Congress Ignorant On Iraq

The New Republic: How Can Congress Run Iraq If It Doesn't Know A Thing About It?

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Lawrence F. Kaplan.

---

Maybe it was a slip of the tongue. But, when Nancy Pelosi confessed last year that she felt "sad" about President Bush's claims that Al Qaeda operates in Iraq, she seemed to be disputing what every American soldier in Iraq, every Al Qaeda operative, and anyone who reads a newspaper already knew to be true. (When I questioned him about Pelosi's assertion, a U.S. officer in Ramadi responded, incredulously, that Al Qaeda had just held a parade in his sector.) Perhaps the House speaker was alluding to the discredited claim that Al Qaeda operated in Iraq before the war. Perhaps. But the insinuation that Al Qaeda's depredations in Iraq might be something other than what they appear to be has become a staple of the congressional debate over Iraq. Thus, to buttress his own case for withdrawal, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "We have to change course [away from Iraq] and turn our attention back to the war on Al Qaeda and their allies" — the clear message being that neither plays much of a role there.

What is going on here? There are two possibilities: First, Reid and Pelosi could be purposefully minimizing the stakes in Iraq. Or, second, they don't know what they're talking about. My guess is some combination of the two. Political maneuvering certainly contributes to the everyday pollution of Iraq discourse. But a lot of the pollution derives from legislators being functionally illiterate about the war over which Congress now intends to preside. In this, of course, they're hardly alone. The Bush administration's wretched Iraq literacy has been well-chronicled. But, with Congress demanding a louder say in the management of the war, the same knowledge gap that plagued our arrival in Iraq looks like it will be revived just in time for our departure.

Whatever explains the literacy gap, this much at least is obvious: Having been called into being by politicians on both sides of the aisle, the war in Iraq no longer bears a relation to anything they say. You don't need to cherry-pick quotes to prove the point: Nearly every time a senator's mouth opens, something wrong comes out. A typical example came a few weeks ago when Senator Joseph Biden took to the op-ed page of The Washington Post. In response to an equally surreal op-ed by Senator John McCain, Biden wrote,

The most damning evidence that the "results" McCain cites are illusory is the city of Tall Afar. Architects of the president's plan called it a model because in 2005, a surge of about 10,000 Americans and Iraqis pacified the city. Then we left Tall Afar, just as our troops soon will leave the Baghdad neighborhoods that they have calmed.

A minor detail perhaps, but "we" never left Tal Afar. In 2006, the First Brigade of the First Armored Division replaced the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, actually boosting the number of Americans in the city. Biden's analysis will also come as news for the 25th Infantry Division, whose soldiers were patrolling the streets of Tal Afar even as the senator claimed otherwise. Not to single Biden out: Who can forget Representative John Murtha's suggestion that it would be a cinch for American forces to "redeploy" from Iraq to nearby Okinawa, 5,000 miles from Baghdad? Or House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes not knowing whether Sunni or Shia populate the ranks of Al Qaeda? U.S. officers in Iraq say that, during their briefings to visiting delegations, they routinely find themselves subjected to examples of congressional oversight along the lines of: Is (the northern city of) Mosul east or west of Baghdad? What's the difference between a brigade and battalion?

As to why some of Capitol Hill's would-be war managers can't name more than a single Iraqi province, officers and journalists offer all kinds of theories. A common explanation points to the shrinking percentage of veterans in Congress, which amounts to a paltry fraction of the World War II cohort that legislated the war in Vietnam (and, incidentally, did a lousy job). But the ranks of the confused feature enough veterans, most notably Reid and Murtha, to disprove the theory. Another blames the reluctance of delegations to venture beyond the Green Zone or the bases they visit — and, then, their reluctance to be dazed by the sheer unfamiliarity of it all. "I'll never forget the helicopters coming in at night delivering wounded to the hospital in the Green Zone," the Iraq Study Group's Leon Panetta marveled to The Washington Post. "We've all seen 'M.A.S.H.,' and yet it was happening right there." Which brings us to yet another explanation for the literacy gap: Today's wise men don't exactly rise to the level of their predecessors. In place of William Bundy and Walt Rostow, we have Panetta and Vernon Jordan; as the custodian of William Fulbright's legacy, we have Harry Reid. The former hungered for the data and lacuna of war; the latter seem frankly uninterested.

