The Lessons of King Pyrrhus for Iraq

America’s predicament in Iraq reminds me of the story of King Pyrrhus, who upon receiving notice of his victory over the Romans replied, "one more victory such as this and I will be undone."

When it comes to the Iraq War, the United States may yet snatch a pyrrhic victory from the jaws of defeat. If Iraq somehow manages to muddle through to a halfway tolerable outcome it will be thanks to men like Maj. Gen (Ret.) John Batiste and Lt. Pete Hegseth, two veterans of the Iraq campaign with very different views regarding the wisdom of the war, but who have nevertheless forged common ground regarding the course they believe America needs to take in order to salvage our mission. As a matter of making the best of a bad situation, Batiste and Hegseth manage to achieve the following: 1) they identify key American interests that hinge on the outcome of the Iraq War, 2) they provide a plausible way forward, and 3) their suggestions were formed with the intention of enlisting bi-partisan cooperation and forging a national consensus.

Batiste and Hegseth identify five tenets they believe most Americans should accept:

1) America must win the fight against Islamic extremists
2) Iraq is central to this fight
3) The counter-insurgency strategy of General Petraeus is the correct one for Iraq
4) Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.
5) Our military capacities must match our national strategy.

Batiste and Hegseth characterize our struggle against the forces of Islamic extremism as the Long War. And they rightly lament the fact that the entire burden for this campaign falls disproportionately on the less than one percent of the population that makes up the U.S. military. They conclude that, "We need a regional and global strategy to defeat worldwide Islamic extremism to ensure a safer world today and for future generations."

There is much to recommend in the assessment of Batiste and Hegseth, and much that is overlooked. They claim that Iraq is central to fight against Islamic extremism, but this ignores the fact that geography is largely irrelevant when your are dealing with a global ideology. While the United States has been slogging it out in Iraq, with little to show for it, al-Qaeda has turned the tribal areas in Pakistan into the headquarters of its jihadist movement. Put simply, the central assumption that has guided the Bush administration’s counter terrorism strategy – that a pro-Western government in Iraq would take the wind out of al-Qaeda’s sails – is fundamentally flawed.

Concomitantly, it is a perverse irony that the invasion of Iraq has worked to the advantage of Iran, greatly complicating America’s ability to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In effect, America’s troops in Iraq are hostages; they are convenient targets for Iranian terror cells should the U.S. launch pre-emptive strikes against Iran.

The large-scale presence of American troops in Iraq also serves bin Laden’s strategy, which seeks to bleed America economically and militarily. Will America’s security interests be served by having a long-term military presence in Iraq in the form of permanent bases? The Bush administration has never given the public a chance to weigh in on this matter, yet this decision may have profound implications for our national security.

Should the United States continue to bet its future on the outcome in Iraq? This is a question that may be decided by unforeseen variables – an outbreak of cholera in Baghdad, a coup that brings down Iraq’s feeble government, or an event half-way around the world that suddenly challenges America’s already overstrained military. To put it bluntly, Iraq is at best a high-cost/low return proposition at this stage.

What would I offer as an alternative to Batiste and Hegseth’s five tenets? I’d suggest:

1)America’s national security depends on achieving energy security – i.e. developing the alternative fuels and energy efficiencies that would make the United States the world leader of the post-hydrocarbon era.

2) A concerted effort to bring down the price of oil through a carbon tax would reverse the huge transfer of wealth taking place, which is impoverishing American consumers and enriching many of America’s adversaries.

3)Reclaim the moral high ground by renouncing torture and extra-legal detentions.

4) Call for universal national service. Those who object to military service should be allowed to serve their country in other duties.

5) Recognize that the struggle against Islamic extremism is primarily ideological and that defeating it will require American ingenuity, consensus building, and bi-partisanship (all traits sorely lacking in the Bush administration).

Check out the views of Batiste and Hegseth for yourself in their Washington Post Op-Ed "How to Win The War."

Sphere: Related Content