We’re in this thing, so what the heck do we do now?
I’ll freely admit, I’ve spent entirely too much time hashing over why and how we got into this mess we find ourselves in in Iraq. I’ve laid blame, I’ve pointed fingers, and I’ve gotten personal. And the entire time, with all my ranting and raving, posturing and postulating, I’ve offered no solutions, no ideas on how to get us out of this pickle. And that’s not like me. I’ve spent my professional life coming up with innovative solutions to complex problems, being the “idea guy” when a customer needs a fix for the dilemma he finds himself in. And while peace in the region certainly can’t be equated to increasing production, or reducing costs, I’d like to think I could offer something more meaningful than what I’ve thus far put forward.
The first obvious question: Do we stay, or do we go? And this is certainly a difficult one to answer. On the one hand, you have the concern that a departure of U.S. forces would lead to a collapse of the fragile Iraqi government, MORE sectarian violence, and MORE instability in the region. On the other hand, you have the argument that the U.S. presence, in and of itself, contributes to the escalating violence; that we’ve done all we really can do to set the people of Iraq on their way, and that our personnel have become little more than live target practice for terrorist elements within the country. On this issue, I have to lean towards a withdrawal of U.S. forces from the country. I do believe we’ve done all that we can from a military point of view. Now is the time for helping to build a future for the Iraqi people. Our efforts now should focus on them developing their own security and infrastructure.
The next question: When and how? Well, I don’t believe in a sudden, massive withdrawal of our troops. This process needs to be phased, and it needs to be orderly. As for a timetable… I know many have said that if we give a fixed date, it will just allow the terrorist elements to “wait us out”. Hogwash. Not if we do it right. But for argument’s sake, fine, let’s keep the timetable internal, not for public consumption. Our government will be aware of it, and Iraqi leadership will be aware of it, everyone else can wait and see. But whether or not you publicize it, before you execute a plan, you have to have a plan. My suggestion would be a reduction of 50% of the existing U.S. forces within a year, and the balance gradually over five years. During that period we have to insist on the Iraqis building up their own security forces, cause in five years guys, you’re on your own. Want your country back? Then act like it.
Another important question: How do we end the sectarian violence? Is there a political or diplomatic solution to this, rather than a military one? These people have been fighting amongst themselves for generations. It’s foolish to believe that they will put aside their differences, religious, ethnic, and culturally, overnight. Could a divided Iraq still be a united Iraq? Is it worth considering the option of three separate, but equal Iraqi states? Setting up a two-house legislature within the country similar to the U.S. model. One house has equal representation; the other has representation based upon population. I’m tossing this one out there, as I’m sure others have already done. Could this be a way to keep the peace, and prevent Iraq from tearing itself asunder?
And finally, the overall question of stability within the region: Whatever we do in Iraq, the broader theme of peace within the region remains. Wiser men than I have said, “the road to peace in the Middle East goes through Jerusalem, not Baghdad. Truer words have never been spoken. Until we find a solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, stability within this part of the world will elude us. Let’s face it, we in the West created this problem in the first place (no, not the overall Jewish-Arab rift, the real estate problem); we ought to help come up with a solution. The Israelis are making some encouraging gestures as we speak, perhaps this will be the start of something concrete and lasting.
Stability in this region is more than just a high ideal or noble cause. It may very well mean our very survival as a species. Everyone is afraid of a nuclear Middle East. News flash folks… We HAVE a nuclear Middle East. Whether declared or not, it seems highly unlikely that both Israel and Saudi Arabia are not part of the nuclear club. And we know that Pakistan and India are members of that club, although perhaps not officially “in” the Middle East, they both play significant roles in the region. Then there’s Russia, China, and the U.S., all with vital (and competing) interests in the region. That’s quite a radioactive cocktail we’ve got there. Straight up, if you please. We can’t afford to have this one shaken or stirred.
posted by Marlipern @ 1:36 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Marlipern,
I came across this post on NRO's The Corner and thought it had some value as a counter point to your post (comment by Michael Ledeen referencing a previous post by Victor Davis Hanson):
Toward Winning [Michael Ledeen]
"Thanks to Cliff, and to Dexter Filkins for getting someone to admit, once again, that Iran and Syria are all over Iraq.
Victor says we should first stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's skipping a step. It is impossible so long as the mullahs rule in Tehran and Assad commands in Damascus. It is a regional war. If we continue to misunderstand it, if we remain locked in this fundamental error of strategic vision, we will endlessly respond to our enemies' initiatives, playing defense in one place after another. Today in Iraq and Afghanistan, tomorrow in Lebanon, Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopea and Eritrea (that is the mullahs' game plan), then in Israel and Europe, and finally here at home. We do not need intelligence agencies to know this, all we need to do is listen to our enemies, who announce it at the top of their lungs.
There is no escape from this war, and we haven't even begun to wage it. Once we do, we will find that we've got many political and economic weapons, most of them inside our enemies' lands. I entirely agree with Victor that Iran and Syria are fragile, brittle, and anxious. They know their people hate them, and they know that revolution could erupt if we supported it.
Of course, as Victor says, our leaders may be so demoralized that we could just surrender in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the realists and the antisemites desire. But that would only delay the reckoning, and ensure that the war will be far bloodier. Sigh."
Squire,
Yes, this is a regional conflict, and yes Syria and Iran are heavily involved. And believe me, there is no love lost between the Syrians and myself. In a rather heated discussion on the blog back in late June/early July, I suggested that if we really wanted to go after the bad guys we should be bombing Damascus and Riyadh, not Baghdad. Whatever happens in the rest of the region, I think we’ve done all we can militarily in Iraq.
