 |
 |
||
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Iraq: Is it a War or a Battle? The political theatre being played out in Congress and the White House cannot disguise the fact that our adventure in Iraq has been a succession of blunders and the only question is how and when we shall make our exit? In his book, "The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace", Ali A. Allawi, who spent two and a half years as a minister in the transitional governments that followed the invasion, writes, "At the end of the Governing Council’s life, I could see the tell-tale signs of disintegration—both in the incoherence of the American ‘project’ in Iraq, and in the utter mediocrity, incompetence and venality of the new political order."
Had we merely removed Saddam and left, we would have spared ourselves a great deal of embarrassment. The man and his Baathist party literally slaughtered tens of thousands of Iraqis. His "neighbors" wanted him gone, but most especially Iran. I began 2007 saying it was time to leave Iraq. Sending more troops to the war zone strikes me as a bad idea. Our military, which has performed valiantly, needs time to rest and prepare for the next challenge. In the broad context of our presence in the Middle East, we have fought a battle in Iraq, not a war. The perturbations of the Middle East are going to continue for a very long time. We need to bring our forces home, rebuild, retrain and re-equipment them. And, yes, we need to expand our Army to meet the challenges that lay ahead because the Islamists will interpret the withdrawal as weakness. Let us remember we are still the world’s lone superpower. Declaring, as Sen. Harry Reid did, that the war is "lost" only demonstrates the narrowness of his vision and that of the Democrats he leads. Just as Americans engaged in a long Cold War with the Soviet Union, interspersed with some "hot" conflicts, the war against the Jihadists will last a very long time; at least a generation. A report in the April 14 edition of Time Magazine spells out conditions affecting our soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen that are impermissible. Colin Powell, a former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says, "The active army is about broken." Last fall, Gen. John Abizaid told a Harvard audience, "This is not an Army that was built to sustain a long war." The decision to invade Saddam Hussein’s Iraq has been a succession of astonishing and serious blunders. In the words of former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want." We went to war with an army trained and equipped for a short duration of intense conflict. In three weeks we were in downtown Baghdad. What followed next was mass looting. "Bad things happen," said Rumsfeld. They have continued to happen ever since. After Saddam was gone, the Iraqis held elections, hastily wrote a constitution, and then put an interim government in place under U.S. guidance despite our ignorance of the schisms that existed. Much, if not all of this was cosmetic and subject to arbitrary deadlines. The blunders by everyone involved are too numerous to list. For now, however, the longer we remain, the more we feed the resentment of the various Iraqi groups maneuvering for control. It’s a no-win situation. If you’re looking for gratitude, forget it. A double-edged sword, 9/11 forced the Muslims of the Middle East to address the issue of terrorism and, at this point, with bombs going off again in Morocco, Algeria, and Iraq, the governments of these and other Muslim nations are committed as always to ending the threat of Islamism. They have been dealing with Islamists for decades. Egypt has been a hotbed of Islamism in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood since the 1950s, jailing them and executing them, though not fast enough to keep Anwar Sadat from being assassinated. Fifty-nine years after Israel’s independence, the Palestinians still want to kill all of them and all of us. "Strategically", the U.S. intervention in Iraq appeared to be a good idea to the neocons. Iraq is bordered by most of the other nations in the region and would have been an ideal platform from which to project power. Now, our dearly acquired new wisdom suggests we do so from somewhere "over the horizon." Call it a learning curve.
