The last rationale
The American war in Iraq is over. We know this because we know that independent actors initiated force on force operations with the stated goals of obtaining a monopoly of force. We know this because we know that Fallon, Dempsey, Petreaus and Crocker were not in the sensor to shooter loop. We know this because the opposing forces established their respective relationships between fire and maneuver, yielding no change in their respective monopolies of force. We know this because we know that close air support provided little tactical advantage. We know this because we know that after the initial maneuver phase of operations ended in fixed positions, when ordered to increase the tempo of operations, battalion-strength elements independently opted to lower the tempo of operations. We know this because we know that the opposing forces ceased offensive operations, now generalized beyond the original area of operations, Basra, to Baghdad, Kut, Amarah, Nasiriyah, and Diwaniya. We know this because we know that Ali Adib, Hadi al-Ameri and aides to Moqtada al-Sadr met with Qassem Suliemani in Qom on the 6th day of operations and that ended operations.
Independent of all other theories and claims, politics ended and military operations began, and ended, without a strategic change in the balance of forces, and politics began again. That is what we know, with absolute certainty.
The last rationale for the Occupation is that absent foreign forces, absent foreign control, politics would end and military operations would begin and would not conclude until a monopoly of force was obtained. See the quote below.
I only mention this because no one I read has, and Lisa Prosienski, Chellie Pingree's CM wrote towards the end of the week with the promise that either she or Willy Ritch, the CD, would get back to me with a response to the questions I asked all the Maine 1st CD Democratic primary candidates, so I anticipate responses from the Pingree and the Lawrence campaigns, in addition to the response previously published on behalf of Michael Brennan. I'm not expecting a "Just Go"1 from any candidate, but it would be silly to act as if nothing fundamental happened last week, by not happening.
Here is the link to the Three Defense Questions, policy and politics, for the 1st CD Dem primary candidates, and Tom Allen.
Here is the link to the Brennan campaign response.
Update: Via Marc Lynch's fine Abu Aardvark (when he isn't doing amateur-hour shilling for one of the primary candidates)
"By the middle of 2005, it was painfully obvious to everyone involved that the only decisive outcome that could be achieved during President Bush's tenure was the triumph of our enemies, America's withdrawal, and Iraq's descent into a hellish chaos as yet undreamed of. The challenge, therefore, was to develop and implement a workable strategy that could be handed over to Bush's successor. Although important progress could be made on that strategy during Bush's watch, ultimately it would be carried through by the next President. This was the reality behind the course followed by the administration in 2005-2006, and it remains the reality behind the new and different course the administration has been following since 2007." - Peter Feaver, Bush's NSC special adviser for strategic planning, in "Anatomy of the Surge" (April 2008)
It can't get much clearer than that.
The choices for 1st CD ME Dems (and Dems everywhere with an interest in contested congressional primaries) are:
- .5 trillion dollars to "stay the course" (generally), and probably short the refugee and post-war aid by the same amount, no earlier than the 2012 cycle, or
- .5 trillion dollars to "change the course" (generally), and probably short the refugee and post-war aid by the same amount, no earlier than the 2010 cycle, or
- .5 trillion dollars to "just go" (generally) and start funding the refugee and post-war aid this cycle, rather than later, if at all.
1 Just Go by Riverbend.
