Resolve
Yes, I admit I am harsh in my criticism of the Bush Administration. I offer the following in the spirit of making productive and practical suggestions.
The question arises each day as to the mixed signals we are sending to the enemy about our resolve to stay in Iraq until the job is done. Thus we say there will be no timetables for the evacuation of troops from Iraq.
Maybe, that is not the right way to put it though. Many military and political experts have estimated that the occupation of Iraq will take ten to twenty years if we intend to win the war. Why not just say that?
One, it shows the enemy there will be no easy and quick victory. Two, it gets all those pesky war critics who want a timetable off your back.
Just an idea.
posted by Lynn @ 11:58 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
First of all I'm not sure what "win the war" means. Does it mean the Sunnis are full and willing participants in the government? Does it mean the number of domestic attacks is down to 1 per month? Does it mean al Qaeda publicly renounces violence and joins with Condi Rice in a rousing chorus of "Give Peace a Chance?"
There was once a now defunct rule of American military intervention known as the Powell Doctrine (I can't remember where it got its name) that stated America would not engage in a military conflict without first having a clearly defined set of objectives, and secondly having clearly defined exit strategy. Currently, we have neither. So that's step one.
If we stay in Iraq more than 10 years, we will have turned this thing into a multi-generational anti-American hate-fest in the Arab Muslim world. This occupation cannot go beyond the Bush administration's term in power or it will indeed become an American occupation and we will not be able to spin it to the Arab world as an aberration on one particular political administration.
There is no legitimacy in any government that exists only with the military backing of a foreign power. A U.N. or a truly multi-national peace-keeping force is quite different than a 98% (or whatever it is) American military occupation.
So I say we say that beginning on 1 Jan 2006 America will begin reduce its forces within the Iraqi interior and deploy them elsewhere in the region as a rapid response force. We will assist the Iraqi army in policing their international boarders in an effort crack down on whatever foreign infiltration is aiding to the instability. But the civil war between Islamic sects and tribal clans is a strictly Iraqi affair. We will assist with advisors and technical support, not leading the charge, nor even as a strong minority component.
This will undermine the insurgent's argument that America is a permanent occupying force (which is true if we're there for a quarter century), and it will give average Iraqis a sense of urgency and initiative to take charge of there destiny beyond merely showing up at the polls.
Phew... I'll shut up now.
Reported in Bloomberg.com:
"Iraqi leaders, meeting at a reconciliation conference in Cairo, urged an end to violence in the country and demanded a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq.
In a final statement, read by Arab League chief Amre Moussa, host of the three-day summit, they called for "the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces." No date was specified."
I read this as supporting my argument that the longer we remain the defacto military occupation force in Iraq, and the longer we refuse to define our exit strategy, the more we lose credibility and the less likely we are to have a guiding influence in the region.
epm,
Good points.
I agree with you about the confusion over what winning the war means. The fact that the question is never answered in its particulars indicates the rudderless and directionless nature of the conflict.
I am sure the hope is for a democratic regime friendly to U. S. interests in the region--cheap oil being one of the major interests and a friendly ally against unfriendly regimes in the region being another.
The extreme logic of staying for 10 to 20 years shows the absurdity of the current situation. The U. S. won't and can't do that, but that is what it might take to secure our purest interests in the region.
The proponderance of opinion by Iraqis and Arab nations is that we should get out now. al Qaeda loves us in Iraq because it gives them a clear and distinct target to shoot at, aids recruiting, identifies the U. S. as an imperialist power, and saps our military and economic strength. They cannot lose as long as we are there.
I think our guiding influence in the region is as the world's largest consumer of oil, a large supplier of sophisticated military systems, and our ability create military havoc without actually winning a war in the region.
I suspect even the neo-cons will want to salvage some part of their agend by finding a graceful way to get out. What the Iraq experience means to their credibility is hard to say. I don't underestimate their willingness to try more of the same in the future. The engagement might take the form of economic confrontation and military saber rattling in other parts of the world. The potential economic confrontations could be as disastrous as the Iraq expedition.
I don't see much help coming from any of the major powers in the world. Europe has its own internal problems to resolve with Islamic extremism and unrest.
We broke broke it; we own it.
I think our guiding influence in the region is as the world's largest consumer of oil, a large supplier of sophisticated military systems, and our ability create military havoc without actually winning a war in the region.
Good points. Ironically, I wonder if we become more influential if we begin to wean ourselves from the black juice.
I don't underestimate their willingness to try more of the same in the future.
I think it's fair to say that a majority of the worlds citizens do not take us at our word. We have failed in both moral authority and factual honesty. I've often heard that the vast majority of our detractors are opposed to our current leadership and not Americans or American culture in particular. My concern is that if we continue on our current tack of might makes right, damn the diplomacy, who cares what the world thinks, we run the risk of poisoning the well for generations to come.
I don't see much help coming from any of the major powers in the world. Europe has its own internal problems to resolve with Islamic extremism and unrest.
Sadly this is true. I had more faith in the E.U. than was warranted. The UK really has done a pretty good job of integration... France and Germany have had problems with zenophobia that make the U.S. look like a veritable multi-cultural utopia. Still there are muslims in the U.K. -- particularly in the under 30 generation -- who have been corrupted by hate-mongering clerics.
All I know is that lies and secrets are poison to a democracy. I don't have all the answers, but without a full and honest debate we'll never find them.
Hooray for that debate idea.
Post a Comment
<< Home