Have we had any success in exporting democracy to Middle Eastern nations over the course of the last century? Actually no. Only Turkey is the exception and that was due to the leadership of Kemal Ataturk after WWI. Recently, more than 300,000 Turks rallied to support secular government and that is very good news. Pakistanis also rallied to avoid government by mullahs. Call it progress. Even Muslims know that mullahs and ayatollahs have no idea how to run a modern nation. The last U.S. elections confirmed that a slim majority of Americans have decided it is time to reach for the bug-out bag and boogie on home. Just ask the Israelis how well occupation worked in Lebanon or the Gaza strip? Or perhaps the former Soviets who tried to occupy Afghanistan? Arabs may not have much to brag about, but they are a proud people, convinced of their moral superiority to the West. They have long memories of Western nations imposing their will on the Middle East and they resent it. No one wants their nation occupied by a foreign army. So, let’s leave. We will likely return at some point to fight new battles somewhere in the Middle East or the Horn of Africa, but between now and then we can rebuild our military and buy lots of new ordnance. Every week the Center asks for your donation for one reason only, because we must. It is through the support of visitors to this website that we are able to maintain it and our communications program that includes significant outreach via talk radio. If you can spare even a few dollars, please pause and take a moment to help the Center. If you prefer to send a check, please make it payable to The Caruba Organization, 28 W. Third St., Suite 1321, South Orange, NJ. Thank you! Debating Risk in Washington, DC I was halfway through a private briefing by a special assistant to the President when it occurred to me that about the best thing that can be said for his national security policies is that the United States has not been hit with another 9/11 in the form of a nuclear, biological or chemical attack. This has got to be regarded as an accomplishment, given that The New York Times cannot wait to rush into print that details of whatever programs have been put in place to protect the nation. The speaker felt that one of the problems the White House has incurred is the implacable hostility of the mainstream media dating from Bush’s slim victories in both elections and there is surely something to be said for that view. I think, however, it goes well beyond White House problems with the media. We are now into the fifth year of active combat with all its billions in cost. People are rightly wondering whether the war was conducted well; often concluding it was not, save for the lightning fast invasion. At this point it is legitimate, indeed, essential to ask whether continuing has any real purpose. The notion that this is a "war on terror" no longer seems to make sense. Terror is a tactic used to intimidate a vastly superior military force and a civilian population. Then, too, it seems obvious that al Qaeda and similar groups are not some vast, sophisticated organization, but one that is being systematically degraded while losing support among the vast body of Middle Eastern Arabs who are more often its victims than others. The speaker chose to compare President Bush to former President Truman who concluded WW II with two atomic bombs on Japan, followed that with a military response to the North Korean invasion of the south, set in motion the North American Treaty Organization, ushered in the United Nations, helped ward off a communist takeover of Greece, and who, in his time, faced a world of opposition from isolationist Americans who just wanted to ignore the rest of the world and its endless conflicts and dangers. In retrospect, Truman, aided by the Marshall Plan, effectively set in motion the Cold War. It’s a good idea to remember that it took more than forty years to deter the evil ambitions of the former Soviet Union. History is likely, however, to take a less admirable view of Bush’s handling of either Afghanistan or Iraq. It has been a series of blunders, mostly in the area of post-invasion civil affairs decisions. The speaker noted that we have undertaken a massive realignment of our military forces around the world to respond to the new threat of global Islamism. The reorganization of our government with the creation of the Homeland Security Department and the removal of obstacles to sharing information between internal and external counterterrorism agencies have been another step in the right direction, given the threat. "The debate in Washington," said the speaker, "is about risk." That, I think, is the essence of everything one needs to contemplate. The central question is how great a threat it is and what we are willing to spend and do about it? Right now, the Democrats want to run away. The President cannot stomach leaving. The Republicans fear a massive defeat in 2008. "This is a different kind of war," said the speaker. The emphasis on stimulating democratic processes where none have ever existed, of using diplomacy and economic sanctions to alter the situation on the ground, and projecting our military power lacks the drama of earlier wars that demanded great sacrifices at home and the draft of thousands of our youth. "We’re having a difficult time explaining what we’re doing," said the speaker. Perhaps that is because people think what is being done is inherently flawed? It is worth noting, however, that the United States is not having a difficult time securing the open and covert assistance of many nations around the world in the effort to eliminate the threat of Islamism. That perhaps is the most untold story of what is occurring. Fifty to sixty nations are represented on the ground in Afghanistan, assisting in the protection and stability of its new government. At least 30 nations are assisting in Iraq. Some would call that progress. When the U.S. leaves, however, they are likely to leave as well. That will require Arabs, for the first time in a century, to actually take responsibility for self-governance. Democrats and some Republicans want to end our military operations in Iraq. Despite the arguments put forth by the President’s adviser, that option appears to be the right one. The many problems in the world are complex. The Center works to identify and clarify them to visitors to this website and those who read our weekly commentaries on other news and opinion websites. This is only possible with the support we receive from people like you. If you can make a donation we urge you to do so. Thank you.
©
2007 Alan Caruba. |
||||||||||||||||||||
The U.S. has been "defeated", not by al Qaeda or the "insurgents", but by the ancient tribalism of the Middle East, the vast religious schism between Sunni and Shiite, and by having no insight whatever regarding the role corruption plays in all areas of Middle East governance.