-political military force. It is an on-going struggle, the outcome of which is not assured.
In conclusion, it was not a mistake to disband the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of OIF. It had ceased to function as an army. It was too allied with the regime of Hussein to have been allowed to operate under it’s then-current leadership and it would have failed in its mission of defeating the insurgency. In fact, it would have been allied WITH the insurgents! As many of the insurgents are Sunni’s pining for the "old days". A Sunni led army would have been in sympathy with its opponents, not in opposition to them. All the Coalition would have gained was the suspicion of the Shi’i and Kurds, for the dubious fighting ability of an army, whose leadership cadre sympathized with its supposed "Enemy."
To defend the "oil infrastructure" should have been a significant undertaking. It involves(d) hundreds of kilometers of pipeline and a large number of relatively fragile installations. And had the US Coalition done so, would not the claim have been that this was the "Proof" that this was a "War for Oil". After all, when the forces provided a limited amount of civil protection they were dinged for "Allowing looting." In short, I see it as a dammed if you do and damned if you don’t situation. Cover the oil infrastructure and you expose the civil populace, or vice versa.
Yes, I know this now opens up the point, of "Not enough troops", but the response to that would be two-fold... the force was designed to defeat Saddam’s army not occupy Iraq (A debatable point of strategy) and that the force then would have been 400,000-500,000 strong. Too large a force for the US to realistically deploy and meet other contingencies. In short to have planned for a large-scale occupation would have self-deterred the US from undertaking OIF, I believe. It is taking a force of 430,000 troops Iraqi/US/Coalition troops to make the progress being made.
BTW, the progress is significant and in the long-term will be successful. By most metrics the the "insurgency" is doomed. Rule of thumb, each insurgents ties up 7-10 government troops. Sunni’s in the field, ~20,000, tying down ~140,000 to 200,000 pro-government troops, as the anti-insurgent forces exceed that magic number the long-term prospects were/are grim. Add to the fact that the insurgency represents a MINORITY of the population, either the followers of Al-Qaeda or the Sunni hold-outs, the prospects of a successful insurgency were minimal. The insurgents are not "fish in the sea". They are fanatics or oppressors... the Sunni’s IMHO are akin to the white Southerners who founded the KKK. They harkens back to a time that is "Gone With the Wind", wishing to restore artificial and unjust privileges for themselves.
The lack of accountibility extends far beyond whether or not Tenet received the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
For instance, Dan Bartlett, ostensibly "Director of White House Communications." Can someone please tell me exactly what "communication" Bartlett has been "directing," concerning the war, {the most salient issue confronting this Administration and this country} ever since reelection?
When the President’s numbers sank to the upper 40s, we were counselled that such things happen, and that it was but a momentary blip. When GW’s numbers continued to drop, and the Democrats began to scent blood in the water, this White House "Director of Communication" maintained silence, and what is more did not get the President out there defending the War.
Then when the President’s numbers nose-dived into the upper 30s, still, nothing from the White House in the face of nothing less a Democrat "shock and awe" offensive against him, the war, his policies, foreign and domestic. By this time, every conservative blogger and coloumnist and talk show radio host was demanding, pleading, begging for the White House to answer its critics. Still NOTHING.
Then, when his numbers began to accelerate like a sky diver without a chute, FINALLY, FINALLY, the White House begins to respond. AND HOW TEPID AND UNSURE THAT RESPONSE.
How is it possible this guy has kept his job?
Let’s turn now to Card. He was the guy who silenced White House staffers who were warning that Meirs would trigger carnage in our ranks, and could blight the President’s legacy for half a century. Card crushed them. Then, when the damage could no longer be denied, HE WAS STILL OUT THERE DEFENDING the worst nominee since Abe Fortas, {who by the way was another crony of a Texan President}. But for the Bloggers, Laura Ingraham and a few others, we were damn close to being saddled with Harriet. And yet Card has kept his job, as has Meirs herself. AND there is discussion of Card being PROMOTED to Sec. of the Treasury.
Way back in 2000, GW told us he came from the business world. And if somebody doesn’t produce, then he would find someone who would. That has been proven to be utter bull. He delegates, and if someone screws up, he refused to fire. That’s a disaster.