More than that, congressional leaders often seem loath even to hear about events on the ground. During General Petraeus's visit to Washington last week, for example, House Democrats at first denied the Iraq commander an opportunity to brief them, citing "scheduling conflicts." And, when he finally did brief Congress, the evidence of progress that Petraeus was expected to present was dismissed before he even offered it. "He's the commander," Senator Carl Levin reasoned. "We always know that commanders are optimistic about their policies." The joke here, of course, is that Levin and his colleagues were not so long ago denouncing the Bush administration — and rightly so — for the sin of disparaging military expertise. True, civilians have no obligation to heed that expertise. They do, however, have an obligation to be informed or, at a minimum, to listen.

But, then, expertise may be beside the point. Obliviousness, after all, has its uses. It comforts the sensibilities of politicians whose varying levels of awareness allow them to favor certain facts and not others. Obliviousness testifies to the virtue and good intentions of members of Congress who, in truth, couldn't care less what comes next in Iraq. It invites Americans to indulge in the conceit that what happens in Washington obviates the need to think seriously about what happens in Baghdad.

Most of all, illiteracy makes for good politics. There is the conviction, to paraphrase McCain, that winning a war takes precedence over winning an election. But it isn't so clear that this conviction guides a partisan brawl in which the Senate majority leader can gush, "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war." In such an environment, the subordination of facts to politics inform matters small and large, from the relatively trivial question of whether U.S. troops still operate in Tal Afar to enormous questions regarding the future of the U.S. enterprise in Iraq.

These big questions, of course, are where literacy matters most — and where you won't find a trace of it. Consider a speech last week by Reid, who neatly summarized the strategic logic behind legislation mandating a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. Speaking of "where things stand on the ground in Iraq," Reid insisted that the role of U.S. forces is to train Iraqi security forces, protect U.S. troops, and conduct targeted counterterrorism operations.

This transitions our mission to one that is aligned with U.S. strategic interests, while at the same time reducing our combat footprint. U.S. troops should not be interjecting themselves between warring factions, kicking down doors, trying to sort Shia from Sunni, friend from foe.

There are several problems with this formulation, not the least of which is that, far from being a "new strategy," it mirrors exactly the approach that was tested and found wanting when Donald Rumsfeld was presiding over the war and "reducing our combat footprint" was a raison d'être. Chaos, not stability, was the result.

Still, the idea dovetails neatly with Reid's insistence that it is "the specter of U.S. occupation [that] gives fuel to the insurgency" — and that, absent this specter, the violence will magically subside. But just the reverse has been true. Falluja and Tal Afar in 2004, Ramadi in 2005, Western Baghdad in 2006 — these places became charnel houses when U.S. forces pulled back. The suggestion, moreover, that American forces ought to confine themselves to "targeted counter-terror operations" rather than trying to sort "friend from foe" misunderstands the most basic tenets of counterinsurgency, ignores the lessons of the past four years, and purposefully slights the testimony of Petraeus and his fellow experts. Living among the population and sorting "friend from foe" is precisely how the military generates intelligence tips, which, in turn, provide the key to "targeted counter-terror operations." It can't be done from Kuwait, and it can't be done from Okinawa.

