Iraq: Tell Me How This Ends

David Martin: It's Not Worth Arguing About Who Made Mistakes, Just How To End The War

(CBS)  By CBS News national security correspondent David Martin

---

Coming up on the 4th anniversary of the war in Iraq, it no longer seems worth the effort to argue about who made what mistakes. The relevant question now is the one General David Petraeus asked in the opening days of the invasion – "tell me how this ends."

It is one of history's minor ironies that as the new commander in Iraq, Petraeus is now in charge of answering his own question. He is pursuing a classic counterinsurgency strategy – a surge of troops to protect the citizens of Baghdfad from violence and buy time for the Iraqi government to get its act together. But as both U.S. intelligence and the Pentagon now acknowledge, this is not a classic insurgency.

It's also a civil war between Shiite and Sunni and neither side has an Abraham Lincoln preaching malice toward none and charity toward all. (Even with Lincoln, the Civil War didn't end until one side was defeated.)

You can get as many opinions as there are experts about how it ends. One government official I spoke to, who admits he's more pessimistic than many of his colleagues, predicts an outcome which is not in America's best interest, even if the surge succeeds in reducing violence. That would be a tactical success, he says, but it would not translate into a strategic success since it would result in a Shiite-dominated government at odds with its Sunni neighbors (America's Arab allies) and accommodating to Iran.

The future of Iraq depends not on the American military but on the ability of Shiite and Sunni politicians to compromise. The record to date is not encouraging. At the very least, it will take longer than expected, and the longer it takes, the longer U.S. troops will be stuck in Iraq – unless, of course, Congress throws in the towel and cuts off funding for the war.

No decisions have been made yet, but you can bet on two things. One, President Bush is not going to order a pull out as long as he remains in office. Two, the surge will be extended into 2008 to buy the Iraqi government still more time.

The "long hard slog" scenario remains the most likely course. Slowly, too slowly, the Iraqi army and police will replace American troops on the front lines and the U.S. can begin a pull-back, first to secure bases inside Iraq and then out of the country. But for the foreseeable future, five to ten years, American soldiers and Marines will be fighting and dying in Iraq.
"Tell me how this ends?"

It doesn't. It just grinds on with fewer troops and fewer casualties – sort of like Afghanistan.

[clemenhagen1]

FREDGRAD: "But its just plain wrong to say we are not fighting a key battle with them and their ideology there NOW and that this battle has no bearing on our future security when we know what their plans are should they prevail in Iraq."

How does it bear on our future security? Our present policy endangers our long-term security!The battle in Iraq exists between the Shiite militias and the Sunni insurgency. The base of the Sunni insurgency stems from former Baathists, the majority of whom are secular; they gets a great deal of support from Saudi Arabia because they do not want to see Iran strengthened by a Shiite dominated Iraq. We don't know who to support. We trot Maliki out there and then shudder when it appears he is beholden to the Shiite militias and their death-squad practices. Our presence bolsters the support for and recruiting efforts of the various al Qaeda factions. They have no base there: the Kurds and Shiites will destroy them, and the Sunni insurgency only tolerates their presence because they target American troops. Our withdrawal will leave al Qaeda isolated; our continued presence does nothing but help them. Our current policy serves as a "win-win" for al Qaeda. We help them have a presence in Iraq and we cannot focus on their continued role in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden could not have drawn up a better game plan.

[xgi123]

XGI...agree to a point. I think our election system COULD work but we need to term limit these old career politicians first. Secondly, maybe if we made it less attractive (salary, benefits, etc.) it would finally attract people who want to serve their country rather than have the country serve them.
Posted by Sprvtr at 11:08 AM : Mar 20, 2007

Agreed, It COULD work, with major reform. When one political party has received 51% of the presidential vote, seats in congress, whatever, they should NOT have 100% of the power. Another problem seems to be the fact that we, as taxpayers. pay for the primary elections for the two major parties. If there is to be a primary, let whatever party the primary benefits pay for it.

