Biden Sends Right Message on Iraq

Last week, I wrote here on Huffington Post that it was time to start putting pressure on the Iraqi government to settle their internal differences, and make clear that we're no longer going to be their crutch.

I closed by saying, "It's time for President Obama to recognize that, and get tough. If the Iraqis aren't committed to dealing with their internal problems then we should expedite our withdrawal. American troops should never be more committed to the peace and security of a foreign country more than those who live there."

This weekend, Vice President Biden, in Iraq, did just that, reports Bloomberg News:

Vice President Joseph Biden told Iraqi leaders that the path to a secure peace lies in uniting ethnic and sectarian groups and said the U.S. might disengage from their country if it reverts to sustained violence... He also told Maliki that if Iraq fell into a period of sectarian violence or engaged in ethnic fighting, such a step would change the nature of U.S. engagement, a senior administration official said, according to the report.

The Washington Post expands, reporting:

He added that there "wasn't any appetite to put Humpty Dumpty back together again if, by the action of people in Iraq, it fell apart."

The warning was a dramatic indication of the changing U.S. posture in Iraq, the foremost foreign policy concern of the Bush administration. The statements suggested that the Obama administration would absolve itself of responsibility if Iraq again descended into chaos, dragged down by still-unresolved crises. They include border disputes between Kurds and Arabs and also legislation for Iraq's oil resources.

That's exactly what the Vice President had to say, and I have to give credit where credit is due.

Even if the war itself was wrongly waged, it made some sense to provide some security to the Iraqis as they transitioned to a new government. But, Iraqis never took advantage of that security, after a government was formed, through the surge, and the end of the surge, to resolve their major internal differences without violence. In short, the reality of the US leaving them on their own never seemed like a possibility. When there was trouble, we sent more troops in to tamp down violence ourselves.

That hardly encourages self-reliance or self-preservation. It only encourages dependency.

That's why the surge was nothing more than keeping the cork on the bottle, and why the only real option left is to make clear that all of Iraqis leaders and factions will lose, unless they resolve their internal political battles -- now. If we don't, and violence just continues on a loop with the expectation that we'll eventually clean it up, our troops are in danger every time they move convoys, or military transition teams head out.

That's why Vice President Biden did what he did, and why the message he sent was absolutely the right thing to do.

Follow Jon Soltz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonsoltz

Comments

[wolf58]

OT. Hey Jon I heard that Congressman Gingrey has stuffed the funding 369 million for the F-22 into another bill to fund the company of which he owns stock in. Brother its time to call this this corrupt congressman out.

[Squaker]

"Vice President Joseph Biden told Iraqi leaders that the path to a secure peace lies in uniting ethnic and sectarian groups and said the U.S. might disengage from their country if it reverts to sustained violence..."

I am so confused. Joe Biden said that? That its all about uniting the different ethnic groups?
Isn't Biden the one that was pushing for the sectarian divide in Iraq, calling for an official partition. Cheering on the building of dividing walls in Baghdad and so forth?

"If the Iraqis aren't committed to dealing with their internal problems then we should expedite our withdrawal"
I agree with him that we should leave. although blaming them for what he did to their country is pretty shameless

[LizM]

" I am so confused. Joe Biden said that? That it's all about uniting the different ethnic groups? Isn't Biden the one that was pushing for the sectarian divide in Iraq, calling for an official partition? Cheering on the building of dividing walls in Baghdad and so forth?"

Bless your heart, Squaker, for admitting confusion and for questioning your assumptions. I call that making progress! It’s a long story...and one that the media rarely comes close to getting right.

The vast majority of the media/blog­osphere/pu­nditocracy (all parts of them) have never understood the first thing, much less reported accurately, about the comprehensive strategy developed and honed by Senator Biden in an effort to promote a sustainable political settlement in Iraq based on simple principles of federalism that would allow for the withdrawal of US troops without leaving a failed and fragmented state in their wake.

...continued...

[LizM]

...continued...

The Biden strategy, as I have come to refer to it, remains the only viable strategy on the table for a political solution and offers the best hope there is for a stable and UNITED Iraq. This strategy was never about a US imposition upon Iraqis and it was never about dividing Iraq. It was certainly never about partition...let me tell you, I have come to despise that word!

What Senator Biden was advocating for US policy in Iraq was all about the US demonstrating global leadership in promoting and facilitating a political solution to a political problem through a muscular diplomatic initiative. The essential elements of this strategy would provide an inclusive process whereby Iraqis of all political factions and ethnic groups could engage in negotiations to determine their own political future. The regional and major powers would be involved in an effort to support and secure whatever power-sharing agreement the Iraqis are able to achieve.