Though Reid has no use for the Bush administration's military "surge," he does propose a "surge in diplomacy," in line with the cliché that the war has no military solution. As The Washington Post's David Broder has pointed out, "Instead of reinforcing the important proposition ... that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a diplomatic-political strategy can succeed." Nor is this the only reason to doubt the reasoning behind Reid's "diplomatic surge." To begin with, even if they were inclined to assist the American cause in Iraq, neither Iran nor Syria have much, if any, sway over Al Qaeda. Moreover, the violence in Iraq has its own, wholly internal logic. In fact, the one brand of diplomacy that truly matters in Iraq — the U.S. Army's tribal diplomacy, which accounts for the recent turn-around in Anbar Province — is precisely the mission that Reid's demand for a skeleton force would shut down.

Where all this leads is clear. Piece together a string of demonstrably false "facts on the ground" from a suitably safe remove, and you're left with a scenario where we can walk away from Iraq without condition and regardless of consequence. You don't need to watch terrified Iraqis pleading for American forces to stay put in their neighborhoods. You don't need to read the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which anticipates that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal will end in catastrophe. Why, in the serene conviction that things are the other way around, you don't even need to read at all. Chances are, your congressman doesn't either.

[bluestardad]

According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted in June, 52 percent of Americans now believe the President deliberately distorted intelligence to make a case for war. In an Ipsos Public Affairs poll, commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org and completed October 9, 50 percent said that if Bush lied about his reasons for going to war Congress should consider impeaching him. The President's deceit is not only an abuse of power; it is a federal crime. Specifically, it is a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States.

http://www.democrats.com/node/12313

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051114/delavega

If you think Americas sacrifice is worth it contact your ELECTED OFFICIAL and tell them http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

The House Speakers email address: [e-mail]

[e-mail] Here is the Republican Party email address too!

[e-mail] Here is the Democratic Party email address also!

[sjc_1]

I just heard a news story that said that the U.S. wanted to get the body of a dead suspected terrorist, but the part of the desert it was in was controlled by Al Qieda. If we are suppose to be winning in Iraq, how can this be?

[frankbowers]

I see some one (processor2) belives in gwbush's lies and keeps printing his lie in hope some one will believe it.
processor 2 needs to really think of the lie he is printing and hoping it to become the truth. i think the democrats will and can do a better job. the fact the al quieda was not in Iraq until bush invaded murdering about1 million Iraq citizens and then murdered 3300 american GI's doing this with his illegal war could be what she was referring to. Think before you speak the lady is far smarter than you and bush put together. the best of good byes freank bowers of austin, tx

[processor2]

A Democrat Congress running the Iraq war, would be like a Democrat Congress runnning the Vietnam war.

We all know how that mistake went.

...

And it's amazing how liberals will say Bush didn't sign the "funding bill", when they conveniently forget the fact the Dummycrats need to take out the surrender date if they really support the troops

...

[processor2]

A Democrat Congress running the Iraq war, would be like a Democrat Congress runnning the Vietnam war.

We all know how that mistake went.

...

And it's amazing how liberals will say Bush didn't sign the "funding bill", when they conveniently forget the fact the Dummycrats need to take out the surrender date if they really support the troops

...

[noloyalisti]

Unfortunately our pResident has proven by his veto that he is against the troops. The only freedoms he believes in are those of multinational corporations to steal and to exploit the people of other countries.

I feel sorry for anyone who is still fooled by the right wing rhetoric of "war on terror" and spreading democracy, these people actually believe in the opposite.

I urge you to find a MoveOn protest of the veto against funding today at 5PM and GO. Stand with 70% of the American people whose will has been bucked by this sad little man.

[bigsk8fan]

"A Democrat Congress running the Iraq war, would be like a Democrat Congress runnning the Vietnam war. We all know how that mistake went."
Posted by processor2

Yes, too bad you can't learn from it when the Republicans are making the mistakes.

