Sober Conversation: Making Sense of it All

I don't understand what we're doing in Iraq. I don't know why we're spending the lives of our children or so astronomically increasing the national debt. I sometimes lose hours in a day trying to figure it out, and it can be too easy to "latch onto answers" that skim the surface of issues without accounting for the gnarly complexities embedded in details. I am encouraged as well as amazed by the number of people - not just "professional" types but regular folks like me or you - who are willing to wade into a tangle of information and work through it, trying to find patterns and a path that will take out of the conflict, the cost, the division. Passions run high on the topic for all kinds of reasons - "blood" on the line is reason for me, but while motivations for investment vary, I know I am learning from those who are working to make sense of it all, and I'm grateful for their efforts.

This morning Hunter at Daily Kos pointed me to this NYTimes editorial that seemed to help clear a space in my thinking for place at least to begin conversation about what's happening in Iraq, about whether or not anyone still knows, and most importantly, about whether or not there's a plan for what we're doing now. I am reposting the short editorial as a whole here - accessing the New York Times can sometimes be tricky, and I don't want to lose track of this piece in working for my own understanding.

June 25, 2005

Three Things About Iraq

To have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:

The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of Washington, but there was no Iraq-Qaeda axis, no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks on the United States. Yet the president and his supporters continue to duck behind 9/11 whenever they feel pressure about what is happening in Iraq. The most cynical recent example was Karl Rove's absurd and offensive declaration this week that conservatives and liberals had different reactions to 9/11. Let's be clear: Americans of every political stripe were united in their outrage and grief, united in their determination to punish those who plotted the mass murder and united behind the war in Afghanistan, which was an assault on terrorists. Trying to pretend otherwise is the surest recipe for turning political dialogue into meaningless squabbling.

The war has not made the world, or this nation, safer from terrorism. The breeding grounds for terrorists used to be Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia; now Iraq has become one. Of all the justifications for invading Iraq that the administration juggled in the beginning, the only one that has held up over time is the desire to create a democratic nation that could help stabilize the Middle East. Any sensible discussion of what to do next has to begin by acknowledging that. The surest way to make sure that conversation does not happen is for the administration to continue pasting the "soft on terror" label on those who want to talk about the war.

If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan. Progress has been measurable on the political front. But even staunch supporters of the war, like the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a hearing this week that President Bush was losing public support because the military effort was not keeping pace. A top general said this week that the insurgency was growing. The frequency of attacks is steady, or rising a bit, while the repulsive tactic of suicide bombings has made them more deadly.

If things are going to be turned around, there has to be an honest discussion about what is happening. But Mr. Rumsfeld was not interested. Sneering at his Democratic questioners, he insisted everything was on track and claimed "dozens of trained battalions are capable of conducting anti-insurgent operations" with American support. That would be great news if it were true. Gen. George Casey, the commander in Iraq, was more honest, saying he hoped there would be "a good number of units" capable of doing that "before the end of this year."

Americans cannot judge for themselves because the administration has decided to make the information secret. Senator John McCain spoke for us when he expressed his disbelief at this news. "I think the American people need to know," he said. "They are the ones who are paying for this conflict."