...continued...

[LizM]

...continued...

This strategy has already received the overwhelming and unprecedented support of a majority of Republicans and Democrats in Congress and has been unofficially endorsed by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Most importantly, Senator Biden has met with many of Iraq’s political leaders - though not nearly all, as Iraq’s political landscape is fragmented beyond belief - many of whom have also expressed tacit support, quietly if not publically. Even Turkey is on board with Biden’s approach as they understand that a federal system in Iraq is far preferable to a de facto separate state of Kurdistan on their border.

Working through a political solution in Iraq is a very, very complicated proposition which has proven time and again to be completely beyond the capability of most of the media to understand and accurately report. In the absence of understanding, the media have described this strategy using simplistic and wholly inappropriate labels and concepts which, in turn, has led to mass confusion and misunderstanding of what Vice President Biden has been advocating for US policy in Iraq and prevented progress toward political reconciliation.

I'd love to discuss this further with you and I hope you're not too sorry you asked! :-)

[Squaker]

I realize his strategy of partition of Iraq and Baghdad in particularly was popular; in America
After all that's the plan Bush ended up adopting.
Hence the partition and ethnic cleansing of Baghdad, known in some circles as "the surge"

I understood his plan. That why I opposed it.
But I am glad he is reversing his position and opposing ethnic division, at least in rhetoric

Next step is to end his occupation of Iraq, and then the ethnic divisions that he elped instigate will hopefully start to repair

[lordjin]

And one more thought. Let's face facts. The trembling goat-herders they've slapped uniforms on and thrust rifles upon are not going to be up to the task. And the fact that there are still droves of Saddam sympathizers among their ranks surely will not help either. They have no confidence in themselves nor do they have any confidence that the 'government' we created has any real power over the warlords.

[lordjin]

This kind of paternalism is an unending cycle. History has taught us that people of troubled nations, whether it be the general populace or governing bodies, live on a day to day, moment to moment basis, concerned more with the immediate realites of survival rather than some abstract notion of taking action for the greater civil good, or resolving centuries-old conflicts for the even more abstract idea of 'nation and democracy building.' If my house got leveled and my family was murdered, and I have no food to eat or clean water to drink, going out to vote for my favorite 'politician' would not be high on my list of priorities.

These are the kinds of difficulties, the intricate realities on the ground, that are never taken into account by the war-makers. Completely aside from the cultural differences that make the situation like trying to force oil to mix with water, you have the unending cycle of paternalism that we created, enabled, and sustain by our presence.

Invading...we did that. Creating a nightmare environment of dependency (greater hardship and chaos than under Saddam)we did that too.

I agree that we should pull out...and that means down to every last pair of boots... But this idea that there even exists a tiny possiblity that the factional warlords won't tear up the country after we leave is pure fantasy. They're gonna tear each other to pieces. That's what people do... that's what they've done throughout history.

[LizM]

Jon,

Your qualifier - that you “have to give credit where credit is due” - implies a certain begrudging support for the Vice President’s message on Iraq and I understand the implication.

I'm beginning to understand how many Iraqis feel about Biden, the messenger, particularly in view of the misinformation disseminated by the media, and others, which has surrounded Senator and Vice President Biden’s record of advocating for a strategy in Iraq that promotes and facilitates a political solution.

However, I must admit that I cringe when I think of Vice President Biden saying, “That S.O.B. is rolling in his grave right now”, and saying it in that palace and in that country, on that date. It will arguably find the same resonance and effect that a similarly ill-conceived phrase did...we can’t help but be reminded of “Bring it on!”

Vice President Biden is usually pretty much in tune with the many ironies of the world but, in this case, the irony may really have completely escaped him. If there is any rolling over in Saddam Hussein’s grave, then it may have more to do with the apparent fact that the US has no real intention of ending its occupation of Iraq - SOFA, notwithstanding - than with any naturalization ceremony for US soldiers becoming citizens on the 4th of July in one of the former Iraqi dictator’s lavish palaces, as suggested by Dahr Jamail in 'US Occupation of Iraq Continues Unabated', at truthout.org

http://www.truthout.org/070609J

[furtivelook]

Lay off the Kool-Aid, will you?

