E.J. Dionne: What Are We Fighting For?

[marmar]

from Truthdig:



What Are We Fighting For?

Posted on Nov 15, 2007
By E.J. Dionne

WASHINGTON—It’s time that we subject the Iraq war to the same cost-benefit analysis that we are called upon to impose on other government endeavors. We are supposed to repeal or revise domestic programs that don’t work. Shouldn’t a troubled war policy be treated the same way?

Driving the current debate is the assumption that we can’t afford to withdraw our troops from Iraq because of the chaos that will ensue. The idea seems to be that somehow—against the evidence of the last four and a half years—good things will happen if we just keep the war going.

This upside-down debate puts the burden of proof in the wrong place. We should be asking whether keeping our forces in Iraq over an extended period is worth the cost in lives, injuries, money, lost opportunities and the strain on our military. How will a prolonged stay in Iraq enhance our security? Is Iraq distracting us from foreign policy questions that will matter far more to our national interest in the long run?

President Bush regularly brags about the accomplishments of the troop surge. It’s certainly true that our troops have performed superbly. Let’s be happy that, albeit at great cost, the overall levels of violence in Iraq have dropped and that al-Qaida in Iraq is weaker today than it was some months ago.

The question to which the administration has no answer is how this military success will produce a decent outcome down the road.

From Thomas E. Ricks, The Washington Post’s military correspondent, comes a disturbing answer. Ricks reports that our own commanders in the field “now portray the intransigence of Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than al-Qaida terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias.”

Ricks quotes Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno on what it would mean if Iraq’s leaders fail to use this moment of reduced violence to arrive at new power-sharing arrangements. “If that doesn’t happen,” Odierno said, “we’re going to have to review our strategy.”

Odierno’s candid remarks should unleash a clamor for the administration to explain where its policy is taking us—and whether the continuing sacrifice in Iraq is achieving more than just temporary tactical victories. We can trust our military commanders on tactics. Experience teaches us to be skeptical of the administration on strategy. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20071115_what_are_we_fighting_for/

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. cheney must be pissed

not only is "leaving Iraq" becoming common conversation, despite his personal efforts to make that kind of talk seem treasonous, but his pet lawyers and go-to teams are being forced to recuse themselves from precisely the situations they were supposed to protect.
Then, to make things worse, US intel agencies confirm the IAEA reports that Iran's nuke policy is civilian, not military, AND they refuse to bend or break despite repeated threats and bullying. And just yesterday, one of the top generals admitted that IRan has done a great job in stopping the flow of arms into Iraq.

And now this. What are we doing there? That is the worst possible question, because those old platitudes just won't work any longer. Fighting them over there to keep them from fighting over here? utter bullshit.