John Edwards Is Out To Lunch--Or Worse!

Originally, I was going to take a look at how the US could still succeed in the Iraq adventure, but John Edwards, former Senator from North Carolina and current Democratic presidential wannabe, got in the way of my plan. I swear that he is either the most gripless politician in the US today or he is lost in the zone. Either the Twilight Zone or O-zone, I'm not sure.

In either event, he's become my bete noir. Worse, Edwards' latest lunacy has driven me to the desperate position of having to agree with a White House staffer. Specifically, Peter Wehner a deputy assistant to the president and director of the Office of Strategic Initiatives who wrote a ditty on Edwards' idiocy in Real Clear Politics http//www.realclearpolitics.com/article/2007/05/edwards_view_is_wrong_and_dang.html.

In his speech two days ago to the New York Council on Foreign Relations, the ex-senator and nearly perpetual candidate showed that he didn't have a grip on several important realities. What's at stake in Iraq for the US. What's been happening in Iraq. What alternatives are available beside de facto defeat for the US in Iraq. And, finally, logic.

In case you missed the numerous reports of the speech in the MSM, here are the highlights. Withdraw 40 or 50 thousand troops immediately. Withdraw the rest some time in the next year. However, the US should station enough forces in the region to "prevent genocide," to assure that the "civil war" doesn't "spill over" and to make certain that Iraq doesn't "become a safe haven for al-Qaeda."

He also termed the war on terrorism not so much a policy as a "bumper sticker."

Leaving aside the gratuitous insult which I presume is meant to be some sort of crowd pleaser, but which actually demonstrates his awesome ability to conflate two separate albeit mutually reinforcing considerations, the main points of his proposal deserves a response.

First, I have to put some blue sky between myself and Wehner. He obviously believes that our invasion of Iraq was a good idea, a very good idea. I don't. It was a bad idea. A very bad idea.

Now back to Edwards and getting a grip on reality.

Wars are much easier to start than to end. The easiest way to end a war is to quit. To give up. It's a hell of a lot harder to end a war by bringing into existence that elusive critter--a better state of peace.

We never should have started the war. There was no basis for it. The intelligence used to support the decision to invade was polluted at best, fabricated at worst.

The most knowledgeable observers and analysts understood that there was no community of interest whatsoever between al-Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. There never was. There never could be given the Islamist base of "the Base." Nor were there any weapons of mass destruction. In short, as everyone but the most gripless members of the red meat eating far right must understand perfectly: There was no reason to invade.

That having been said, several central realities remain. We invaded. We have occupied. We have removed Saddam. We have installed a government. A constitution, no matter how incomplete and imperfect has gone into operation with our approval and support. We have killed beaucoup Iraqis. We have seen nearly 3,500 of our uniformed citizens killed.

We started the war. We have to finish it. Finish it by bringing about a better state of peace, not by quitting as Edwards would have us.

Why?

Set aside for the moment the fact that quitting consigns our dead to the trash heap of casual, meaningless losses. Forget if you can, that these Americans were killed in our collective service, whether or not we approve of the war.

Look at the realities. Get a grip on the realpolitik of the war.

Realpolitik factor number one: If we lose, the Iranians win. At the least, Tehran and the mullahs who run it will become the regional hegemonic power.

Realpolitik factor number two: If we split out, the affiliates of al-Qaeda will be emboldened and empowered. The events of 9/11 might well pale in comparison to what will happen then. But, there's more. Much more.

Realpolitik factor number three: If we leave, there is a good to excellent chance that Iraq will become the latest failed state. It will be like Somalia on steroids. No small time sideshow like Sierra Leone. No bloody little affair like Rwanda.

No. It will be a major, major main attraction. Compared to the hurricane which will certainly occur when Iraq collapses, the decade of interventionary wars, genocide and diplomatic posturing over the corpse of Yugoslavia will be a belch. Iran's forces both open and covert will cross the border to "protect" the Shia majority. Turkey will have "no option" except to occupy the Kurdish region to "guard" it's interests, to "defend" against a widening of its own Kurdish insurgency. The Sunni minority will appeal to Saudi Arabia or Syria or both for "assistance" against the "oppressor."

Get the picture?

Oh, consider this. Not all Shi'ites by a long shot approve of the mullahs in Tehran. After all, Shia Iraqis are Arabs. Shia Iranians are not. Another add-on: There are other groups in Iraq, not just Shia and Sunni Arabs, not just Kurds. There are other groups as well. Recall that Iraq is not an organic nation-state, but an artificial creation of western diplomats at the end of World War I and the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire.

Looks great doesn't it? Blood enough to satisfy the most eager viewer of slasher flicks and car chase movies.

Is that sort of mess really in the American best interests, Mr Edwards? (If you have any doubts have one of your staff go check the latest gasoline prices.'

Also, Mr Edwards, since you proposed that we leave enough troops somewhere unspecified in the region to prevent genocide and civil war spill-over, how many men will it take to go back to Iraq after its collapse and impose order? Did you think that one through before you shot off your mouth in New York?

Second guess doesn't count.

Neither did you think about the options open to the US now other than defeat. That's obvious. Wehner has some. I don't agree with all of them.

I have some others that the smart guys at the White House haven't come up with yet. Mine are drawn from history, not from the combination of political considerations and strategic desperation which I see as the sub-text for Wehner's concepts.

Mine will have to wait for a later post. The nest post, I hope. It depends on whether or not Edwards or some other vacuum head hacks me off.