[Nomccain]

Hell yes, I totally agree! This message SHOULD have been sent to these people a couple of years ago. People in this country seem incapable of understanding that these people have a totally different culture than us as well as a totally different religious outlook. You CANNOT force a democracy on a people who don't necessarily want it. This country revolves around sectarian differences and has for thousands of years and when we leave it won't be any different. Saddam ruled the country with an iron hand and kept the factions at bay. This may be the only way to rule Iraq! Anyone thought of that? In any event, this war has nearly broke this nation both economically and militarily and it cannot be continued indefinately. How does it make sense to spend billions of dollars (when we are broke) to continue to rebuild a country we've destroyed when our own infrastructure is falling down and our streets are ruled by criminals and our kids are going uneducated? Has rational thought and reason gone totally south or are we all just ruled by special interests now? Maybe it's time for another revolution in the USA.

[phute]

Oh and don't forget the fact that Iraq was invaded. Noone was invited in. So to actually start preaching as to what the Iraqi government should and shouldn't do - excuse me.
And as for attempting to exonerate thei nvading and occupying forces of any obligation because, boo hoo , it's all getting just a little too tough at home - long may you suffer discomfort. Because compared to the disgusting policy of sticking one's nose in where it doesn't belong - not to mention rendition and torture you don't know how good you've got it.

[lastpost]

Jon: When two individuals disagree, each can believe that their understanding is the correct one. It follows then, that each will assume the other to be mistaken.
Consequently, neither will be prepared to consider another possibility and, there is no way forward.
But if it were demonstrated that both could be mistaken, there is the opportunity for progress.

[Avanti2]

He Joe Biden still trying to split Iraq into three countries?

[LizM]

Actually, that was never what Joe Biden was trying to do. On the contrary, the strategy he developed to promote a sustainable political settlement based on simple principles of federalism, as outlined in Iraq's constitution, offered the best hope there was for keeping Iraq stable and UNITED. Of course, that was a concept far above any capacity of the media/blogosphere to understand, much less report.

But, it seems that is all irrelevant now because it is becoming clear that neither President Obama nor the resident expert on Iraq in this administration - that would be Vice President Biden - are willing to demonstrate bold leadership to move the diplomatic and political process forward in Iraq. I can assure you that I take no pleasure in saying that. In fact, it is all rather depressing.

[citizensrus]

"Biden introduced a "five-point plan" to "[m]aintain a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis breathing room in their own regions." The plan also states that "[t]he Iraqi constitution already provides for federalism" and that "[t]he central government would be responsible for common interests, like border security and the distribution of oil revenues."http://mediamatters.org/research/200808290008
FYI:
"The Baker commission has grown increasingly interested in the idea of splitting the Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish regions of Iraq as the only alternative to what Baker calls “cutting and running” or “staying the course”. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article664974.ece

[noam4prez]

Biden is blaming the Iraqis for their circumstances in order to make Americans feel less guilty for the horrors we have inflicted. But the US has no intention of leaving Iraq. Obama only ever pledged to withdraw "combat troops". He has stated that we will need to replace them with contractors. The largest US embassy in the world is in Baghdad - as large as Vatican City. The US will not abandon its gigantic military bases in Iraq unless forced to do so by grassroots political pressure, or sheer collapse of the system (as happened to the Soviets). The lure of those last colossal oil fields is too great.

[citizensrus]

Joe Biden had my vote for President based on his common sense. I think he has always had it right on foreign policy.

[dessertsfirst]

Yesssss!

[SparkyDash]

You are very correct, Citizensrus. Biden IS foreign policy.

And, although things turned out as they should, Joe also had my vote for President.

[retreadite]

Why is Biden talking about Iraq? Where's Hillary? First Biden voted for the Iraqi War (and against the first Gulf War). Then he said the war was essentially lost and the surge would not squash a "civil war". Now I'm thinking anything Biden says concerning Iraq is 180 degrees wrong, this guy needs to quit speaking in public.

[citizensrus]

I don't care that Biden voted to go into Iraq based on the lies Bush administration and Colin Powell told everyone. What other choice could be made in light of the threat that the Bush administration presented. I didn't believe Bush...but Congress didn't have that luxury. I did.
Today, President Obama has given Vice-President Biden the role as point person on Iraq.

"Biden will serve as a “high point of contact” in the West Wing on Iraq, a senior administration official said, taking a more active role in reaching out to Iraqi officials and serving as a go-between for American officials on the ground and the White House."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/obama-gives-biden-iraq-assignment.html
He is definitely the right person for this post.

[phute]

Oh dear.

[dessertsfirst]

Hillary has a broken elbow, and has not been travelling because of it.

[knowBuddhaU]

Would that be the same crutch with which we beat them into submission? Or the one with which we now beat them for Big Oil money?

And just exactly how does one "clean up" violence with more of the same? (Hint: the absence of violence is not the same as the presence of peace, unless you consider bound-and-gagged detainees desperately seeking suicide to be peaceful.)

