Your Jiffy Lube Keys to the Game
Success in Iraq will be determined by the Iraqi government. The announcement today by al-Maliki that militiamen must lay down arms or face destruction is the first hopeful moment this conflict has seen since the Iraqi elections. The success in Iraq, if possible, will come only after the national government shows itself to be the strongest force in the country. Bush seems to understand this and it is clear that al-Maliki announced this policy change today because he was advised to do so by the US. Success in Iraq is exactly as important as Bush stated. I hope, as does he, that the critics offer viable solutions along with their concerns. The anti-war movement has no solutions as it is an emotional and not a logical expression of dissent. But thoughtful critics do exist and hopefully they will seize this moment to add to our nation's chances of success.
My main concern with the new policy comes from the fact that Syria and Iran were explicitly described as assisting our enemies and yet there is no remedy for that problem other then disrupting the supply lines. Both nations are at war with us. Just as both nations are at war with Israel. And yet neither the US nor Israel is doing anything other than whining about this. I'm not implying here that these facts demand invasion. However, they do require much stronger responses than have been made to date. My fear is that Israel's defeat last summer has made a solution from a position of strength impossible in the minds of the US and Israel. This will simply delay conflict and give the enemy more time to prepare for that moment. Optimism can only be found in the hope that Israel learned from the summer and will be able to apply those lessons effectively when the next battle comes. And it will come.
Posts
6 comments:
My concerns with the "surge" and al-Maliki are as follows.
al-Maliki is in the position of needing to show that the Government is the strongest force in the country (hopefully a government of,for and by the people-but we'll see). To do that he must have US troops, and probably a lot of them. The problem is that a large US troop presence suggests to the people that the Iraqi government is a puppet for the US, and that the US is the strongest force in the country, thus greatly weakening his efforts to show that the Iraqi is the strongest. Its a terrible situation for the guy. Sure, one day Iraq may have the strongest non-US force, but that's years, and years, and potentially years down the road. Which leads us to...
This surge is most likely, almost surely, temporary. W has two years left and the next guy (or gal) may not (probably not?) support the surge. Today something like 60% of Americans don't support the "surge" and two more years of casualties will probably drive that number up. The enemies of the Iraqi government surely know this, and they can play a waiting game, while taking the occasional shot. Remember, this fight is essentially on their turf. They go home, spend time with their families, etc, our troops don't. They win the siege, just by wearing us down emotionally.
Does the surge just give the bad guys more targets?
What's the purpose of the surge? Is it just to show commitment? I have a feeling that this is a move of desperation, or a move just to show movement. It has an odor of "throwing good money after bad" which you see constantly in business and personal times. I just don't have a feeling on what exactly the troops are supposed to do. "Secure Baghdad?" OK, but do more troops really do that? It just sounds ambiguous, more hopeful than helpful.
That's just the sample platter. My opinion is that there was a time where more troops would have helped...greatly. But I wonder if that time has passed. My analogy is that it's like a car tire that needs air. There's a long period where adding air is the fix. But if you let it go long enough you damage the rim, and adding more air won't help at all, you have to fix the rim.
My fix you ask? Partition. I think it's the inevitable reality. Do it now. Iraq is a man-made place, with man-made borders. Change them, move on. Its much, mush easier to secure two tiny countries, and even equip them for self defense (The Kurds are cool domestically, just give them the means to withstand invasion and your done there). Move that way, free up troops, resources, and end the US domestic dispute. Also, we quite being the common enemy. I've looked, no where does it read that God said there must be a unified Iraq with those borders. Time to let it go.
Then we can go to work playing the various tribes, sects, and interests in the region against each other, its the only way to "win" there.
As the humor in the thread's title suggests, there is a temptation within the public's general conversation about the war to reduce its complexities to talk radio chatter.
We're not breaking down what's wrong with the Steelers, or anything at all given the limited insight our lack of military experience and the president's obfuscation throughout the war affords us as we somehow remain safe here at home.
I continue to reject the idea that Iraq is a vacumn into which al-Qaida is so sucked that they or others are less likely to attack us here. That, however, is the message, and it along with our failure to make Iraq safe for its people doomed our mission there years ago.
The message now that it is the Iraqis who must step up if their nation is to be saved is a sensible one for no other reason than the time for us to "surge" has long since passed, along with this administration's credibility in any military matter. Our armed forces, along with all of us here at home, have been misled for all of those who hate us to see, and the troops on the way are merely the illusion of a strategy for victory that is, in reality, an exit upon which we can blame al-Maliki, Chalibi, the CIA, or anybody but Bush.
Again, this is the Iraqis' war or, to be accurate, wars to fight, as it was well before we arrived, now that it is clear almost all of the WMDs we came for never existed.
"Preemption" may one day be necessary, perhaps in the Iraq or "Iraqs" to come, but its maiden voyage here has been a shipwreck for Bush from which I believe nothing of his presidency can be salvaged, least of all the war he chose to fight, or the peace that cannot come through any effort of ours until we "redeploy".
From the NYTimes after Rice's visit with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
"The deployment schedule, in which more than 20,000 fresh soldiers and marines would roll into Iraq over several months, was intended to give the president time to reconsider the increase should the Iraqi government fail to provide its share of security forces as promised, Ms. Rice said."
I think Muscles overstates lost faith (and understates his eyes in that bulky mask). A six month period of reported successes would erase the negativity currently in vogue. War is always a sales job and Bush has completely lost sight of that. The administration has only lost credibility with the small group of made-up-our-minders, the larger portion of the public would be won back in a blink with some long desired successes.
I completely agree that partition should be considered in any solution. But, obviously that couldn't be mandated any more than unity could.
My hope is that there are operations planned that require additional forces. We will know soon after deployment if this is the case. If the operations prove successful the militias can be significantly weakened or removed. This will improve the likelihood of a strong and functional future Iraqi government. And could prove a wise investment in a more secure world.
If the troops are used simply to police or to "hold the line" then all is lost in Iraq. There are more wars to fight in this struggle. We either fight them now when the odds are in our favor, or we fight them later when they may not be. See Israel for the most recent lesson in that regard.
Not to push you on this, but is six months your window to determine the success of the surge?
No. Six months was simply a ballpark of how long it would take to turn public opinion from negative to neutral or positive.
Successes will buy time. If the new troops are effectively used and begin to weaken or eliminate the opposition to the new Iraqi government then I would declare the new strategy "effective" based on those successes. However, I wouldn't call it "successful" (as in decisive) until the Iraqi government is in a strong enough position to provide order for itself.
I don't know how long it will take to accomplish that goal.
Post a Comment