[sculler1956]

Lost in the fog of details is the Linchpin fact the the Mainstream Press, allow with ALL our elected officials chose to ignore, we (our US Military via Halliburton) our building PERMENENT military installations in IRAQ. We have NO intention of leaving. There are BILLIONS of dollars being invested in the country NOW with the express purpose of having a safe base of operations in the Middle East for decades to come (at least until the oil runs out). Our so-called 'stratigic interests' (energy in this case) are at stake. It's time to end the dream of Pax Americana. It's time we held our elected officials feet to the fire for their corruption and duplicity to the American people. It's time the Congress of the USA got serious. And it's time for *** Cheney to release ALL documents concerning the Energy Task Force. The American People deserve to see what has been done in their name and as it now appears, to our everlasting shame.

[tim82741]

How many more young americans have to die? The Vietnam War and the current "War on Terror" have one thing in common that nobody has even talked about. During Vietnam, young first time voters were realizing the political power they could wield by voting. The Republican Puppeteers realized this as well. So, into the meat grinder you go. Almost an entire generation of young voters, gone and no longer any threat to the Republican Agenda. Flash forward to presnt day, the same exact scenario! They are once again dying in a senseless war that cannot be won. The "facts" are fabricated, and twisted, the President, his cabinet, and his lap dog Cheney have repeatedly thumbed their noses at America and refuse to answer to Congress. So much for our system of Balance & Check. Why haven't any charges been levied? Why hasn't Bush and his Haliburton Henchmen been impeached and charged with Treason? The current Administration will be the death of America. And lastly? I thought the war was started to capture Osama Bin Laden? Oh, thats right we had to finish Big Daddy Bush's dirty business and take out Saddam who by the way was not responsible for the WTC Attacks on 9/11, which precipitated this "War on Terrorism"
Bush has gotta go. Cheney Has gotta go, Rove, Rice, and the rest of the Henchmen have got to go. And you all will have to answer to God one day about selling your souls to GWB.

[processor2]

A Democrat Congress running the Iraq war, would be like a Democrat Congress runnning the Vietnam war.

We all know how that mistake went.

...

[processor2]

A Democrat Congress running the Iraq war, would be like a Democrat Congress runnning the Vietnam war.

We all know how that mistake went.

...

[processor2]

A Democrat Congress running the Iraq war, would be like a Democrat Congress runnning the Vietnam war.

We all know how that mistake went.

...

[bluestardad]

REPUBLICAN SELL OUT AMERICA CROWD! GO LIVE IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

AIPAC, AEI, and PNAC are the Neocon Chicken Hawks who gladly sell American Lives for the Interest of Israel!

The American Enterprise Institute came up with this Surge Plan Not American Generals!

Contact Information Reuel Marc Gerecht

American Enterprise Institute
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Assistant: 202-862-5926
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]


Here are Senators from Military states that support Everything Bush has done to keep our troops in this Civil War in Iraq! 101st Airborne in Kentucky and 82nd Airborne In North Carolina! Write them let them know they work for America not Israeli Government!

McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY)
361-A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: mcconnell.senate.gov/contact_form.cfmn

Dole, Elizabeth- (R - NC)
555 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: dole.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Con
tactInformation.C...


Graham, Lindsey- (R - SC)
290 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: lgraham.senate.gov/index.cfm?mode=contac
t

If you think Americas sacrifice is worth it contact your ELECTED OFFICIAL and tell them http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Speakers email address: [e-mail]

[e-mail] Republican Party email!

[e-mail] Democratic Party email

[cofmanaaron]

Even if our senators don't know the situation quite as well as the on-the-ground commanders, at least they are not in a moronic state of denial like our blunderer-in-chief. The guy does not have a competant bone in his body, and the men he surrounds himself with are worse: Rummy, Brownie, Libby, Gonzalez, the list goes on. So what to do with Iraq? Does any rational person really think that these strategies Bush's men are trying are really going to work? We've been hearing the same song and dance for 4 years about how the media isn't reporting the good news and how we're just around the corner from victory, making progress. At the same time violence keeps increasing, and civil war exacerbates. Seems to me that Bush himself can't come to terms with his failure in Iraq so he forces himself to believe we're winning, rather than taking the lesser of two evils, withdrawing and propping up the government with security in small defensible areas and letting the barbarians out in the streets do what they want. They are the ones who harbor the fighters. Just keep the camps from sprouting and Al queda will be denied its training ground in Iraq. Face it, it's simply too costly to turn Iraq into little America, maybe impossible. Cut your losses, withdraw most of the troops. The rest are there to help the government in administration security and training.

