Brian M Downing
Our presence in Iraq is far different from what it was a year ago. There was no decisive battle, no act of Congress, no shift in public opinion. Though largely unremarked upon, the US has stumbled into a long-term presence in Iraq. Administration officials and like-minded media figures foreshadowed this change early in the year by likening Iraq to Germany and South Korea, where we have stationed troops for over a half century. But events, not rhetoric, have interacted with one another to plant us more firmly than ever in Iraq.
US Casualties
Our casualties in Iraq have dropped sharply in the last few months. Last December, 23 US soldiers were killed in Iraq. This is down 80% from the high of the previous March, and the lowest number in almost four years. The welcome decline is usually attributed to General Petraeus’s surge strategy, though it is far more due to other dynamics. Sunni groups, which made up the bulk of the insurgency, have allied with the US to fight al Qaeda, but more importantly to find protection from Shi’a vengeance – from us. The threat of US air strikes has intimidated Iran into reducing its lethal supplies to Shi’a militias.
Congress
Two years ago, when Democrats assumed slim majorities in both Houses, expectation grew that Congress would put an end to the war or at least impose restrictions on it. Attempts to do so have ended in failure and only made the president appear to some as resolute, even statesmanlike. When members of Congress “grilled” General Petraeus last year, they revealed their glaringly ignorance of the war. They came across as uninformed dilettantes who failed to come up with intelligent questions or even elicit visible unease from the general. Today, most Congressional opposition is gesture without motion.
Presidential Candidates
GOP candidates, with the notable exception of Ron Paul, offer no alternative to staying in Iraq. Indeed, John McCain has recently stated that he could support US troops there for another hundred years. Leaders in the Democratic field aver they would end the war, but hedge even that vague position by stating they would not have all troops out within a year, by forswearing “permanent bases,” and by pulling out “combat troops.” This adroitly side-steps the issues of how many troops will remain and for how long, what those troops will do when attacked, and how the Iraqis and Iranians will respond to an open-ended presence.
The Rise of Domestic Issues
Several months ago, the war was foremost in the public mind. This is no longer the case. Though polls continue to show broad opposition to the war, the depth is even more shallow than a year ago. Rising foreclosure rates, falling house prices, tightening credit, higher energy costs, and rising unemployment have brought on fears of an impending recession. National attention has shifted from foreign issues to domestic ones, leaving the war unaddressed and ongoing. Families with members in the service constitute exceptions, but they are only a small part of the public. Candidates are relieved that they can say less about the war and stick to amorphous promises regarding domestic issues, at which they are better practiced.
The Antiwar Movement
Thoughtful strategic analysts have expressed concern that the war is weakening our national security. Moral thinkers have expressed dignified criticisms of the war. But the bulk, or at least the most salient elements, of the antiwar movement are neither thoughtful nor dignified. Antiwar demonstrations tend to be 1960s-style nostalgia, folk festivals, a congeries of movements – the war being an indistinct part of a collage of ecology, gay rights, endangered species, healthcare, feminism, and what have you this month. It’s a fun outing – thumbing their noses at Bush, whom they’d thumb their noses at anyway, war or no war. Surely, the neo-conservatives and other war advocates find them a feckless lot, probably even a source of amusement.
Entrenchment in Iraq
Neither Congress, nor major presidential candidates, nor any appreciable component of the antiwar movement has provided a clear alternative to the administration’s policies in Iraq. Meanwhile, we are solidifying our presence in Iraq by becoming critical parts of local government. American troops are now enmeshed with Sunni militias in Anbar and Diyala provinces and in Baghdad. US military and civilian groups manage reconstruction and economic development programs at least as much as the Iraqi government does. Similar efforts will be attempted in the Shi’a regions, where we are likely to find that Iranians have been doing the same for several years.
Standing guard against Iran is a further and perhaps the most significant source of our entrenchment in Iraq. Saddam’s ouster brought on fears in adjacent Sunni countries, as well as in Israel, that Shi’a Iran would spread its influence in the region, perhaps as far as Lebanon. Accordingly, they have pressed us to serve as a barrier against Shi’a-Iranian expansion, a role of incalculable duration.
* * *
2007 will likely be a decisive year for the US in Iraq. Domestic opposition dwindled, politicians issued expertly-crafted but unspecific statements, popular protest re-enacted events from a mythic past, and the US found itself mired more deeply in Iraq. Brace yourself, America. Iraq is the new Korea.
©2008 Brian M Downing