January 25, 2007

Alexander On Iraq

After reading in NashvillePost.com yesterday that Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander was not in favor of the "surge" of additional troops to Iraq, I went to the senator's website to express my thoughts on the subject. I received the following response via email today...

January 25, 2007
Dear Bill,

Thanks very much for getting in touch with me and letting me know what's on your mind regarding the future of Iraq.

The situation in Iraq is worse, and the time has come to change our strategy. I have read the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report, heard recommendations from leaders in the military, and I listened carefully to President Bush's proposal for success.

Sending 21,500 more American troops temporarily into Iraq to try to stop sectarian violence is not, by itself, new or a strategy for success. If the President is finally requiring Iraqi forces to take the lead with American forces in support, that would be different - and should allow us to start bringing troops home sooner. Our troops in Iraq need to get out of the business of combat and into the business of supporting Iraqi forces. That means embedding more American troops in Iraqi units and, in the next year, drawing down our combat forces there. Special operations against al-Qaeda and other training, support, and intelligence missions should continue.

The hard truth is that the United States will have some presence in Iraq for a long time, but it ought to be in a limited, supporting role. At this point in the Iraqi conflict, that's the best way to defend U.S. interests and to honor the sacrifices of the hundreds of thousands who have fought for us. I remain committed to ensuring that our troops have everything they need. I send my sincere appreciation to all of the brave individuals who have put their lives on the line - especially those who have made the ultimate sacrifice - to protect our nation and its principles.

I hope the President's new strategy succeeds, but Iraqis must show that they are ready and willing to make the tough decisions to bring peace and democracy to their own people. I'll be sure to keep your comments in mind as these issues are discussed and debated in Washington and in Tennessee.

Sincerely,
Lamar

I believe Sen. Alexander is thoughtfully approaching the Iraq issue, as he thoughtfully approaches every issue. Sen. Alexander has never been a knee-jerk, repeat-the-party-talking-points kind of politician. If he says he believes the surge is a bad idea, I'll accept that he says so because he truly believes so, rather than because of political calculations.

That said, I think he's wrong on this issue. Not dreadfully wrong - he hasn't, for example, joined the retreatist Republicans like Sen. John Warner, Sen. Susan Collins and Sen. Chuck Hagel, who seem determined to assist the Democrats in the Senate in passing some sort of resolution undercutting the president and condeming the troop increase even though the general in charge of Iraq says he needs the additional troops, and even though passage of such a resolution would encourage the enemy.

But Sen. Alexander's letter indicates he thinks all that the president has proposed is increasing troop levels. That's just not the case. The mainstream media has dangerously over-simplified the story to "the surge," and made the story all about whether the voters and the elected officials are for or against it, but there is more to President Bush's new strategy in Iraq than increasing troop levels. More on that in a moment. First, I'll repeat a section of Sen. Alexander's letter to me:

Sending 21,500 more American troops temporarily into Iraq to try to stop sectarian violence is not, by itself, new or a strategy for success. If the President is finally requiring Iraqi forces to take the lead with American forces in support, that would be different - and should allow us to start bringing troops home sooner. Our troops in Iraq need to get out of the business of combat and into the business of supporting Iraqi forces. That means embedding more American troops in Iraqi units and, in the next year, drawing down our combat forces there. Special operations against al-Qaeda and other training, support, and intelligence missions should continue.

It is not just more troops, but new tactics and a new strategy designed to shift responsibility to the Iraqi army and police over time. I have no doubt that, if President Bush and his military commanders believed we could just immediately demand Iraqi forces "take the lead," and they could do so with success, that demand would already have been made - and implemented.

Clearly, they don't believe the Iraqi army is ready. Just as clearly, they believe that, with time it can become ready.

But to get there, we have to clear and hold Baghdad - to give the elected Iraqi government breathing room to stand up and take control.

It is not a crazy strategy, either.

Years ago I was a crime reporter in the dusty West Texas city of Lubbock, and was reporting on a neighborhood watch program there. One of the police organizers told me the strategy was to drive the drug dealers and property vandals and burglars and thugs out of the city one block at a time. Clear and hold one block with a neighborhood watch program, and the bad guys might just move on to a nearby block. But eventually, block by block, you drive them out of the city.

"Then they go to Amarillo or Dallas," he said, "and they become someone else's problem."

President Bush's new strategy is not just "send more troops to Baghdad and hope for the best." It is to clear Baghdad of its thugs a block at a time, figuratively speaking, until the bad guys have been driven to the edge of town or killed - and then to defend Baghdad while bringing the Iraqi police and military up to the job of doing it themselves.

In short, it is a strategy not too unlike the one Sen. Alexander calls for in his letter to me.

...Meanwhile, more than 10,000 people (including myself) have signed Hugh Hewitt and N.Z. Bear's NRSC Pledge, vowing not to support any Republican Senator in '08 who votes against the surge. (Hat tip: Glenn Reynolds)