After leading the charge to retreat from Iraq and declare victory with our backup lights lit, the New York Times now discovers that most military experts -- including critics of the Busg administration's handling of post-war Iraq -- believe a drawdown will touch off a civil war, not avoid one. While Carl Levin and Jack Reed try to fine-tune a Senate resolution so that retreat doesn't sound like retreat, Anthony Zinni and John Batiste point out that lowering the security forces in Baghdad will make violence increase, not decrease:

One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.

This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.

But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.

Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.

John Batiste, a retired Army major general who also joined in the call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, described the Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals as “terribly naïve ...There are lots of things that have to happen to set them up for success,” General Batiste, who commanded a division in Iraq, said in an interview, describing the Iraqi government. “Until they happen, it does not matter what we tell Maliki.”

We didn't hear from Zinni and Batiste until this week. Why not? Apparently, even though the Gray Lady touted Iraq as the most critical issue for the midterms and urged a plan for rapid withdrawal, it didn't find the time to actually interview the generals about the realistic options for success until after the election.

Putting that aside, the two generals cannot be painted as apologists for the Bush administration's policies on Iraq. Both have made their criticisms public, especially regarding Rumsfeld in Batiste's case. Clearly, they want to see a change in the tactics used in Iraq, but just as clearly they do not want to retreat before the mission is accomplished.

The efforts by Democrats to shift into reverse are based on two arguments: that the US is creating the impetus for violence simply by being present, and that Nouri al-Maliki could solve the problem if we scared him into taking action on his own. Both Zinni and Batiste dispute these assumptions, and for good reason. The forces arrayed against the Iraqi government and Coalition forces consist primarily of native radicals who will not abide democratic institutions, but instead want dictatorships based on sect and ethnicity. A smaller but significant portion are foreign terrorists who have flocked to the al-Qaeda franchise, led now by Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.

Neither of these types of factions will lay down weapons once the US leaves. They have other plans for Iraq besides democracy and representative government. The natives want to break Iraq into gang turf for their radical imams, and the foreigners want Iraq's oil reserves to fund worldwide terrorism independently. Those goals will not fade with an American withdrawal, but only become closer to reality.

Zinni and Batiste know this. Both scoff at the notion that Maliki could stop the violence at his current strength levels, although both agree he could do more politically. Zinni and Batiste agree with John McCain that the US needs additional troops in Baghdad and a better strategy for weakening and destroying the militias. This week, American troops started going after Moqtada al-Sadr's forces in the capital, reversing an earlier decision to abide by Maliki's demand to leave them alone. More of that kind of thinking will help, and that will certainly put the kind of political pressure on Maliki that might some changes to his policies.

Before the elections, Democrats insisted that the White House and especially Donald Rumsfeld needed to listen to the generals rather than remaining married to their own strategies and assumptions. Now that the election is over, the Democrats need to do the same. Will they? It's doubtful, and for one very strong reason: they ran on forcing a change of policy in Iraq. Their voters were led to believe that a Democratic majority in Congress would lead to a withdrawal, and in short order. If the Democrats do not make good on that promise, they will have to accept some responsibility for Iraq from this point forward -- and they will lose the anti-war Left that currently fuels their activism.

Nevertheless, at least we've finally heard the entire story from these generals on the pages of the New York Times. Perhaps that might signal the Democrats that victory is the best strategy after all.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference And Now It Seems Withdrawal Is ... Bad:

» Poll: Most Doubt Dems Have Plan For Iraq from Webloggin
The AP is finally reporting something that most of us already knew. Despite the fact that Democrats campaigned on the need for change in Iraq the reality is that the slogan came without a plan attached to it. ... [Read More]

Tracked on November 15, 2006 7:24 AM

» POLITICIANS HEAD FOR THE BRIAR PATCH TO AVOID IRAQ TAR BABY from Right Wing Nut House
The term “bi-partisan” is taking on a whole new meaning recently as both Republican and Democratic lawmakers are scurrying to seek cover behind the apron strings of the Iraq Study Group and its Old Wise Men who are desperately trying to fi... [Read More]

Tracked on November 15, 2006 7:40 AM

» Dem “plan” withdrawal within 4 to 6 months is not a good idea, say retired generals and other military experts from Sister Toldjah
Kinda surprising to see this in the NYT, but nevertheless, here it is: WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 — One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased with... [Read More]

Tracked on November 15, 2006 7:50 AM

» Oh, Now They Tell Us from Strange Women Lying in Ponds
It looks like the NY Times will soon say that it was for withdrawal before it was against it. But here's the most delicious irony, which will no doubt be missed by many:In essence, the current debate turns on whether [Read More]

Tracked on November 15, 2006 8:14 AM

» First Cup 11.15.06 from bRight & Early
... [Read More]

Tracked on November 15, 2006 9:38 AM

» 'Signal to Democrats That Victory is the Best Strategy After All' from It Shines For All
The New York Times discovers that withdrawing troops from Iraq is likely to increase the slide toward civil war (warning about the inevitability of a civil war is an editorial column favorite topic):If American troops begin to leave and the... [Read More]

Tracked on November 15, 2006 10:16 AM

» Generals Call Democrats in Congress from Wake up America
Now to put forth yet another argument about Iraq, which the left should absolutely love (sarcasm), lets take a look at the death rate in Iraq before Saddam was toppled. You do the math... everyone is so anxious to quote how many deaths there have be... [Read More]

Tracked on November 15, 2006 11:21 AM

» Get Out Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say; Reid Pledges To Press Bush On Iraq Policy'; Bush Initiates Iraq Policy Review Separate From Baker Group's from Bill's Bites
Zinni, Batiste: Withdrawal would be disastrous Allahpundit They want out, just not so badly that they’re willing to let Iraq go to hell in the process. In fact, each is open to sending more troops in the near term. Batiste [Read More]

Tracked on November 15, 2006 1:34 PM

» Web Reconnaissance for 11/15/2006 from The Thunder Run
A short recon of what�s out there that might draw your attention. [Read More]

Tracked on November 15, 2006 1:44 PM

» When Politics Trumps The Truth from Joust The Facts
The NY Times, now that their dissembling and deceit has been successful, gently lets the cat out of the bag in a story this morning. Should we be leaving Iraq, either abruptly or on a planned timetable? Not so fast, [Read More]

Tracked on November 15, 2006 2:17 PM

» When Politics Trumps The Truth from Joust The Facts
The NY Times, now that their dissembling and deceit has been successful, gently lets the cat out of the bag in a story this morning. Should we be leaving Iraq, either abruptly or on a planned timetable? Not so fast, [Read More]

Tracked on November 15, 2006 2:37 PM