Throughout the existence of VoteVets.org, we've consistently said we believe two fundamental truths when it comes to the war in Iraq: First, the war is taking away from our ability to fight the real threat to America - al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that without serious diplomacy in Iraq, the best we can hope for is keeping the cork in the bottle, which would lead to an endless operation there.
Contrary to what those on the other side say, we're pushing for a strategy to truly protect America and battle against worldwide terrorism. Violence levels in Iraq have gone up and they've gone down throughout this war. When they dipped a couple of years ago, the President's supporters said it was proof that the strategy was working. But then those numbers went up, and the NIE on al Qaeda came out that said the terror group had reconstituted itself in Afghanistan, and those people quieted. Now, violence is down again and they say this is proof the surge worked. Yet, two critical stories further prove that what we've been saying are still fundamental truths.
First, in the Washington Post this morning, there is a stunning story of a battle forming within the Pentagon and White House over what to do about Afghanistan. Both sides admit what we've been saying all along - Afghanistan is a mess because our resources have been tied up in Iraq. Reports the Post:
"Administration officials say the White House has become more concerned in recent months about the situation in Afghanistan, where grinding poverty, rampant corruption, poor infrastructure and the growing challenge from the Taliban are hindering U.S. stabilization efforts. Senior administration officials now believe Afghanistan may pose a greater longer-term challenge than Iraq... The senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said the situation in Afghanistan is "not getting better. It's not getting worse. In a war footing, that's not good enough.""
The saddest part about all of that is that it has come to pass because we took our eye off the ball. Over at our blog, VetVoice.com, IrritatedVet put it best, we've been robbing Peter to pay Paul. Not only has Iraq turned Afghanistan into a serious and critical challenge, but it has allowed the Taliban to regain huge swaths of land that we had once cleared for the new government.
At the same time, those who supported the surge point to Basra, which was controlled by the British, as proof of what can be done when you surge an area with troops. The Brits turned over power, and it sure did seem on the surface like, hey, maybe political reconciliation and peace is possible, along with a transfer of power, if you just surge an area with troops for a while.
Yet, reports the British press:
"The full scale of the chaos left behind by British forces in Basra was revealed yesterday as the city's police chief described a province in the grip of well-armed militias strong enough to overpower security forces and brutal enough to behead women considered not sufficiently Islamic... General Jalil Khalaf, the new police commander, said the occupation had left him with a situation close to mayhem. "They left me militia, they left me gangsters, and they left me all the troubles in the world," he said in an interview for Guardian Films and ITV."
Sadly, it seems without the cork, the bottle has exploded all over the place, and we could see a very quick return to chaos in the region (if this isn't already chaos, as the police commander says).
Our military is the best in the world, and the Brits aren't so bad either. Tell us to take an area, we'll take it. Tell us to hold it, and we'll hold it. But unless there is serious diplomatic negotiation - unless you make a serious effort to have all regional players sit at the table - violence will once again explode, unless you stay there forever. Let's also not forget that the longer we're there, the more and more we give insurgent groups a great recruiting tool, insuring that they'll be well stocked with members for generations to come. So, if you haven't already, at a certain point you need to ask if it is worth it. At some point you need to decide whether to "reconcile or divorce," so to speak. The other option - staying forever just to keep the cork on the bottle - isn't an option at all.
In the end, these two stories, together, put the short-term military advances in broader terms. Yes, we have taken parts of Baghdad, and yes US deaths levels are down. That's always welcome news. But if we're to make that a permanent trend in Iraq, short of intense diplomacy, it will mean we will have to stay in Iraq forever. And, if that's the way we want to go, we can surely expect to see Afghanistan soon fall back under the thumb of the Taliban and al Qaeda, with us having absolutely no ability to stop them.
If that's what "success" is to those who support the President's strategy, I sure would hate to see what failure is.