Homeward chickens, meet roost

A year or so after our military “surge” in Iraq, I had a heated (but friendly) row with my editor. He, a conservative, maintained the war was all but won. I, a moderate Dem, argued that he was nuts. True, the surge generally realized our military goals (enhanced security). But, I argued, it failed in its main objective: To create political conditions conductive to reconciliation among the ethno-political factions. Or in the words of President Bush: “...unified, democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself.”

The key phrases being “unified” and “govern itself.” Until those things happened, I loudly said, this sucker would come back to haunt us, big time. Becalm yourself, the surge would lead to an Iraqi-style Jeffersonian democracy, said my editor with the serene assurance of a Roman Tribune. Keep dreamin’, Tiberius – it would not, said I with the certainty of a wild-eyed barbarian attired in animal skins. Would so, would not, would so, would not – etcetera. I then placed my right thumb under my nose and mockingly wiggled my fingers. (Okay, I made up that last part. Hey, it’s poetic license, like in the movies.) My editor (a good chap) and I finally agreed to disagree.

Fast forward to 2010: On Sunday, the NY Times reported that the Sunnis who were allied with us during the famous “Awakening” (thereby aiding the surge) were now rejoining the bad guys:

Although there are no firm figures, security and political officials say hundreds of the well-disciplined [Sunni] fighters — many of whom have gained extensive knowledge about the American military — appear to have rejoined Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Beyond that, officials say that even many of the Awakening fighters still on the Iraqi government payroll, possibly thousands of them, covertly aid the insurgency.

Oh, and the Shiite-led government still has not formed a working parliamentary majority since the national elections this year in March, let alone achieved any semblance of Shia-Sunni-Kurd unity. This, mind you, is nearly four years after our “victorious” surge (and eerily similar to Dubya’s dubious “Mission Accomplished” declaration).

In short: Toldja.

Damn, I hate being right all the time. And, of course, I’m being facetious. Tom Ricks, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq,” feels as I do about the turn of events in Iraq: Sad, not surprising and probably inevitable. Ricks asks, “The big question is how far the Sunni Awakening reversal will go.” He doesn’t know the answer but writes, “I am hearing through the grapevine that things are getting friskier.”

There isn’t a single entity on Earth that can match us militarily. You confront us on the battlefield, you die. But, post-occupation, America doesn’t do the imperial-empire-colonial thing very well. Never has. (We were kinda traumatized by that whole Revolutionary War thing in 1775. It left a scar.) The Romans – who wrote the original “Empires for Dummies” – were masters at it for a long, long time. So were the British. But both ultimately failed, victims (in part) of hubris, imperial overreach and us barbarians. And even if Washington were suddenly to go all Rudyard Kipling on us, we could neither be as savagely uncompromising as Rome nor as savagely Machiavellian as Pax Britannica. Nor should we aspire to be. Yet, in Iraq and Afghanistan, one could argue that therein lies the thorny horns of our dilemma.

I wish my friend and former editor had been right. Had he been so, the troops might be home from these damned (but, alas, necessary) conflicts. Instead, I’m now left wondering whether the proverbial chickens are coming home to roost in Iraq. It’s an argument I’d be delighted to lose.