[fredgrad2000]

Clemenhagen1 - Al Qaeda forgeiners are a small percentage of the fighters, but Al Qaeda in Iraq (dominated by native Iraqis now, not "foreigners") is the largest, most dangerous insurgent group and all within it have sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden and his "gang". Al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq when the war started, and I have said that knowing what we know now, I would not have supported the war...but Al Qaeda IS there now, and the sectarian violence that has erupted there was instigated by Al Qaeda; we know from their own communications and public statements that it was their strategy to foment civil war to both: wear us down as they knew the American Public would drop its support if they made this war drag out and made Iraq ungovernable, and to kill Shiites (who they view as infidels as well) - they couldn't beat us militarily, this was their strategy, to wear us down in this manner, so that we would leave and they would be left with "safe" territories to further their Jihad. So you're correct if you say 1) we shouldn't have invaded and/or 2) Al-Qaeda foreigners don't make up much of the total insurgency...but its just plain wrong to say we are not fighting a key battle with them and their ideology there NOW and that this battle has no bearing on our future security when we know what their plans are should they prevail in Iraq.

[thechinaman1]

david martin is a good reporter: but on this one he's dead wrong. it is worth arguing about mistakes made. perle, wolfowitz, feith, and cheney should be prosecuted immediately.

[rconross]

xgi123: You got that right! I support the troops but do not support this war. Never have and never will. 2008 cannot get here soon enough...

One more thing, thank you for your service.

[xgi123]

If I were a returnee soldier from Iraq I would have a hard time faceing my family.(was in the military "51 to '55 )
Posted by middleman8 at 01:16 AM : Mar 20, 2007

I find this statement a little difficult to understand. Having served in the military, you know full well the oath you took to the country and, particularly, to the commander in cheif. RIGHT OR WRONG. No matter what you think about policy, you do your duty and, especially in the time of conflict, especially in a hostile fire zone, ask no questions about it. It isn't the folks that have done their duty who are without honor. You DO NOT have to support the war or the policy makers to support the troops. Those who think that way also think a person cannot love his country without supporting the government. Just plain wrong.

[dallison7]

The mayor of Salt Lake City, Donald Trump, about a million citizens and one senator are calling for impeachment. More are sure to sign on.

While I agree with the majority that a vote for impeachment would probably fail, the proceeding would most certainly shine the light of day on many of Bush/Cheney's crimes, would shame them, bruise their legacy and would be an invaluable lesson to future politicians.

[dallison7]

I would just like to say in favor of the soldier, the gentleman interviewing him seemed to favor the loss of the Iraqies and not that I don't feel sad for the loss of those children and women, it is the simple fact that he was doing his job. That's the point, not that you think he's a murderer, he is fighting for our freedom, to stop this fear of being terroriezed by these people who came to our land and ruthlessly took our families and our friends from us, with no notice to us the civilians at all.

Posted by Biggfive


WOW!!

THIS IS REALLY BIZZARE!!

THERE ARE REALLY PEOPLE THIS DUMB OUT THERE!!

I'M BEGINNING TO UNDERSTAND HOW BUSH GOT ELECTED!

[middleman8]

If I were a returnee soldier from Iraq I would have a hard time faceing my family.(was in the military "51 to '55 )

[actornaught]

what did we expect 35 years ago for Viet Nam, what was our exit like, and how has it finally worked out?

2 more questions: the first appearance of W on the national radar was how he was amassing campaign money. Where was it coming from?

How can anyone possibly believe anything being said by this guy?

