Retired three-star General William E. Odom, who served as Director of the National Security Agency under Clinton between 1985 and 1988, has written a policy statement entitled "What's Wrong With Cutting and Running," advocating an immediate total pullout of U.S. military forces from Iraq.
Odom is currently a professor of foreign relations at Yale and a Senior Fellow of the Hudson Institute, a non-partisan think tank devoted to national and international security studies. His anti-war statement is published online at the site, "Nieman Watchdog," the blog for Harvard's Nieman Foundation for Journalism.
At a time when nearly all Congressional Republicans and most Democrats are still advocating a "stay the course" policy, and even the overwhelming majority of dissenters in Congress say they favor plans involving gradual U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, Lieutenant-General Odom's statement is singular in its bold challenge of conventional attitudes toward the war and its relentless, uncompromising logic.
Odom lists the nine most commonly mobilized arguments and Republican talking points for maintaining a U.S. military presence in Iraq, and demolishes each of them.
For example, the war's supporters argue that were the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq now, "we would leave behind a civil war."
"Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis," Odom answers. "Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war. We created the civil war when we invaded; we can’t prevent a civil war by staying."
To the contention that the U.S. would lose credibility by leaving Iraq now, Odom replies, "One of the great advantages of being a hyperpower (is that) when we have made a big strategic mistake, we can reverse it. And it may even enhance our credibility. Staying there damages our credibility more than leaving."
Probably the most ubiquitous argument against an immediate U.S. withdrawal is the assertion that it "would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy."
But Odom counters that "There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties will take over the government once we leave. But that will happen no matter how long we stay."
Related to the last argument are the twin contentions that "Iraq would become a haven for terrorists," if the U.S. pulled out now, and "Iranian influence in Iraq would increase."
"Iraq is already a training ground for terrorists," General Odom answers. "In fact, the CIA has pointed out to the administration and congress that Iraq is spawning so many terrorists that they are returning home to many other countries to further practice their skills there.
"The quicker a new dictator wins the political power in Iraq and imposes order," Odom adds pessemistically, "the sooner the country will stop producing well-experienced terrorists."
Regarding Iran: "Iranian leaders see US policy in Iraq as being so much in Teheran's interests that they have been advising Iraqi Shiite leaders to do exactly what the Americans ask them to do. Elections will allow the Shiites to take power legally."
To the objection that if the U.S. was to withdraw, unrest would spread throughout the Middle East, Odom replies, "Already today each of (Iraq's neighbors) is deeply involved in support for or opposition to factions in the ongoing Iraqi civil war. The very act of invading Iraq almost insured that violence would involve the larger region."
To the argument that Shi'ite-Sunni clashes would worsen immediately upon a U.S. withdrawal: "The US presence is not preventing Shiite-Sunni conflict; it merely delays it."
Odom counters the commonly voiced concern that the U.S. cannot leave Iraq yet because we have not properly or completely trained and mobilized their army and police forces with blunt realism: "The insurgents are fighting very effectively without US or European military advisors to train them. Why don't the soldiers and police in the present Iraqi regime's service do their duty as well? Because they are uncertain about committing their lives to this regime. They are being asked to take a political stand, just as the insurgents are. Political consolidation, not military-technical consolidation, is the issue."
Finally, Odom saves his harshest words for a response to the criticism that opposition to the war is symptiomatic of a lack of support for the troops, or is unpatriotic.
"Most surprising to me is that no American political leader today has tried to unmask the absurdity of the administration's case that to question the strategic wisdom of the war is unpatriotic and a failure to support our troops. Most officers and probably most troops don't see it that way." Odom says.
"They are angry at the deficiencies in materiel support they get from the Department of Defense, and especially about the irresponsibly long deployments they must now endure because Mr. Rumsfeld and his staff have refused to enlarge the ground forces to provide shorter tours. In the meantime, they know that the defense budget shovels money out the door to maritime forces, SDI, etc., while refusing to increase dramatically the size of the Army."
In so many words, this retired officer who served his country with distinction is turning the accusation of non-support around, and placing the onus of unpatriotic behavior where he feels it really belongs.
Odom's policy statement is an important breakthrough on a subject that has been, up until now, loaded down with cultural taboos (is anyone willing to say, "I don't support the troops?"), sentimental baggage relating to subjects such as the flag, America's image of itself, and conventional and expected forms of patriotism, and the common, reflexive, and unthinking identification of the government as the repository of patriotic virtue. It should be read by every member of Congress, particularly before that body votes on the next Iraq War appropriation.
Thus far the only significant Congressional opposition to the war has been centered in the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus, formed during the second week of June, 2005, and consisting of 41 members from both houses. Its membership includes Representative Conyers of Michigan, Representative Waters of California, and Senator Boxer of California.
Even this ostensibly anti-war group, formed to put pressure on the Bush Administration to end the war and bring the troops home, was careful to specify in its mission statement that its members are "not calling for a certain date to bring troops home."
Odom's statement calling for complete and immediate withdrawal, especially if it is followed by similar expressions of dissent from equally highly-placed and credible sources, may put more starch in the congressional caucus's demands.
Readers can access the entire text of General Odom's policy statement at Harvard's "Nieman Watchdog" website (http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129).
No comments:
Post a Comment