Andrew Sullivan
Win a fitness package worth more than £3,000
When historians look back on the past week in Washington, I suspect they will see it as a seminal moment. It was the moment when the president and his party recommitted themselves to an indefinite, decades-long Iraq occupation, and when the Iraq war was formally handed over to the next president, with forces near the maxed-out 2006 level.
The realist and moderate Republicans were essentially defused by the calm, factual demeanour of General David Petraeus, with the key senators John Warner, Richard Lugar and Pete Domenici deferring to the president in the face of the first trickle of good news from Anbar.
Amazingly, the president even got the press to echo the notion that he is actually withdrawing troops, when he is simply maintaining the maximum level compatible with not breaking the US military entirely.
And so, barring something unforeseen, after the surge dies its predicted cyclical death next spring, well over 100,000 American troops will likely be occupying Iraq when the next president takes office.
The argument that won the day is that however deep the current hole, leaving now would create an even deeper one. So they’re digging some more.
For me, the critical exchange evinced a response from Petraeus that, after a recess, he decided to withdraw. Too late. The truth had been blurted out. When staunch Republican Senator John Warner asked him: “Does the [Iraq war] make America safer?” Petraeus replied with admirable honesty: “I don’t know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind.”
Who in the administration, one wonders, has?
Let us review the stated objectives of the Iraq war chronologically:
2002: to disarm Saddam Hussein of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and create a breathing space for democracy in the Middle East (the WMDs were not there; the breathing space became anarchy).
2003: to allow chaos in order to create a “fly-paper” for every jihadist in the world to come and get slaughtered by the US (“Bring it on!”).
2004: to create a new democratic constitution (achieved on paper, but at the price of creating sectarian voting blocs that actually intensified the ethnic and religious divisions pulling the country apart).
2005: to protect Iraq from a powerful and growing Sunni insurgency and disarm the Shi’ite militias (failed).
2006: to quell surging sectarian violence, target a new and lethal Al-Qaeda in Iraq and restrain the passions unleashed by the bombing of the Samarra mosque (failed).
2007: to prevent genocide and a wider regional war and create enough peace for a settlement in the centre (the surge has reduced violence to levels of summer 2006, and no agreement in Baghdad has been reached).
And so the question becomes: what will the objective of the Iraq war be next year? Given the dizzying succession of rationales presented and subsequently withdrawn by the president and his supporters, the possibilities are many.
Some cynics argue that George Bush is playing a small, domestic game of keeping the ordeal going so that the next Democratic president can be accused of losing Iraq – not him. But this theory, while not totally implausible, does not quite fit with the messianic ambitions of the president and apocalyptic fears of Vice-Presi-dent Dick Cheney.
Other cynics maintain that the abandonment of the Iraq goals of four years ago, and even the more restrained goals of 2006, represents the slow revelation of the real objective: securing Iraq’s oilfields to protect America’s economy. Again, it is impossible to disprove this.
Some defenders of the indefinite occupation argue proudly that energy resources are a good and fundamental reason to hang in. But it is a little too mundane for a man of Bush’s character. It doesn’t quite have the frisson, the bigness of Bush’s signature goals.
My sense is that the point of the war in Iraq, in the president’s mind, is an attempt to quash any and all Islamist tendencies with American military power. The enemy is the right one, but, alas, he doesn’t have enough troops to remake an entire country from scratch and the target of his attention – Islamist ideology – turns out to be particularly resilient in the face of raw military force.
These nuances are now, and always have been, lost on Bush. But even if they were not, he cannot switch gears. It is simply not in his DNA to absorb the lessons of the past few years and adjust – radically – to a new posture.
And so the real and present danger is that by digging in further Bush will not only keep providing Al-Qaeda with the oxygen that American occupation of a Muslim country provides, but will also find himself dragged, willingly or unwillingly, into a military confrontation with Iran. Already last week Fox News reported serious planning for a missile attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities next spring.
The vice-president is eager for another war to scramble what he sees as a weakened hand in Iraq. And the old policy of propping up Sunni powers – such as Saudi Arabia – against Shi’ite Iranian influence is slowly becoming the default American posture again.
The West, in other words, will not only be facing the extremist fringe of Al-Qaeda, but also taking on Shi’ite Islam in a sectarian regional war. If you wanted a policy that both multiplied and empowered your enemies, it would be hard to find a better one.
Maybe this won’t happen. Maybe events in Iraq will turn in a more hopeful direction. I certainly hope so – and in the fog of war it is very hard to see ahead confidently But I see no sure reasons for solid optimism – and much evidence that beneath a small reduction in violence in the face of 30,000 more of the best military in the world, the deeper tensions in Iraq remain as lethal as ever.
Last Thursday, America’s most important Sunni ally – Sheikh Abu Risha – was murdered in Anbar. An oil deal collapsed in Baghdad. And Ramadan began. Just recall that fatal exchange in the Senate last week: “General, does the [Iraq war] make America safer?”
“I don’t know, actually.” I’m afraid I do.

Andrew Sullivan is an author, academic and journalist. He holds a PhD from Harvard in political science, and is a former editor of The New Republic. His 1995 book, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality, became one of the best-selling books on gay rights. He has been a regular columnist for The Sunday Times since the 1990s, and also writes for Time and other publications.
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
05/2005
£13,500
08/2008
£109,950
2006
£10,750
Great car insurance deals online
£Excellent+ executive benefits
Torres and Partners
London
£49,229 - £62,035 pro rata
Charity Commission
London/Liverpool/Taunton
Alstom Power
Europe
Six Figure
Rolls Royce
Midlands/Europe
From £89,950
Great Investment, River Views
Special Offers now available
At the new sophisticated
Encore Las Vegas Resort!
Cruise the Islands of Hawaii - Pride of America
List your property with two leading travel websites
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths
News International associated websites: Globrix | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
The General did not get his 4 stars by bucking his superiors so why was anybody surprised by his testimony that things were improving? (just as his commander-in-chief wanted)
Ken Winghart, Centennial, CO, USA
If only things were really so simple.
Frank Upton, Solihull,
No fan of Cheney
No fan of Bush
But - are you all wiling to co-exist with a nuclear armed and apocalyptic regime in Iran, supplying materiel, logistics, euros & weapons to al-Q? (they do now, after all).....are you willing to stand by and watch the atomic devastation of the middle east?
mike fettler, dublin, oh usa
Did not the Reagan Administration,in the 80's, bring together Muslim Fighters to get the Russians out of Afghanistan. They were trained in terror tactics by the C.I.A. armed and equipped,by America,and funded by the Saudi's. They were invited to the White House by Reagan, and lauded as freedom fighters etc; These are the same people now labelled as Terrorists by another Republican Administration. Oh what a tangled web we weave.
Richard Moss, Sydney, Australia
In the past 6 months 2 very important people have stated the war was all about oil, oil and more oil.
1 - the australia federal defence minister,brendon nelson, who stated "evergy security" was an important reason for staying in iraq. Mr nelson was quickly hidden from the australia public for 2 months after his comments until his comments were forgotten
2 - alan greenspan, former head of the US central bank.
how many more people with the inside knowledge need to confirm what the majority of the general public already knew from day 1 - that although saddam wasnt a good man, he wasnt as bad as bush,cheney and rumsfeld have turned out to be.
luke, perth, australia
Assume that we are attacked orn the order of 9-11 by another band of radical Islamists from country X. What do we do?
Respond? Then how? No army. No industry. No money.
Gerard Coulombe, Fairfield, CT
Excellent. The world knew Iraq had used chemical weapons on its own people but didn't do anything because at the time Iraq was a "friend". Then, when it suited us, we "invaded" Iraq on pretext of democratization. Can someone tell me why we are so keen to democratise the Middle East, but forget about despots in africa and South America? Methinks OIL may have something to do with it.
Hamad lone, ex-pat brit, Middle East
Saddam began selling his (Iraq's) oil in euros in late 2000. In fact the US bought most of it. Not generally known, especially in the United States. The 9-11 attacks occurred less than a year later. Whether or not an inside job is no longer the issue (except to the relatives, naturally). It provided the justification for the US to attack and occupy Iraq via Afghanistan. One of the first things the US did on occupying Baghdad was to switch oil sales back to dollars. Museums and hospitals were being looted, but the US military turned a blind eye. Think; protect the petrodollar and the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. In other words, follow the money.
Iran is in the process of selling its oil in euros. The US had hoped that Iran would see the fate of Iraq and take the hint. But obviously they are slow learners, or a lot more hard-nosed than the US gave them credit for. Hence the MSM psyching up the public (mug punters) for the pending attack on Iran. Israelâs attack on Syriaâs nuclear facilities has really upped the ante. On behalf of the US and Israeli governments, George Bush and Richard Cheney cordially invite you to participate in WWIII. RSVP.
Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Japan
And where is the strategy to combat ideology? Where is the commitment to that particular struggle?
Where, actually, is any commitment? No draft. No call for American industry to rev up production of armament (thousands of armored vehicles on back order?!?). No rationing. Nothing except 3,500 plus saddened families who made a commitment.
Gene Touchet, Palm Springs, California, U.S.A.
Your article is misguided if I may say so. One of the key components of the Foreign Policy is to stop proliferation in the Middle East and this includes Nuclear Proliferation.
Take a look at Google Earth Satellite and look in the Iranian Mountains and start counting the Silo's and mountain facilities.
No one wants War with Iran but you have to take a unilateral position if diplomacy in relation to Iran not dismantling their nuclear portfolio does not work.
The foreign Policy is trying to create sustainable democracies as well as to prevent a Nuclear War in the Middle East.
It is up to the Iranian regime to come clean and allow the IAEA to visit their under the mountain facilities.
The Director, LONDON, England
peter, bush is not a fundamentalist at all. he is but as much an extrimist as his purportes enemies are. somebody needs to disarm this guy of his stockpile of wmd.
goldman, london, uk
Maybe the Vice POTUS and the POTUS should get tangible success in Iraq, before embarking on another of their deadly and ill-fated adventures.
Larry Tessler, Chicago, IL
This is the most honest and intelligent assessment of the current state of US policy in the Middle East that I have seen anywhere. I am just amazed that none of the American news outlets have bothered to try some objective, clear-eyed analysis. The only question that should be in Brown's mind now, is how quickly he can detach Britain from the lunacy that Bush considers to be foreign policy. Get us out of Iraq, let the Americans bleed until they finally break, and for God's sake start building bridges to the Arab world. We might start by putting Blair on trial for misleading the nation. As for the yes-men and the Bush fanatics, let them go to Iraq. We can live without them.
Nick, London, UK
"not in his DNA to learn the lessons of the past..... and adjust" That explains why Bush is a fundamentalist Christian and doesn't believe in evolution.
Bill Peter, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Andrew Sullivan lets slip the ugly truth of a minnow pretending to be a whale.
Sullivan's cleverly crafted piece is yet another example of the contradictions that rule the thinking of those of his ilk.
Petraeus was selling the party line until he "blurted" out the truth: he hadn't really given much thought as to the impact of the war in Iraq on America's security.
The implication, of course, is that the general was dutifully echoing the party line until this collossal, telling parataxism.
A more objective observer might suggest that the General's candor at this precise moment was made with the same honesty of his previous testimony.
But, of course, that is an extremely remote possibility for those on the left: they have been enslaved and corrupted by the compulsion to see subtrefuge and conspiracy everywhere other than in their own hearts.
John Carpenter, New York , New York