No U.S. ‘boots on ground’ in Iraq

The battlefields of America’s lost decade may be in Iraq or Afghanistan, but the ravages of war are all around us in Hawaii.

Veterans of either engagement, to name only the two latest misappropriations of military force, are here as well as in every other state, struggling with homelessness, broken relationships and post-traumatic stress. There are the grievous physical injuries and suffering of the survivors, and the everlasting pain of those who lost a loved one in armed conflict.

Those are the most horrendous costs of war, but the financial strain will continue to weaken the nation’s economic fabric for decades to come. The U.S. war in Iraq cost upwards of $1.7 trillion, with nearly a half-trillion more in benefits owed to veterans, according to a conservative estimate. That can’t be ignored, either.

So the real question confronting us, as insurgency swallows great swaths of Iraqi territory and more Iraqi lives, is not "Should we go back in?" but rather, "How can we even consider making the same mistake again?"

There is no doubt that it’s in the interests of the U.S., its allies and regional powers to stem the advance of the insurgent force known most commonly as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). This group is more brutal and radical than even al-Qaida, and ceding a large territory for the sheltering and fomenting of terror poses a threat.

Further, civil war in Iraq invites more instability and violence that can spiral out of control in a region with a burgeoning nuclear arsenal.

But direct American military intervention hasn’t contained the religious and social divisions that are centuries old and likely would complicate efforts of the region to contain them now. The U.S. can provide aid and, most critically, diplomatic assistance, but it’s the Iraqis and other regional powers that should be in charge.

The bottom line for most U.S. power brokers, particularly President Barack Obama, is to rule out American boots on the ground, which doesn’t appear anywhere in the president’s agenda outlined on Thursday. But he said he understands "mission creep," a reference to fears that the 300 special-operations military advisers dispatched to Iraq could represent only the vanguard of a renewed infantry presence.

That was welcome assurance, but approving the added insurance proposed by Hawaii Rep. Colleen Hanabusa would be wise, as well. Hanabusa has crafted an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act that would bar the use of its authorized funds for "the introduction of United States forces into hostilities in Iraq," by any means of entry.

This means that even an airstrike would require the president to seek the approval of Congress. That is how it should be.

It’s especially noteworthy that Gen. David Petraeus, the former top commander in Iraq, has warned against U.S. military intervention in support of Baghdad. The plainly failed sectarian government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has asked for U.S. airstrikes against the Sunni Muslim fighters comprising the ISIS force.

Maliki has abandoned his original mandate, enshrined in Iraq’s 2005 constitution, to run a conciliatory government and has lapsed into dictatorship promoting the interests of his own Shiite Muslim sect. Although it’s hard to see how the discredited Maliki can deliver it, Petraeus is correct when he said Iraq needs a more inclusive government, not American bombs.

However long the odds, Obama has been rightly demanding that Maliki reverse his policies promoting a political monopoly and enable power-sharing in exchange for U.S. military aid.

It’s ironic that the very thing that makes ISIS so horrifying — its brutality and extremism — may provide some hope for diplomatic progress. Iran is repelled by the idea of a hopelessly impotent Baghdad, and other powers that are usually adversaries, such as neighboring Turkey, the Kurdish province and Saudi Arabia, could be drawn into a coalition of sorts against ISIS.

The cooperation would be tenuous but, though the U.S. can serve a supportive brokering role at the negotiating table, the reins belong in Middle Eastern hands. That ultimately offers the best prospects for regional stability. America has already gone down the path of "shock and awe" in Iraq, and it leads only to destruction.