BUSH AND CUSTER: Iraq and the Little Bighorn

On June 25, 1876, General George Armstrong Custer led his famed Seventh Calvary into battle against an encampment of Lakota, Cheyenne and Arapaho at the Greasy Grass near the Little Bighorn River.

At the end of the day, Custer, who had boasted that his men could "whip every Indian on the continent", was dead along with every soldier in his detachment, and the Seventh Calvary was scattered with the dust.

More than any other single factor, it was arrogance that led Custer to his demise. Arrogance allowed him to ignore the reports of his scouts that attacking the encampment would be suicide. Arrogance prevented him from waiting for reinforcements. Arrogance led him to believe his enemies would cower, scatter and run at the sight of his soldiers. Arrogance forbade withdrawal and took its last stand on unfamiliar terrain.

Custer foolishly divided his troops and the rest, as they say, is history.

On March 20, 2003, George W. Bush launched an ambitious invasion of a Middle East nation that posed no threat and bore no responsibility for the terrorist attack on America. Buoyed by his circle of neocon advisers, he believed in his gut that he could conquer and occupy Iraq, erect a puppet government under the banner of democracy, and use it as a staging ground for a "democratic" crusade to seize control of the region’s resources.

It was arrogance that sealed Custer’s fate and it is arrogance that has placed our nation knee-deep in the quicksand of Iraq.

There are of course differences between George Custer and George Bush: Custer risked his own life for his presidential ambition; Bush only risked his legacy as a profoundly flawed and failed president.

We have reached the point in political discourse where few continue to argue that the war was a good or noble idea. (Noble ideas do not come veiled in deception and lies.) We are as close to consensus in a divided nation as we are likely to get: The invasion of Iraq was an ill-conceived, immoral and disastrous decision.

The scouts have all delivered the same ominous report: We are hopelessly outnumbered on unfamiliar terrain. Staying the course is certain disaster. We therefore have a choice: Call for reinforcements or get out – the sooner the better.

For the vast majority of Americans, the idea of escalating the war (as suggested by Senator John McCain) by committing more troops and ever-more resources to this fiasco is unthinkable. Like the ageless politicians who propose programs without revenue sources or tax reduction without program cuts, the advocates of escalation do not specify where the troops will come from. Increased pay and benefits can only go so far in a time of war. The words "military conscription" or "draft" have thankfully become anathema to the American psyche, yet it is the only means of assuring the vast numbers that would be required to sustain an orderly occupation.

Even then, because such an occupation would ignite the region and unite Arab and Islamic nations (including our present allies) against us, it would be doomed to horrific failure.

Let it remain unthinkable and let McCain’s presidential ambitions go wanting.

If we eliminate the "victory" scenario, the proponents of war are left with a policy of conditional withdrawal.

It is absurd to suggest that timelines and benchmarks are the burning issues regarding this war. There has never been a military operation that did not establish benchmarks on a timeline to measure success. Not to do so would be a dereliction of duty.

The real questions, even for advocates of war, are: What are the conditions for success and withdrawal, how long will it take, and what will it cost?

Providing answers to these questions would enable the American people to decide if the mission is worth the price.

If the cost of persisting in the war effort includes another $300-500 billion and 3,000-10,000 more of our soldiers’ lives, Americans will demand an end.

If the war is projected to three, five or ten more years, opposition will grow exponentially.

If the conditions for withdrawal go beyond a government able to stand on its own accord, to some neocon vision of a loyal democratic ally with permanent American bases, then Americans will demand an end.

The proponents of war, including the White House, will not answer these questions because they know that the truth would trigger an explosion of outrage.

The solemn truth is the proponents of conditional withdrawal are distinguishable from the "victory at any cost" advocates only by the extent to which they are willing to hide the truth.

Failing to find comfort in the pro-war positions, we arrive at where most Americans currently reside: Gradual but unconditional withdrawal.

This position assumes that a truly democratic government, with the popular support of its people, does not require the indefinite presence of an occupying army to stand up.

Unconditional withdrawal would eliminate a major if not the major source of violence in Iraq: Resistance to the occupation.

Gradual withdrawal would allow the Iraqi government to find solutions to the sectarian violence that is already ripping the nation apart. If the government is unwilling to seek solutions, there is literally nothing we can do but stand aside and allow them to settle their scores on the bloody fields of civil war.

If, however, they are willing to engage in meaningful negotiations, then there is much we or an international buffer can do to assist them: Primarily, by bringing the warring parties together and pressing them with timelines and benchmarks (just as we did with the Iraqi constitution) to reach a comprehensive agreement.

The gradual-unconditional withdrawal approach is appealing to those of us who like to hedge our position but it is not entirely satisfactory. The path of the mediator is prone to error and the potential for unintended consequences is substantial.

The final and ideologically pure antiwar position is unconditional, immediate withdrawal.

The potent rationale behind this position is that we are doing more harm than good, that our continued presence can only create more violence, more destruction, more chaos and more instability – not less.

No reasonable observer can doubt that our continued occupation of Iraq is causing great harm. The vast majority of those resisting the occupation are no different from the many Americans who would choose to fight a foreign occupation of our nation. If the occupation ended today, that part of the fighting would end. That number of real human beings would stop dying and killing.

The foreign fighters, including those who have taken the banner of Al Qaeda, would lose their reason for being in Iraq. The Iraqis who have tolerated their engagement against a common enemy would no longer. Disparate tribes and religious communities would turn on them in a Baghdad minute.

There would remain some level of sectarian violence – violence we have ignited by creating a power struggle where oil reserves are not accessible in equal parts of the country.

In an ideal world, we should be able to do something to mitigate the violence, close the divide, and end what is increasingly considered a civil war.

The difficulty is: The occupation army operates under the cold and deceptive hand of the same neocon masters that got us into this mess. Neither Americans nor Iraqis can have any faith in an administration that has lost all credibility as a negotiator.

Tragically, despite my own attraction to negotiated settlement, I no longer believe that anyone in this White House can or will do anything positive in Iraq. We can only do harm.

Tragically, we have so bungled the entire affair that the least bad option is to get out now and wait for the next administration to make amends.

On November 7, the American people delivered a message to General Custer: Disaster ahead. Cease and desist. Now, even as we await advise from a circle of elders (the Iraq Study Group), we must make sure he not only received it but grasped the full weight of its meaning.

Jazz.

JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). THE CHRONICLES HAVE APPEARED ON DISSIDENT VOICE, THE ALBION MONITOR, PEACE-EARTH-JUSTICE, THE NATIONAL FREE PRESS, LEFTWARD AND COUNTERPUNCH.