The New York Times > Washington > News Analysis: Will More Power for Intelligence Chief Mean Better Results?

The New York Times > Washington > News Analysis: Will More Power for Intelligence Chief Mean Better Results?

I am an outcome oriented person. Results do matter. Everyone is focused on whether we can win the war in Iraq. For the sake of our troops fighting there, I hope we do win. But that neglects the question of whether we ought be fighting the war to begin with. Success in the war does not mean that the war is right.

The fact that the Nazis lost in 1945 does not make their war wrong. It would not have been right if they had stayed in France and Russia, if they had actually built their thousand year reich. And their defeat is not proof of their wickedness. The actions themselves prove it.

Similarly, the Romans weren't right because their attempt to build an empire succeeded. Yes, we remember the winners, and we overlook the bad things that winners do, but the bad things that winners do are still bad. Rape is still rape, torture is still torture, murder is still murder, and cruelty is still cruelty. Success doesn't affect moral judgments at all.

But, you say, ends do justify the means: if we are successful in bringing democracy to the Middle East, that outcome is so significant that all the bad things we had to do will have been worth it. That outcome is so good that we ought to overlook all the bad things we had to do to achieve it. Realizing the utopian vision of a new world order built on a democratic Middle East will make us forget what happened during the war, and we should forget about it.

Most people believe that, but I don't. I believe that we are going to pay for what we did in Iraq. I believe Lincoln when he said that the United States would pay for every lash of the overseer's whip, that it had already paid with every drop of blood shed in the Civil War. I believe the United States is going to pay, no matter how good the outcome in Iraq. It will pay in lost allies, lost respect, lost leadership. It will pay when China overtakes us as leader of the world, and when we struggle in a long war with Islamic militants that we can't win. It will pay when our enemies seek revenge.

So policy makers have to focus on how to resolve this war as successfully as they can. Commentators have to focus on what the policy makers are doing. But the rest of us should focus on the moral nature of our country's actions. The only way out of our current situation, the only way to redeem it at all is to admit to the world that we made a mistake, and to ask for its forgiveness. Richard Clarke did that when he testified before the 9/11 commission several months ago. I don't think John Kerry would have spoken so forthrightly as Clarke if he had been elected, but he did aim to repair our standing somehow. Bush will not do any of these things. He thinks that if we win the war, everything will be okay. The people who voted for him believe that, too. They're wrong.

The only way to win the war we are in is to fight the enemy who attacked us. To think that our enemies will give up because we defeat an enemy who didn't attack us is foolish. The only way to win the war we are in is to set up shop in the country where we had to fight: Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure that's not possible any more: a lot of time has passed since 2002, and I don't believe we'd be welcome there anymore. It's hard to tell, though. Other people's reactions are hard to predict.

What does setting up shop mean? Well, some of you have heard me say it so often that you won't need to hear it again: construct air bases, highways and super highways, roads, listening bases, army bases, naval air stations, training centers, supply depots, communications facilities, intelligence centers, humanitarian relief operations, radio and television stations, trade relations, schools, consulates, joint commands with our allies, water projects, fuel depots, armaments depots, and... you have the idea now. After we set all these things up, we should use them. Make Afghanistan the fifty-first state. Do everything but collect taxes. Make Afghanistan an extension of our own country. Use it as our forward base for operations throughout South Asia and the Middle East.

I honestly don't know if we could do that anymore. We could have done it in 2002. It may be too late, now. But we ought to try. The effort would have some interesting outcomes. The only way we could launch the effort now, given the amount of fear and distrust we've generated with the war in Iraq, is to do what I suggested above: admit our mistake and ask forgiveness. If we did that, I believe we would have a lot of help in whatever we undertook after that. That confession would restore trust with the people's whose help we need. And we do need help to defeat Al Qaeda.

Here is a postscript: Just last night I heard on the radio again the standard thinking. If we leave Iraq now, the country will dissolve into civil war. That was a credible warning a year and a half ago, but how is it a warning now? The country has already dissolved into civil war. It's true that Iraq has no large armies on the march, but most of the civil wars we've seen since World War II have been fought by small bands of soldiers. A key difference between the civil war in Iraq and the other civil wars we've seen is that we're in the middle of it. Our reasoning about what we should do shouldn't be based on what will happen if we get out. The war we fear has already started.

So what should we do? Work with local leaders - local leaders who aren't currently shooting at us. Find out what they want. Do what we can to help them get what they want. Work from those beginnings to communicate with the people who are shooting at us. Some of our enemies won't want to talk with us. Some will. Listen to anyone who wants to talk with us. Find out what they want, think about what serves our interests, and make a plan that helps Iraqis and helps us at the same time. Most Iraqis want us to leave now. Who is to say they are wrong? Who is to say that the country would be so poorly off if it broke into three separate states after we left? We would see some very interesting developments were we to let the Iraqis determine their own future. We think that the January 30 election is the key to self-determination. They believe our departure is the key to self-determination. Perhaps doing both would be a good idea.