Time to engage reality in Iraq, Democrats

We are starting to see a lot of softening up of the American public for a long engagement in Iraq. Information about the huge bases being built, as well as the humongous Emerald City “embassy” in Baghdad, largely ignored so far by the American press, may be starting to get journalistic traction. The absurdity of a “Korean model” of a perpetual occupation has been floated. Particularly valuable (and depressing) is the article, "The Great American Disconnect," by Tom Engelhardt.

The problem with this seems extremely simple. If we were really welcome there without our soldiers being at risk, and without our occupation being an affront to the rest of the world, I suppose I would not object. We do seem to manage in the Philippines, Korea, Japan and Europe with relatively minimal friction. But that’s the whole point: the level of friction, and the presentation of a tailor-made recruiting tool for Osama bin Laden. Here’s a letter I wrote to Senator Obama today. It doesn’t take much to get the point across:

Senator Obama (and the other Democratic candidates) are going to have to deal with an issue that is emerging more clearly now: the permanency of our presence in Iraq that apparently has been planned by Bush and is being implemented in ways to prevent a future President from reversing course. The idea that we can partially occupy the country without an insurgency continuing, and without continuously undermining the legitimacy of any government that would permit it, seems absurd. It is also hard to imagine the world we have angered so much, which we need to pursue a comprehensive anti-terrorism effort, being willing to let bygones be bygones until we have left Iraq, lock, stock and barrel. I don't believe most Americans don't instinctively understand that, either, so saying it -- a dose of genuine straight talk -- will only enhance the candidate's standing.

The only partial retention of forces that seems like it possibly could make sense is to protect the Kurds in the north. Since Kurds aren't Arabs, perhaps the al Qaeda types wouldn't care quite as much.

I should have added the part about our continuing occupation, even if tiny, being a recruiting tool for al Qaeda. As I understand it, the concept of "Muslim land," has a deep, powerful hold on many in the Middle East. Isn't that the fundamental premise of Hamas in its attack on Israel? Even if I find it basically abhorrent, a concept fundamentally at odds with the UN Declaration of Human Rights and inconsistent with a modern, civilized world, I still need to think about it and deal with it in strategic terms. Why just gratuitously rub it in?