Shorter Soltz on Biden: Yeah, you childish Iraqis: clean up the violent mess we made yourselves already, our cover story is wearing mighty thin.

It sounds as if we're a peace-keeping force, and yet we're the ones who went to war unprovoked.

And you have the gall to suggest that the Iraqis need to step up and relieve us already from occupying them--why, so we can go on to merely manipulating them?

~~~
"As they deal with Iraqi politics, the Americans must find a new tone. They have a reputation for being heavy-handed, for telling Iraqis what to do rather than asking what they want — a legacy of the period when Americans were in charge as an occupying force. Now that Iraq is in most respects a sovereign country, that approach only generates hostility."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/world/middleeast/06iraq.html

No mention of why that may be. How did we come to be occupying Iraq, by magic carpet?

Three words, Mr. Soltz: Renounce empire now. THAT would be the right message.

[clsez]

Tell him BuddhaU. Saved me a lot of typing.

Just unbelievable the cynical tone, but how usual. Refusal to look at our bloody hands does not make them clean.

Iranians kicked BP out, but colonial British Petroleum wanted to keep owning Iranian oil so CIA deposed their democratically elected Mossadeq and installed an unwanted Shah as their president. Iraninans in return got angry and installed a religious government taking the US emabassy and prisoners so we funded Saddam for 8 years, providing chemical weapons to kill Iranians with. At each turn we have called them evil. What in comparison have Iranians done to the USA? But they are the ones who are evil. Carry on

[rabrophy]

I contribute to Vote Vets and am a Vietnam Veteran but I don't think we will leave Iraq until the oil is handed out and American controlled oil companies get the lion's share.

Biden knows this, the Iraqi leadership knows this. That is why they feel free to jockey for position for their upcoming Civil War and bleed us for every Penney they can.

When the Sheia (sp?) feel strong enough they will give out the oil leases, swear eternal love for America and fall on their opponents like wolves. The sunies(sp?) know this and are getting as many arms as they can from us so they can slaughter the Sheia(sp?).

[LizM]

I fear there is a lot of truth in what you say.

The political landscape in Iraq is hugely complicated and it actually blows my mind to think that these oil contracts are being dealt with while Iraq remains in such an unstable state - politically and security-wise.

For the first time, I am beginning to conclude that there is no political will - from any corner - to change the status quo which, in the long run, will be in no one's best interests.

[jgfox]

During the Bush Era, Huffington Post was full of articles denouncing the waste of American lives in Iraq. I searched HP today to find similar denunciations of the Obama expansion of the war against the Taliban into Afghanistan.

7/6/09 KABUL (AP)

Bombs and bullets killed seven American troops on Monday, the deadliest day for U.S. forces in Afghanistan in nearly a year—and a sign that the war being fought in the Taliban heartland of the south and east could now be expanding north.

End AP

Nothing … Silence.

So it is clear that writers for HP are only concerned about American casualties if it can be blamed on a Republican President. Military deaths under Obama are in the cause of a “Good War” and should be celebrated as heroic deaths … or at least not mentioned.

Is there a count now underway for the military causalities under Obama’s reign?

Will the deaths be reported each week in the Liberal Press with a story about the family and their loss?

Will Obama meet with the families and share their sorrow?

The World Wonders.

[roshni]

You are naive indeed if you think all wars are the same. The war in Afghanistan was with a coalition approval while the one in Iraq was contrived and against the wishes of most nations.

[jgfox]

I don't think "all wars are the same" ... but ideological conditioned responses like yours are.

About 20 % of the Troops in Iraq were part of a "Multi-National Force" (see Wikipedia), but, as in the UN Korean Conflict ... Americans did almost all the heavy lifting and fighting.

Ditto in the fighting in Afghanistan ... since Bush began Operation Freedom in 2001

Afghanistan

American soldiers bear the brunt of the battle with some strong report from Britain and Canada. (See list below)

The war in Afghanistan may take decades to "win" and casualties may exceed that of Iraq.

Will you still be there supporting this "coalition approved" war?

Even it is continued under a Republican President?

CNN

There have been 1,206 coalition deaths -- 713 Americans, 10 Australians, 172 Britons, 121 Canadians, three Czech, 24 Danes, 19 Dutch, four Estonians, one Finn, 26 French, 30 Germans, two Hungarians, 13 Italians, three Latvian, one Lithuanian, 10 NATO/ISAF, four Norwegians, nine Poles, two Portuguese, 11 Romanians, one South Korean, 25 Spaniards, two Swedes. At least 3,023 U.S. personnel have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/06/27/afghan.fighting/index.html.