Mr. President, this is not just a civil war - by historical standards, it's a relatively large scale civil war. In fact, a recent academic analysis published in the New York Times showed that the median number of casualties in civil wars since 1945 is 18,000. Estimates of total casualties in Iraq vary, but the number is probably at least twice that many. Larry Diamond, a former consultant to the provisional authority in Baghdad, has put it simply: "In academic terms, this is a civil war, and it's not even a small one."
The Iraqis from all sides understand what's going on in their country - and they're not afraid to speak the truth. Haidar al-Ibadi, a prominent Shiite legislator, said that "Certainly, what is happening is the start of the civil war. Saleh al-Mutlak, a Sunni legislator, also described the recent violence as "the start of a civil war," and another leading Sunni, Adnan Dulaimi, recently said "It's nothing less than an undeclared civil war."
Still, the Administration continues to deny the plain facts about the civil war just as they once downplayed the insurgency. Remember when it was first clear that chaos had given way to a determined insurgency? Secretary Rumsfeld told us they were just a bunch of "dead enders." Vice President Cheney told us last year that the insurgency was "in it last throes." And just look at the results. Since then, the number of Iraqi insurgents has increased by 20 percent, and the insurgency is now more than six times stronger that it was in May of 2003. And once again, it's our troops that pay the price - in fact, the number of IED attacks on U.S. troops has nearly doubled since January.
Yet not only are our U.S. troops now caught in this civil war - we're actually sending more of them into the crossfire. That's right: the Administration doesn't want to talk about it, but we are actually sending more U.S. troops into Iraq.
When the President announced his plan last week to increase the U.S. troop presence in Baghdad, he said the troops would come from other areas of Iraq. He did not mention that additional troops have been sent into Iraq from Kuwait, and that current deployments were being extended as new troops arrived. He did not mention what both the Washington Post and New York Times have reported: that the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq is going to increase by several thousand. And he did not mention that recently-announced deployment schedules could bring the number of U.S. troops in Iraq even higher in the coming years.
Finally, he did not explain why this strategy will work when similar efforts have just failed. The fact is that a few months ago, U.S. and coalition troops in Baghdad increased from 40,000 to 55,000 - and the violence has only gotten worse. Now, the President says we are going to send a few thousand more U.S. troops into Baghdad. Why is this going to be any different?
One thing is clear: under this Administration's current approach, it's highly unlikely that we'll be drawing down any significant numbers of U.S. troops from Iraq this year. This is despite the fact that Secretary Rumsfeld said on Wednesday that there are some 275,000 trained Iraqi security forces, with 325,000 expected to be trained by the end of the year. And General Martin Dempsey, the American general in charge of training Iraqi security forces, said in June that the new Iraqi army would be formed and at full strength by the end of this calendar year. In fact, Iraqi President Talabani declared just yesterday that Iraqis could take over security in the entire country by the end of this year.
If the Iraqis are standing up, as the Administration is telling us, why are U.S. troops not standing down? Because the President's mantra that "as Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down" is not a plan - it's misleading rhetoric that now rings as hollow as "we'll be greeted as liberators", and "mission accomplished." And given how bad the situation has gotten, does "stay the course" really sound any better?
This bottom line is that this approach hasn't worked because its underlying assumption - that more troops are the real solution to the problem - is fundamentally flawed. As our generals, the Iraqi leaders, and the Secretary of State herself have told us, there is no military solution to the insurgency. And just today, Secretary Rumsfeld acknowledged that there's no military solution to the sectarian violence. In fact, all can agree that the only hope for salvaging a measure of lasting success in Iraq is finding a political solution that all of the Iraqis can buy into.
So how do we accomplish that? By finally engaging in the intensive diplomacy that has been so inexplicably lacking from this Administration's approach to Iraq.
We used to understand diplomacy must be the primary means of advancing America's national security interests. We used to remember that war is the ultimate failure of diplomacy - and the best way to end it.
Unfortunately, our current diplomacy is not anywhere near as effective as it needs to be. In fact, so much of what we used to take for granted in national security policy has now been called into question.
We used to know that despite our differences in political philosophy and in perspective our two great parties could cooperate to craft international policies in our national interest.
We used to understand that the unique and historic role of the United States in world affairs required a far-sighted and multi-faceted approach to protecting our people and our interests.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
