Thursday, October 27 , 2016, 1:24 am | A Few Clouds 55º


Susan Estrich: U.S. Touts ‘Limited, Specific, Achievable’ Aims in Iraq Intervention

“Limited, specific and achievable.”

That is how one unnamed official described the military option in Iraq, last Thursday, Aug. 7, 2014.

Of course, the war in Iraq is supposed to be over. It was called “Operation Iraqi Freedom” until its name was changed in 2010 to “Operation New Dawn.” It ended in December 2011, in its eighth year, with the American death toll standing just shy of 5,000.

It did not bring “Iraqi Freedom.” The “New Dawn” may now officially be labeled a new nightmare. President George W. Bush officially declared victory — “Mission accomplished” — little more than a month into the war, completing the initial invasion, sending Saddam Hussein into hiding, but also having found no weapons of mass destruction. That was the first phase of the war.

The second phase — the part that we finally declared over, the part in which we suffered all but 139 of our total military losses — was the fight against the extremist insurgency. We left, but it never ended.

What happened last week is that in response to death threats from the truly terrifying ISIS, some 40,000 men, women and children took refuge on a mountaintop where they are now dying of heat and starvation. We were reportedly waiting for the current failed leader to step down before taking any military action, but meanwhile, these people are dying.

And all of this raises a pretty basic question that is applicable not only to Iraq: What in the world are we doing?

Protecting American interests, of course. It’s been 20 years since I wrote Q&As for candidates, but the short answer hasn’t changed. The harder question, always, has been what that means.

It means fighting terrorists who would kill us, wherever they are. That part of the answer — though surely not the task — is easy.

“Do you believe in using military force for nation building?” is another one of those old standards in debate prep books.

No, of course not, every candidate says; we are not the world’s police force.

Of course — and this is the part where candidates start fudging. In some instances, the only answer to terrorism is a stable government that does not provide a refuge for terrorists or allow its country to be turned into a terrorist state.

And the other benefit of such a government, of a “political solution,” as it’s sometimes labeled, is that people don’t have to flee to a mountaintop and die of heat and starvation because their town has been taken over by anti-Christian, anti-everything-but-them killers.

So that’s what we tried to achieve in Iraq, even if no one wanted to admit it, and that is also what we seem to be trying to achieve in Afghanistan, where a general was killed this past week, the highest ranking officer to be killed in combat since Vietnam. He was training Afghan forces to defend against insurgents when an insurgent opened fire. It does not seem to be working there, either.

Even as he was explicitly announcing that the military option is on the table, the White House spokesman also said: “There are no American military solutions to the problems in Iraq. These problems can only be solved with Iraqi political solutions.”

And therein lies the rub. We tried. If there were a U.S. military solution to the problems in Iraq, the tens of thousands of young American men and women who served our country there would have found it. Iraq wasn’t a military failure; it was the mission — or lack thereof — that was all wrong.

On the other hand, when 40,000 people are dying on a mountaintop because of their religious beliefs, threatened with death by terrorist haters, do we let them die, do we drop food, or do we drop bombs on those who are threatening them?

“Limited, specific and achievable.” Maybe we can save some lives.

Susan Estrich is a best-selling author, the Robert Kingsley Professor of Law and Political Science at the USC Law Center and was campaign manager for 1988 Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis. Click here to contact her or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are her own.

Reader Comments

Noozhawk's intent is not to limit the discussion of our stories but to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and must be free of profanity and abusive language and attacks.

By posting on Noozhawk, you:

» Agree to be respectful. Noozhawk encourages intelligent and impassioned discussion and debate, but now has a zero-tolerance policy for those who cannot express their opinions in a civil manner.

» Agree not to use Noozhawk’s forums for personal attacks. This includes any sort of personal attack — including, but not limited to, the people in our stories, the journalists who create these stories, fellow readers who comment on our stories, or anyone else in our community.

» Agree not to post on Noozhawk any comments that can be construed as libelous, defamatory, obscene, profane, vulgar, harmful, threatening, tortious, harassing, abusive, hateful, sexist, racially or ethnically objectionable, or that are invasive of another’s privacy.

» Agree not to post in a manner than emulates, purports or pretends to be someone else. Under no circumstances are readers posting to Noozhawk to knowingly use the name or identity of another person, whether that is another reader on this site, a public figure, celebrity, elected official or fictitious character. This also means readers will not knowingly give out any personal information of other members of these forums.

» Agree not to solicit others. You agree you will not use Noozhawk’s forums to solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites, without Noozhawk’s express written approval.

Noozhawk’s management and editors, in our sole discretion, retain the right to remove individual posts or to revoke the access privileges of anyone who we believe has violated any of these terms or any other term of this agreement; however, we are under no obligation to do so.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >