Robert Kagan, a long-time senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes a monthly column for the Washington Post. On the chance that Kagan's views were not getting enough exposure, the White House helpfully e-mailed the column to me this morning as part of their "Iraq Update: IN CASE YOU MISSED IT" series (ALL CAPS in the original).
It puzzles me that the Post and the White House would want to shine so much attention on Kagan given his long record of faulty predictions with respect to Iraq. After all, one wouldn't expect CNBC, BusinessWeek or Money magazine to be touting financial analysts and stock pickers who were strong advocates of ENRON, WorldCom and Tyco.
And it is not like this is a passing fancy; Kagan has been bullish on war with Iraq for years. Kagan signed the infamous open letter to President Clinton in January 1998 calling for military action against Iraq "in the near term" given that "diplomacy is clearly failing." Less than six months later, he repeated his call for military action in an open letter to then-congressional leaders Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott.
One year after the start of the Iraq war, Kagan and frequent co-author William Kristol noted the "obvious success" of the signing of Iraq's interim constitution and "other measures of progress" including "electricity and oil production" and signs of damage to the Baathist-led insurgency. Despite continued violence, Kagan and Kristol cautiously predicted, "We may have turned a corner in terms of security."
Kagan and Kristol were particularly encouraged by the "hopeful signs that Iraqis of differing religious, ethnic, and political persuasions can work together." Then they took a shot at the Iraq war skeptics, "both here and in Europe" who predicated "that a liberated Iraq would fracture into feuding clans and unleash a bloodbath."
After compiling a list of Kagan's greatest hits, salon.com's Glenn Greenwald asks "Why would any rational person listen to Robert Kagan?" Of course, Kagan is free to write or opine or do whatever he likes -- and the rest of us are free to ignore him. But it isn't enough to ignore the people who got us into the war, and who now expect us to take them seriously on what to do next. As Greenwald notes, scorn is much more appropriate.
However, what if Kagan is right? What if he has finally gotten something right, after years of inaccurate predictions and fallacious reasoning? For the sake of argument, I'll take him up on the premise of his latest article, "The 'Surge' Is Succeeding." The column begins: "A front-page story in The Post last week suggested that the Bush administration has no backup plan in case the surge in Iraq doesn't work. I wonder if The Post and other newspapers have a backup plan in case it does."
I wonder if the American public much cares. The public realizes what Kagan does not: the costs of the Iraq war have already far exceeded any benefits that we as a nation might ultimately derive from it, even if we did not spend another dime on the venture, and even if no more soldiers are killed or wounded.
If, in fact, a miracle has happened, if a mere 8,000 or so of the expected 25,000 additional troops have succeeded where 140,000 U.S. troops have failed for the past four years, if this small number of U.S. military personnel have driven the insurgency underground, stiffened the resolve of the Iraqi government, cowed Iraq's neighbors into cooperating, and paved the way for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, we can all be thankful for that.
But wait. Robert Kagan does not favor an eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops. Indeed, Kagan celebrates the announcement that U.S. troop levels in Iraq will remain at their current levels "through at least the beginning of 2008" (again putting the lie to the notion of a surge, which implies a short-term increase).
Even 2008 is too soon to speak of withdrawal as far as Kagan is concerned. Any talk of drawing down forces (ever it is implied) can only give comfort to Moqtada al Sadr and al-Qaeda.
So if, by Kagan's reasoning, the surge is succeeding, it merely paves the way for an indefinite troop presence at more or less current levels, at a cost of approximately $150 billion, perhaps 1,000 or so American troops killed, and 10 to 15 times that number wounded, each year.
That is what we get if the surge is succeeding. We shouldn't be surprised that the public demands success of a different sort, the kind that will stop the flow of lives and money into the Iraqi quagmire that Kagan has long advocated.