In the Know: Wishful thinking in Washington
Preparation for the worst in Iraq is a must
By Jeff Genota, staff writer
Posted on February 15, 2007

Activity in Washington within the last week has been focused on Iraq. For once, the White House and the Democratic congressional majority agreed on one thing in a unanimous fashion over the war. General David H. Petraeus, now the commander of all U.S. forces and operations in Iraq, was confirmed to his position last week and is admired for his intellect and combat experience. All eyes are now on his stewardship of an already chaotic on-the-ground situation in Iraq, with the White House hoping he will well shepherd their 20,000-troop surge and Democrats hoping he could lay some groundwork for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces. Compared to his predecessors, Petraeus and his “brain trust” of military officers bring Ph.D.s on subjects such as international affairs and the anthropology of terrorism combined with experience from the early stages of the Iraq War to the overall U.S. command in Iraq. While the White House and the Democratic Congress can have their wishful thinking, both Washington and the commanders in Baghdad need to accept that now is the time for planning for the worst and for the post-mortem period.

A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released earlier this month on Iraq presented very grim assessments of the situation if the sectarian violence is not arrested or if coalition forces were to rapidly withdraw within 12 to 18 months. Given this rather obvious report and adding to already significant displeasure over the war, perhaps a better use of the “Petraeus guys” is to direct them to execute contingency planning on Iraq if and when the surge falls apart and the eventuality that the United States will leave Iraq with the country still in crisis. Almost everyone is fairly certain that the United States will withdraw at some point with rather minimal successes in the efforts to control the deteriorating situation. It is wise, then, for these Ph.D.-carrying warriors to use their intellect for the purposes of helping the United States leave the country without having the mess spill over to the neighbors. We cannot save Iraq anymore because the Iraqis themselves refuse to remain a nation-state, and most importantly, it already has us stuck when there are other very important issues we should be dealing with at this point. As much as we would hate to admit, there is nothing much more we can do.

In a repudiation of one of the recommendations from the Iraq Study Group’s report, the Bush administration has shunned diplomacy with the Iranians and Syrians. Now is the time to engage in that diplomacy, and in addition, steps to prepare for the worst include containing the sectarian violence from spreading outside Iraq’s borders, devise a plan to secure the flow of oil supplies from the Persian Gulf, gather regional and international support for a potential refugee and humanitarian crisis, and restart the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue. It may seem uncomfortable to let go of our determination to salvage Iraq, but we have crossed a point of no return. We can only hope that it will not create a greater headache than we already suffer now. As we ponder over the future of Iraq and the broader region, perhaps we can all write down as a general rule for our future as a superpower with the ability to single-handedly affect change in the world — that we cannot accept and we must shun the responsibility for nation-building and being entangled in the muddled idea of spreading democracy and freedom for the rest of the world.

Jeff Genota is a sophomore international affairs major.