[clemenhagen1]

This administration has tried to distract by continuing to mention al Qaeda, but only in the context of the Iraq War. In reality al Qaeda constitutes but a minor aspect of the Iraq complexity, but our Iraq preoccupation has allowed both the Taliban and al Qaeda to regroup in Pakistan. True resolution to the Iraq conflict has to begin with a realistic assessment of the conflict. All this talk of al Qaeda taking over in Iraq? Utter and complete nonsense! Anyone with a brain knows that the Iraqi factions (Shiite, Sunni, Kurd) will not tolerate al Qaeda in the wake of U.S. withdrawal. So it really comes down to pacifying the Sunni insurgency, and coercing the majority Shiites to share power while protecting the minority rights of Sunni and Kurd factions. The Kurds control an autonomous region, so that proves less problematic. The Sunni triangle? Much tougher nut to crack. Resolution of the Sunni/Shiite war must involve genuine diplomatic efforts with all regional powers, including the Saudis and Iranians. Can the Bush administration get beyond their fictions and egos to accomplish such heady statemanship? Uh...

[jsilver2th]

I this the bong hits for Jesus page?

I don't know how to break it to you but it's gonna end in a BIG MESS.

[diplomacy3]

The United States has approved a visa for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to enable him to address the U.N. Security Council over Tehran's nuclear program, the State Department said on Monday....


Everybody likes America??

[diplomacy3]

Iraq: Tell me how this ends.

There is one universal rule and that we must know: When you lose popular support at home for any mission, failure is certain no matter how strong and confident you may be.

[springfever0]

Its difficult to understand how digging the hole deeper is going to help us get out of the hole.

The surge was supposed to require a certain number of troops. Before it even got going, it's requiring substantially more than that number. With all due respect to the generals, how can you decide you need more troops before you even deploy the ones that you asked for in the first place.

What happens when the so-called surge fails. Supposedly, there is no Plan B. And, it will still be months to go before the elections and the Administration can pass the ball off to the next Administration and try to lay the blame on them.

Everything will be OK. Karl Rove is hard at work spinning Bush's legacy.

[springfever0]

I had my doubts about the war and expressed them at the time in an interview that appeared in many newspapers across the country. I said the problem would not be winning the war, it would be winning the peace and while doing it, not destablize the Middle East. Here we are four years later and tragically, I was right. How is this going to end. We'll eventually leave and when we do, conflicts between Iraq and its neighbors, for whatever reason, will shake the security of the entire world. It will take very little to light off that bonfire and when it happens, then what will we do. In fact, there will be almost nothing that we can do. We'll be weak in diplomacy and weak militarily. The consequences will be very grave indeed.

You did a heck of job guys.

[xgi123]

Impeach? A futile effort which would only equate to pardon.

[ademeyer]

President Blank Stare needs to be impeached along with Dead Eye D i c k. A coalition of Democrats with military and diplomatic experience should then be sent to Iraq to organize voter referendums on what should be done, i.e. do Iraqis want to break into three states and share oil revenue? If they can poll Iraqis and find out 18% want the US to stay, they can pol them to find a way to end the violence. I think Kerry, Wes Clark, Bill Clinton, Senator Webb, et al have the talent to win the peace.

[rharrin1]

The problem with this story is NO MISTAKES WERE MADE --BUT LIES WERE TOLD

Now cbs is catering to bush and cheney.

[neinpdndnt]

The truth is, this war was fought for OIL. Saddam had just made an agreement with French and Russian oil companies for work on the Iraqi owned (state-controlled) oil fields. Bush & Cheney used the threat of WMDs & "mushroom clouds" as an excuse to start a war, set up a new government (and thus voiding the old agreements) that was more friendly to them and could be persuaded to allow foreign (i.e. US oil companies) easier access - and control- of the iraqi oil fields. The new "revenue sharing agreement" for oil revenues between the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions that is being touted so much by this administration has a provision in it to allow just that- for their oil friends to get a greater piece of the action. Almost 3200 US soldiers have died for some oil corporations chances to increase their profits (already excessive!) and be able to control more oil that was previously controlled by a state (Iraq). This is unforgivable- and many in the middle east (and the rest of the world) can see it...and that is why the US is hated even more around the world. Congress needs to investigate this in full (never mind if some congressmen on either side of the isle get embarrassed)...