A Necessary Narrative -- for a timely and responsible exit of Iraq

In 2006, a majority of Americans grew tired of the continuing loss of soldiers and ever worsening situation in Iraq. The Bush administration had set our national goals on making a happy new liberal democratic state and there obviously wasn’t any such thing emerging. As the administration’s political situation hemorrhaged, it responded with a new high risk initiative: a military “surge”.

The “surge” involved sending more troops, but it turned out that what was most important was two tactical political/military moves. The first was to arm and ally with some tribal elements and former enemy insurgent forces in Sunni areas. The second involved brokering a truce with the Mahdi Army militias whose acquiescence was motivated in part by the threat of their facing increased US military pressure in Baghdad.

The upshot of the “surge” in 2008 is that violence in Iraq has decreased to 2005 levels and al Qaeda in Mesopotamia has been weakened – two substantial achievements from the Bush administration’s perspective. These are doubtless understood in the McCain camp as accomplishments that are popular for Americans.

There are cogent critiques of the “surge” and they need to be promoted into the popular discourse. At the moment in left-of-center discourse they tend to be incorporated into a narrative that says:

“Apparent gains from the “surge” are temporary, there has been no real political progress within Iraq, and things will soon be much worse (or it will never get much better) – we must get out eventually and sooner is better than later when the place may well crash around our head (and/or we never had any right to be there in the first place.)”

This is a “dismal” narrative. Contrast it with the new right-of-center narrative which says,

“Yes, we made some errors, but we went into Iraq in order to bring a better life to Iraqis and to defeat al Qaeda. Now we are making real progress in beating al Qaeda (thanks to the new surge strategy) and things are slowly getting better for Iraqis. Let’s keep going. It would be moral cowardice to stop now. While things get better in Iraq the cost to us in blood and treasure will slowly be reduced. It is a sacrifice we must make.”

Which narrative speaks more to the American heart:
• The optimism that the job can be done, even when the job is hard?
• or the pessimism that the job should be abandoned because it is hopeless and/or wrong?

In thinking about those questions remember that in an election year we are not so much interested in those 30% of Americans who are firmly for or against this war. It is to the 20% who aren’t sure the job was the wrong one or that it is hopeless and who can move either way in the next six months that this narrative must appeal.

The best left-of-center narrative is one that changes the job description in the optimistic narrative:
• Setting a date certain for complete withdrawal in order to change the political dynamics inside Iraq;
• Prepare for the change in Iraqi politics and influence it toward national reconciliation;
• Invest heavily in activities that mitigate and ameliorate as much as possible any negative consequences that may emerge;
• Undertake a ‘new diplomacy’ in the Middle East that seeks accord with all of Iraq’s neighbors in support of a stable and prosperous Iraq;
• Make this regional accord the highest of priorities for US policy;
• Prepare and encourage the ‘international community’ to take up a limited and critical set of security roles in Iraq when the US leaves.

As with the right-of-center narrative, this new left-of-center narrative is optimistic, but will require hard work and some sacrifice:
• For at least five years it will cost American taxpayers $15 – 30 billion a year (in context of the $150 to 300 billion a year currently spent keeping the troops there -- Americans are skilled at recognizing bargains!);
• The staffs of NGOs and international agencies will continue to risk their lives in a difficult security situation for years to come after American soldiers are gone.
• Iraqis, some Muslim majority states, and other wealthy nations will be called upon to make sacrifice of treasure and/or blood.
• Whatever we try to do in life, the future is uncertain, and given that reality we must do the best we can.

Underlying this narrative is a critical meta-narrative: we will be responsible, move toward moral wholeness, and not be alone. We will bring our troops home and remain connected, and indeed play a leadership role in nurturing and supporting an international community of care for the future of Iraq.

Proposition: It is only with a narrative such as the above that those who wish to see US forces withdrawn from Iraq win the support of the American people in this election year and beyond.

-- Charles Knight is co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives (http://www.comw.org/pda/). Mr. Knight was a principal organizer of a recent workshop at Harvard where two congresspersons and fourteen Iraq and regional experts spent a day discussing how to minimize and mitigate the likelihood of bloodbath and regional chaos after the U.S. leaves Iraq. This post reflects ideas that emerged for the author at the workshop. A report of the workshop findings is forthcoming in April.