Triage Time in Iraq

[babylonsister]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/6854

Triage Time in Iraq
by Bob Burnett | Apr 17 2007


There's a wide split in US public opinion about what should be done in Iraq. The latest Gallup Poll reveals that twenty percent of respondents say "withdraw immediately," thirteen percent insist "send more troops," and the remainder believe we should leave sometime in the future: thirty-eight percent want withdrawal "within twelve months," and twenty-six percent say we should "take as many years as needed." Steadily diminishing numbers of Americans believe we can "win" in Iraq, but there's persistent sentiment the US should do more before we leave. The best option is to go into triage mode.

Triage is the battlefield process used to sort victims, "the determination of priorities for action in an emergency." That's where we are in Iraq: recognition that many aspects of Bush's Iraq policy are going to die on the battlefield. Since it's not possible to "win" in Iraq, it's time to adopt a strategy that minimizes our losses. In place of the "keep on keeping on" approach adopted by President Bush, we need a cold-blooded strategy that admits Iraq is broken and can't be glued together again.

A triage strategy begins with telling the truth: there's a dire emergency in Iraq. Despite the President's surge initiative, conditions are not getting better and there's no reason to have confidence in the elected government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

There's a wide difference of opinion about how to respond to this emergency and divergent views about what will happen when US forces leave Iraq. Writing in the The Sunday New York Times Magazine Noah Feldman typifies the conflicted American mind: "Allowing the collapse of would, in fact, mean handing victory to the most violent jihadists -- a result that would be irresponsible for any president who thought the United States was actually endangered by Islamic terrorism. Fighting Al Qaeda is as good a label as any for what we should be doing in Iraq -- trying to hold off large-scale slaughter long enough to create a stable power-sharing government that would actually be worthy of the name." Feldman opines the US should persist with roughly the same level of troops in Iraq: he's in the "withdraw, take as many years as needed" Gallup category.

There are obvious problems with the approach "Bush broke it, but we've gotta fix it--sorta." Feldman appears unwilling to admit that the US occupation has gone beyond the point of diminishing returns, unable to let Bush's utopian conception of Iraq to die. But wishful thinking is not a sound basis for decision-making. What's needed is calm, pragmatic leadership in the manner of Churchill and Roosevelt. A style we cannot expect from George Bush.

Triage decision-making must be based upon clear principles that most Americans agree with. The obvious first principle is that the US homeland must be protected. Here, two issues stand out: the continued deployment of large numbers of US troops in Iraq weakens our military both in terms of morale and in terms of our capacity to defend ourselves in arenas other than Iraq. In addition, continuing to spend billions of dollars on the occupation of Iraq is unsustainable.

more...

[hobbit709]

1. Bush is no more capable of admitting a mistake

than Fonzie was able to apologize. Since he can't admit to being a fuckup, he has to stay the course" and damn the consequences.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. The american public as a whole doesn't give a shit about Iraq.

The government has gone out of their way to make the occupation of the place as convenient as possible so that the masses don't pay any attention to it.