Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
March 22, 2008 By Dan Rather
NEW YORK -- On one side of the ledger are five years, more than 4,000 American dead and many thousands wounded, and well over half a trillion dollars spent. On the other is the removal of Saddam Hussein, a murderous dictator who, for too much of his reign, was propped up by American power.
There is a collateral ledger, too. On the debit side are the costs of stretching our military to a dangerous point with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and the long-term care of veterans wounded physically and psychologically), the damage done to American diplomatic influence, and the way this war in the heart of the Muslim world has fanned the flames of extremism.
On the asset side is the hope that a democratic Iraq will pave the way for other democracies in the Middle East, and the belief -- hard to reckon in the face of evidence to the contrary -- that by creating a battleground for Islamic extremists, we have avoided having to fight them on our home soil.
There is the possibility that the United States has committed a colossal strategic blunder by eliminating Iran's mortal enemy and putting in his place a friendly, fellow-Shiite government -- set against the argument that putting more than 100,000 U.S. troops just across Iran's border represents a chess move that, combined with our presence in Afghanistan, will help to contain Iran's ambitions.
And then there is this, for those who lived under the oppression and fear of Saddam's regime: Has the carnage -- tens of thousands dead -- and destruction been worth it for Iraq's embattled populace? Only the Iraqis can say so, and they might not be in a position to render their final verdict for years to come.
Nor, perhaps, will we, the citizens of the nation that set out to remove Saddam, to discover and eliminate his imagined weapons of mass destruction, and to plant democracy in less-than-fertile soil. But in the current political season, the candidates for president have been quick to offer prescriptions for an unknown future. In the process, they too often distort the past and the present.
President Bush marked the fifth anniversary of the war he started by touting the success of the so-called surge and by cautioning against "retreat" in the wake of the surge's security gains. This is the last time this president will preside over the war's anniversary as commander in chief, the last time he will have a say over the future of the Iraq occupation as we mark its past.
As we prepare for the future of our military commitment in Iraq, it is striking that we still lack a common understanding of what we mean when we use words such as "victory," "retreat" and "success."
What victory can American forces win, when the terms of victory -- a functioning Iraqi government and army -- lie in the hands of Iraq's sovereign government? In the wake of the surge, what does "retreat" mean when the administration is already in the process of drawing down forces to pre-surge levels? And what does the much-advertised "success" of the surge mean when the political goals it was meant to facilitate remain unmet?
Five years in and looking toward the question of legacy, one might ask whether it is realistic to expect the administration that authored this war to confront these questions head-on. But perhaps it is time we demand that our candidates for president start speaking to the American people as adults when it comes to Iraq.
That would mean confronting the current realities on the ground, along with the hard choices that we will face whether we begin our ultimate withdrawal on Inauguration Day or maintain our presence in Iraq for years to come.
Dan Rather is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers.
March 22, 2008 By Dan Rather
NEW YORK -- On one side of the ledger are five years, more than 4,000 American dead and many thousands wounded, and well over half a trillion dollars spent. On the other is the removal of Saddam Hussein, a murderous dictator who, for too much of his reign, was propped up by American power.
There is a collateral ledger, too. On the debit side are the costs of stretching our military to a dangerous point with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and the long-term care of veterans wounded physically and psychologically), the damage done to American diplomatic influence, and the way this war in the heart of the Muslim world has fanned the flames of extremism.
On the asset side is the hope that a democratic Iraq will pave the way for other democracies in the Middle East, and the belief -- hard to reckon in the face of evidence to the contrary -- that by creating a battleground for Islamic extremists, we have avoided having to fight them on our home soil.
There is the possibility that the United States has committed a colossal strategic blunder by eliminating Iran's mortal enemy and putting in his place a friendly, fellow-Shiite government -- set against the argument that putting more than 100,000 U.S. troops just across Iran's border represents a chess move that, combined with our presence in Afghanistan, will help to contain Iran's ambitions.
And then there is this, for those who lived under the oppression and fear of Saddam's regime: Has the carnage -- tens of thousands dead -- and destruction been worth it for Iraq's embattled populace? Only the Iraqis can say so, and they might not be in a position to render their final verdict for years to come.
Nor, perhaps, will we, the citizens of the nation that set out to remove Saddam, to discover and eliminate his imagined weapons of mass destruction, and to plant democracy in less-than-fertile soil. But in the current political season, the candidates for president have been quick to offer prescriptions for an unknown future. In the process, they too often distort the past and the present.
President Bush marked the fifth anniversary of the war he started by touting the success of the so-called surge and by cautioning against "retreat" in the wake of the surge's security gains. This is the last time this president will preside over the war's anniversary as commander in chief, the last time he will have a say over the future of the Iraq occupation as we mark its past.
As we prepare for the future of our military commitment in Iraq, it is striking that we still lack a common understanding of what we mean when we use words such as "victory," "retreat" and "success."
What victory can American forces win, when the terms of victory -- a functioning Iraqi government and army -- lie in the hands of Iraq's sovereign government? In the wake of the surge, what does "retreat" mean when the administration is already in the process of drawing down forces to pre-surge levels? And what does the much-advertised "success" of the surge mean when the political goals it was meant to facilitate remain unmet?
Five years in and looking toward the question of legacy, one might ask whether it is realistic to expect the administration that authored this war to confront these questions head-on. But perhaps it is time we demand that our candidates for president start speaking to the American people as adults when it comes to Iraq.
That would mean confronting the current realities on the ground, along with the hard choices that we will face whether we begin our ultimate withdrawal on Inauguration Day or maintain our presence in Iraq for years to come.
Dan Rather is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers.