Strategic Blunder

When the history books are written about the first decade of the twenty-first century, I think historians will offer something like the following as a summary of the Bush Administration.

The United States, under the presidency of George W. Bush, badly miscalculated following the attacks of September 11, 2001, and committed a major strategic blunder in the decision to overthrow the government of Iraq. With its armed forces overextended in an intractable conflict, the U.S. was unable to use its military might to leverage diplomatic efforts to address major challenges posed by Iran, North Korea, and other problem nations. Facing ballooning costs from a war effort it could not pay for, the U.S. fell under the influence of China, to whom it grew ever more deeply in debt. The U.S. was ultimately forced to abandon the Iraqi people to a Civil War carried out by sectarian interests within Iraq and thereby lost its credibility as a major world power.

The purpose of strategic planning is to anticipate possible outcomes from different actions a country might take. The Iraq War represents a strategic blunder of immense proportions. There is no way out of this quagmire. If we stay, our army will end up in the middle of a Civil War that it will be unable to stop -- or defend itself from. If we leave, we will lose face ... and the country will still end up in an intractable Civil War. The only question is: How can we bring about the least bad outcome?

Some thoughts:

First, honesty is the only way to regain credibility. And though it can be costly to be honest, the cost will only increase the longer we wait.

Our current leadership is incapable of exhibiting honesty. George Bush will never admit the obvious, that he screwed up big time. It is up to us, the people of the United States, to admit the truth.

And what is that truth:

(a) We need to recognize that our nation has perpetrated an illegal and unjust war. The stated reasons for this war (that Iraq possessed WMDs and that Saddam was supporting terrorism) were not true.

(b) Though we did overthrow a despicable tyrant, his overthrow has served neither our national interests nor the interests of most Iraquis. About the only "winners" from the debacle have been (a) Iran and (b) the cause of terrorism.

Second, we need to get out. Our presence there is not helpful. We are incapable of affecting the outcome of events.

I suggest that we set a date for withdrawal (December 31, 2006) and that we pursue negotiations with the government of Iraq and with the United Nations Security Council. The question on the table: what it is that will happen when the United States military leaves Iraq?

One possibility: replace our military with a United Nations peacekeeping force. There should be major representation of soldiers and diplomats from the world's most populous nation and its coming superpower, China. Why would China want to get involved? It's no secret that they need oil as much as we do.

And why should all that oil go to China and not to us? Well, we made a strategic blunder ... and perhaps that's the least bad outcome that we can hope for.