[akrk33nnn]

singinrick

It isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" position to want to get the facts straight and win the war on terror. Al Qaeda is an ultra-ultra-conservative organization, so I wouldn't go around wearing "conservatism" like a badge. Petraeus hardly seems conservative to me. But he does look like a WINNER.

[akrk33nnn]

afmca

"The REAL TRUTH is al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq until Bush and Cheney saw an opportunity for enormous profits and Rove saw a way to get his village idiot elected for a second term."

This is fascinating information, but we're currently debating what to do in Iraq NOW, not four years ago. Unlike a computer game, we can't "restart" the war four years ago.

It no longer matters what happened 4 years ago. Except to Senators and Congressmen, who seem to be living in the past. Withdrawing from Iraq now would be worse than the original mistake of going in.

Put that in your meth pipe and smoke it!

[middleman8]

A story written under the name KAPLAN,We know what side he is pushing, right?

[joanpz]

Go to Reuters.com - Hashemi, SUNNI, told GW Bush on Sunday (Phone call) THAT HIS GROUP WAS PLANNING TO LEAVE MALIKI'S GOVERNMENT BECAUSE their Sunni group was being IGNORED.
Did GW Bush say anything about this today?
Al Sadr's 6 person left a couple weeks ago!
Where does this leave the U.S. SOLDIER & IRAQI CITIZENS?

[joanpz]

Boy, the AVERAGE SENIOR CITIZEN IN THE U.S. has had CLASSES OFFERED FOR ISLAM V CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM IS NO SMALL GROUP - and SMART PERSONS HAVE ATTENDED THESE CLASSES. Talking Islam we are talking 600,000,000(Millions) ISLAM FOLLOWERS WHEN THE WAR IN IRAQ STARTED - these ISLAM FOLLOWERS DO NOT GO TO WAR UNLESS IT IS TO REVENGE THEIR BROTHER - so, at that time...The Sunnis (Egypt, Jordan, Saddam's Iraq, etc) join forces with the Shiias (Iran, Maliki, Al Sadr, Pakistan,..)we ARE TALKING HUNDREDED OF MILLIONS!
and THEY FIGHT THE COMMON CAUSE to avenge their brothers...Most contributors to these COLUMNS seem to think this war IS AGAINST THE NEIGHBORHOOD BOYS - unfortunately, Our Commanders didn't wise up our soldiers & CHAOS ENSUED -
The US Volunteer Army tried, BUT THEY WEREN'T MISLED BY THEIR OFFICERS!

[fredgrad2000]

taddles - way to cover for Grandma; who we all know needs to stick to domestic policy - her knowledge of the world and foreign policy makes even George Bush's seem all-world!! She, and all the others who solely claim "Get our troops out of a civil war" are either ignorant or liars - that "civil war" didn't start on its own...it was a contrived strategy by Al Qaeda and helped by Iran through its proxies (Shiite Militias) to make Iraq ungovernable so as to prevent it from becoming a functioning democracy, knowing if they bloodied us a bit and kept us from a clear victory, the American public would quit and the American Left would defeat our military forces that they don't have a prayer against for them. Iran doesn't want us successful next door or a Shiite REAL democracy next door enticing its oppressed population!! And Al Qaeda needs us gone to get the safe havens in the heart of the middle east it wants. Both need us gone to increase their own influence in the region!! The war was a mistake, its been mismanaged, but at least know who you're actually fighting and what's at stake.