But I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in Hades of convincing the American people that we should broaden this war, rather than curtailing our involvement. We don’t have the stomach for it. Not right now, anyway. There would have been a much better chance of making the case for the broader war against radical Islam immediately after 9/11. We would have also been able to count on the goodwill and support of most of the rest of the world at that time. But that ship has sailed. We pissed away that goodwill in the way we handled the current war that we find ourselves in.
Over and above that… If we do get the other bad actors in the region militarily engaged, sooner or later, one of them is going to attack Israel, and not just with a car bomb. And then they’re going to do it again. And again. And sooner or later, the Israelis will decide, for the sake of self-preservation, that they have to respond, with overwhelming force. And then it’s just a countdown to see who decides first that it’s a good idea to turn somebody’s capital city into a sea of glass. And God help us all when that happens.
Over and above that… If we engage the Iranians, how do we prevent the Chinese and Russians from getting involved (on THE IRANIAN’S side)? I don’t think either country wants to see their vested interests in the region threatened. Hell, the Chinese don’t even have to involve themselves militarily, they just have to foreclose.
It’s a complex situation, in a complex area of the world. Security and stability within the region, as well as the broader ramifications throughout the world hang by a thread. Whatever we choose to do there, we damn well better proceed with caution.
Marlipern,
“But I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in Hades of convincing the American people that we should broaden this war, rather than curtailing our involvement. We don’t have the stomach for it.” Unfortunately, I believe you hit the nail on the head with that statement. While it’s unfortunate for many reasons, a few really stand out; it’s an indication that our national attention span is pathetically short (as well as short-sighted), it indicates that the general public does not understand the enemy we face nor the stakes involved in this war. And perhaps, most importantly, as a nation we now believe war can be waged without bloodshed; that we can surgically dismember our enemies without damaging their infrastructure, causing collateral damage or losing troops of our own.
The general public also lacks a historical context for warfare other than Viet Nam which is fed to them ceaselessly by the main stream media. Without that broader context, they do not comprehend what will happen to us if we do not eliminate this threat.
You comment that we have lost most of the “goodwill” we had after 9/11. That’s not much of a surprise. If the United States had decided to move against radical Islam as you suggest the same countries and politicians would have jumped ship anyway – just sooner. If you don’t think we have the stomach for an expanded war then they most certainly don’t have the spine.
As for Israel getting involved, I believe everyone in the region knows what the consequences will be if that happens. They would be foolish to involve the Israelis if they can get what they want without that happening. And you don’t need to be concerned about the Russians and the Chinese getting into bed with the Iranians; they’re already sharing a post-coital smoke. Chances that the Russians and Chinese would get involved in a militarily substantive way in the Middle East – slim to none. It's doesn't pay to directly confront the only remaining superpower. They'll just sit back and work all the angles without getting too involved.
To be sure, “It’s a complex situation, in a complex area of the world”. But walking away or even strolling as you suggest is a great deal more dangerous to the long term interests of the United States.
"And perhaps, most importantly, as a nation we now believe war can be waged without bloodshed; that we can surgically dismember our enemies without damaging their infrastructure, causing collateral damage or losing troops of our own.
The general public also lacks a historical context for warfare other than Viet Nam which is fed to them ceaselessly by the main stream media."
You make a good point here, but you left out an additional “historical context”… The first Persian Gulf War. The first “CNN war”, if you will. Perhaps that was what you were referring to in the first paragraph. We were fed a daily dose of images showing how effective, how precise, and how discriminating our weaponry was, and were left with the impression that this is the future on American warfare. We were spared the anguish of seeing, and having to deal with, a sizable number of U.S. casualties. Many of us (myself included) compared this with our memories of how bloody and indiscriminate the Viet Nam war became. So I think the real perspective we’re dealing with in this country is the comparison of these two modern U.S. conflicts.
Regarding my original post, and I think that this speaks to your suggestion that I want us to “stroll away”, which I don't… How do we fix a broken Iraq? Especially since we were heavily involved in breaking it. Don’t we owe the people that we “liberated” support in rebuilding their country, and helping to make this fractured nation whole again? Or do we simply move on to the next target in the region, and remove the next objectionable regime?
And when does it end? If through continued military action, we kill and capture all of the bad, radical Islamic people, and remove all the bad dictators who are providing them safe haven; will the good, conservative Islamic people then embrace us? Or is it just possible that through bombing, invading, and occupying more of this region, we’ll be doing nothing more than creating more bad, radical Islamic people who hate us? Just a thought.
I don’t know what the answer is when it comes to the threat posed by radical Islam. But I’m betting it involves more brains, less bombs.
Marlipern,
From the "Nothing Is Scared" Department:
Bush Orders Preemptive Redeployment to Iran, Syria
by Scott Ott
(2006-12-01) — Just days before the Iraq Study Group releases its top-secret report, President George Bush today ordered the Pentagon to preemptively redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq to “neutral neighboring countries including Iran and Syria.”
“I’ve said that I won’t order our troops to make a graceful exit from Iraq,” said Mr. Bush, “But I never ruled out making a graceful entrance into Iran and Syria where I expect our partners in peace to welcome us with open and raised arms.”
The order surprised many, coming as it does on the heels of news that the Pentagon has discovered “smoking gun” evidence that terrorists in Iraq use weapons shipped from Iranian factories to kill U.S. troops and others.
But Mr. Bush said the Iraq Study Group, Kofi Annan and other Democrats have convinced him that engagement with Iran and Syria is crucial to finding a “holistic solution” to the Iraq situation.
“At the very least,” said Mr. Bush, “Redeploying our troops to Iran should help Iranian weapons manufacturers save some money on shipping.”
via Scrappleface.
Post a Comment
<< Home