Last night, I fell asleep around 10:30, tired from a stressful day. For some reason, I woke up in the middle of the night and couldn't go back to sleep. Although I don't usually turn on the TV in the middle of the night (too hard to fall asleep again afterwards) after tossing and turning for awhile, I turned on the TV and landed on CSpan, which was broadcasting a Senate committee hearing (Foreign Affairs? -- the one Biden chairs) and was transfixed by the testimony of the three retired generals and another expert on the current situation in Iraq.
The panel included retired generals Odom, McCaffrey, and I think Casey??, as well as a woman "MIcehle" whose last name I forget. All of these thoughtful, experienced, expert analysts drew an incredibly bleak picture of the current situation, as well as of the remaining options for leaving Iraq. Senate Committee hearings are generally too much trite posturing and not much honesty and integrity, but I found myself riveted by the testimony of these four individuals. And it made me really reflect on who is best prepared to be Commander in Chief during the next administration.
The Senators asking questions included Biden, Kerry, Hagel, Luger, and others, who asked the panel to address whether there was any possibility of military success in Iraq, and asked them to define what success meant, and how they saw the current situation, how they assessed what would happen when we left, etc.
I didn't take notes, so this summary is from memory, and probably incomplete or flawed, but it was disturbing enough to keep me awake well past 3 a.m., wondering how the new commander in chief would find a way out of this disaster.
Odom was the most bleak and pessimistic, but all seemed to share a very dark view. They agreed that there was no way to avoid chaos and civil war after we left -- whether we left now or in 100 years. They stated that this fiction that the Iraqi Security Forces were standing up was not true -- they stated that it wasn't that the ISF didn't know how to fight -- it was that they didn't have any loyalty to the central government. The point was made that soldiers don't fight unless they have a commitment to what they are fighting for, and that these ISF have tribal and sectarian loyalties rather than any loyalty to a flag, and that until that changes, no progress will be possible.
One of them -- I don't remember which of the generals stated that, in his opinion, within two years, Iraq would be governed by a "two-star general" with the strength to impose order -- in other words, another dictator, whether one better or worse than Saddam no one could know.
The consensus was the Iraqi people don't care about democracy anywhere near as much as they are desperate for order. The Iraqi women were cited as being particularly desperate for this to end, for safety and security to be restored. They were looking to their own people, their tribe, their sect, etc. to give them the security of being able to come out of their houses and once again live relatively normal lives.
The idea that the Iraqis support Al Qaeda was absolutely debunked -- the majority shia population hates Al Qaeda, which is sunni. The point was made over and over that Al Qaeda is in Iraq because we brought them there, and that they are much more entrenched in about 50 other countries of the world -- including cells in London, Spain, Indonesia, etc., and that our efforts in Iraq are hampering our ability to fight terrorism and enhancing Al_Q ability to recruit.
So yes, none of this is new, but never have I heard it stated in such stark terms before a Senate committee.
The panel also said that it was beyond question that this administration would do nothing to address the issues or change course and that it was a foregone conclusion that the change would be under the direction of the new administration.
One of the most striking statements made (I think by either Odom or McCaffrey) was that America's best hope and strongest potential ally in this process was IRAN The point was made that Iran has probably the strongest interest in having a stable Iraq, without Al-Q and without a failed state, and that unless we not only talk to Iran but actually engage them in the process there is virtually no hope for stability in the region. No one made any mention of preconditions, or Iran's support of insurgent militias, or any other reason to not talk to them. To the contrary, it was suggested that without Iran there was little hope for stability.
And that was the main issue that the panel said had to be our objective in Iraq -- not Democracy, not oil revenues, not spreading American ideals, but stability in the region. And the point was made repeatedly that what this administration has done has completely destabilized one of the most fragile and volatile regions on earth.
I wish I had a link to the Cspan testimony, or a transcript, and I know that others who watched may have heard differently than I, but what struck me most of all was the terribly bleak tone of almost all the comments made, the feeling that things were spiraling downward, that the "surge" which had bought a little bit of "space" was simply not going to change the underlying dynamics. The point was made that no one wants to fight for the Maliki government because everyone knows it will be a different government as soon as this process goes further.
They also talked about the incredible difficulties of withdrawing, how moving 140,000 troops and materiels was a herculean task that would leave them facing possible imploding situations such as happened to the French at Dien bien Phu and to others elsewhere.
They also talked about the suggestion that had been made (I'm not sure by whom) about withdrawing combat brigades while leaving American soldiers "embedded" as trainers with Iraqi forces, and how that was a recipe for slaughter for the Americans. (The same reason that the sunnis don't join the ISF, because they fear being slaughtered by these shia forces.)
Anyway, if anyone has a link I would hope they would post it, and I suggest that all of us -- even those of us who have been talking about this for years -- watch what these professionals have concluded, and then ask ourselves who would be the best commander in chief for the perilous times ahead?
McCain has made it clear that he would simply continue the Bush tactics of attempting to impose a military solution on a political problem. On our side, we have Clinton or Obama.
Clinton has suggested that she is the strongest Commander in Chief, and has done everything to show her strength, her willingness to fight, her ability to strike hard and be tougher than anyone else, but is that what is needed at this time? I feel Clinton is trapped by trying too hard to prove that, just because she is a woman doesn't mean that she is weak on defense, and I fear that, as commander in chief, she will continue to be hampered by that assumption that she needs to be more hawkish and less open to reconciliation than Obama.
Obama has the great advantage of being able to come from a place where he was right"from day one" on the consequences of this terrible war. He also has an ability that Clinton does not have to bring diverse parties together and forge improbable alliances. We don't need a commander in chief who is trigger happy, or worried about appearing weak and ready to shoot harder and longer than anyone else to prove a point. We need a commander in chief who is able to negotiate in the most delicate and complicated of inter-sectarian disputes. Brother against brother, neighbors against neighbors. Who somehow embodies differences within himself, and so is somehow able to bridge differences in others.
This time, the commander in chief threshold that needs to be crossed is not experience in conflicts and fighting, but experience in conflict resolution. Who do we want to send to a disfunctional and destablized region -- a fighter or a peacemaker? Yes, of course, the commander in chief needs to be strong when needed, but he or she also needs to know when true strength allows for reconciliation and resolution. In the ancient days of the samurai, the strongest warriors were those who least needed to draw their swords, not those who waved them about at the slightest opportunity.
The CSpan testimony last night, at 3 a.m., left me fearful and worried about our future as a country and as a great nation. We cannot continue the same old tactics and politics and policies that have destroyed the fabric of our democracy and stained our national soul. Can Clinton rise to the occasion and forge the alliances needed to unravel this great tragedy? I haven't seen anything in her experience or in her character that inspires me to believe that she will be the one who is needed. Can Obama do it? Probably not alone. He will need every one of us to help carry him to a victory so strong that he truly has a mandate for change that cannot be ignored. But we also cannot do it without him -- we need a new kind of leader, one who is open and receptive to seeing us as part of a world, interconnected and interdependent.
The crisis in Iraq will not have a happy ending. But it is important that it end, and that its end is seen as the beginning of a new American foreign policy. By these measures, of the three remaining candidates, only Obama has passed the commander in chief threshold, but it is just that -- the threshold. How he acquits himself after crossing the threshold remains to be seen.
I have tried to remember what I watched last night to the best of my abilities -- it was disturbing and stark and bleak, and not something to use simply to score political points. Unlike "Rocky", Iraq is not just a movie. It holds the potential to result in the loss of thousands more lives, and to bring our entire economy down past retrieval. We need to come together -- as a party, as a nation, as a world. I don't know if that will be possible. But we have to try. If not us, then who?