The US is Directly Responsible for Civil War in Iraq
This weekend, two leading Republican Senators called for a new strategy in Iraq, and it is about time. Contrary to popular perception, the current instability in Iraq is not simply the result of Sunni and Shiite animosity. It is the result of a poorly planned and executed military occupation by the United States. Had we done a better job of managing our “liberation” of the country and not allowed it to crumble into a fumbling and inconsistent occupation we could have spent our time and resources developing relationships with the various factions and helping ensure their security and safety. That would have been the first step toward getting them to work together for a united and peaceful Iraq. As a result, we have no choice but to stay and try to prevent an escalating civil war.
We now have to reverse the “accomplishments” of the Coalition Provisional Authority that undermined the opportunity for unification through its harsh treatment of the people. The elected Iraqi government was left holding a bad hand. We must reduce the unemployment rate that we increased, and we must redress the humiliation that we inflicted on much of the middle and upper classes of Iraq. They have the education and experience to run the country’s infrastructure. Most importantly, we must stop driving away the people who will at least tolerate our presence for a while.
"The American people are not going to continue to support, [and] sustain a policy that puts American troops in the middle of a civil war," said Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) on CNN's "Late Edition."
I disagree. I think most Americans understand that we have a huge measure or responsibility for what has happened and that they would support our staying in Iraq if they had faith in a strategy that could stabilize the situation.
Senator John Warner (R-VA) correctly summed it up when he said on "Face the Nation" that "We have to rethink all the options, except any option which says we precipitously pull out, which would let that country fall into a certain civil war at that time, and all of the neighboring countries would be destabilized."
Last week President Bush claimed that he invites a change in strategy “…if the plan isn't working.” He also doggedly restated that we would not leave until the job is done.
If the plan isn’t working? I guess that depends upon how you define “if.”
Here is a workable strategy should the President feel his plan is not working.
The first rule is that all insurgencies are local. We must reengage the leadership of the various factions in each area and work with them to establish local security while monitoring to ensure that other ethnicities and religious groups within those areas are also protected. We can only do this in a small section of Iraq at a time, but there is no other alternative that allows us to pacify an entire country. If we offer them the support and resources they need to be secure and prosper while standing ready to hold them accountable for any unwarranted hostility, we can stabilize Iraq one area at a time.
We must start in the areas where there is still some semblance of support for the US strategy and where it will be relatively easiest to accomplish. Once we have stabilized one area we can move onto another, and another. As we build up the amount of support from previous areas, we can take on more and more until the entire country is relatively stable. Meanwhile, we can train and professionalize the Iraqi police and military forces and leave them in place to keep it that way.
Of course, this will take decades.
To do this we must integrate US Special Forces troops and civilian advisors into the local governments, their police, and their militias to manage and coordinate professional training and support—and most importantly, to provide (or coordinate) the funding and resources they need to operate. These forces can effectively deal with the local insurgents. At the same time, the Special Forces troops and their civilian partners can work with other military and civilian agencies to help manage high visibility civic action projects in the local areas that create jobs and engage the people in something other than expressing their anger and frustration via attacks on US convoys and other religious/ethnic factions.
Contrary to popular opinion, we must reduce the Iraqi perception of the US military presence. We should do this by moving the larger conventional units out of the high visibility areas they now occupy, but keeping them close by as a quick reaction force. We could even bring some of the heavier units back home, since we really do not need 130,000 troops in Iraq. We just need a number of independent and highly mobile brigades to remain and support this unconventional strategy. This way they can react to any overwhelming hostile action taken against the Special Forces troops and their allies. If the insurgents decide to attack the smaller Special Forces units in force, then the larger US units can come to the rescue and then return to their bases. Otherwise, the local forces supported by Special Forces should deal with the terrorist insurgents.
The simple fact is that we must offer the Iraqis something better than we have offered them to date, and we must hold them accountable whenever they refuse to take advantage of that offer.
We are the occupiers of Iraq and we have allowed this civil unrest to explode. We must face the fact that we are now the only ones who are really in charge there. We have a moral obligation to stand in the way of a civil war. Furthermore, we cannot forget that allowing a civil war would be the exact failure that Al-Qaeda needs to generate more sympathy and support for its cause. In this sense, President Bush is correct that we cannot lose in Iraq.
It is clear that the Iraqi government is powerless to provide the carrots and to use the sticks as appropriate. Nonetheless, the US can—and should—do both. We just need a lot more carrots and a lot less stick, and when the stick comes out, it must be precise, swift, and certain.
We can continue to act as hostile occupiers and watch the situation spin further out of control while Iraqi citizens and US troops continue to die. There will come a point where we cannot stop it.
Alternatively, we can change our strategy and act like the liberators we once were and slowly stop the situation from eroding any further. Once we get to that point, we can begin helping the Iraqis to rebuild their country.
Unfortunately, we do not have two years to wait until the next President is in office. By then it will be too late. We must act now.
We now have to reverse the “accomplishments” of the Coalition Provisional Authority that undermined the opportunity for unification through its harsh treatment of the people. The elected Iraqi government was left holding a bad hand. We must reduce the unemployment rate that we increased, and we must redress the humiliation that we inflicted on much of the middle and upper classes of Iraq. They have the education and experience to run the country’s infrastructure. Most importantly, we must stop driving away the people who will at least tolerate our presence for a while.
"The American people are not going to continue to support, [and] sustain a policy that puts American troops in the middle of a civil war," said Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) on CNN's "Late Edition."
I disagree. I think most Americans understand that we have a huge measure or responsibility for what has happened and that they would support our staying in Iraq if they had faith in a strategy that could stabilize the situation.
Senator John Warner (R-VA) correctly summed it up when he said on "Face the Nation" that "We have to rethink all the options, except any option which says we precipitously pull out, which would let that country fall into a certain civil war at that time, and all of the neighboring countries would be destabilized."
Last week President Bush claimed that he invites a change in strategy “…if the plan isn't working.” He also doggedly restated that we would not leave until the job is done.
If the plan isn’t working? I guess that depends upon how you define “if.”
Here is a workable strategy should the President feel his plan is not working.
The first rule is that all insurgencies are local. We must reengage the leadership of the various factions in each area and work with them to establish local security while monitoring to ensure that other ethnicities and religious groups within those areas are also protected. We can only do this in a small section of Iraq at a time, but there is no other alternative that allows us to pacify an entire country. If we offer them the support and resources they need to be secure and prosper while standing ready to hold them accountable for any unwarranted hostility, we can stabilize Iraq one area at a time.
We must start in the areas where there is still some semblance of support for the US strategy and where it will be relatively easiest to accomplish. Once we have stabilized one area we can move onto another, and another. As we build up the amount of support from previous areas, we can take on more and more until the entire country is relatively stable. Meanwhile, we can train and professionalize the Iraqi police and military forces and leave them in place to keep it that way.
Of course, this will take decades.
To do this we must integrate US Special Forces troops and civilian advisors into the local governments, their police, and their militias to manage and coordinate professional training and support—and most importantly, to provide (or coordinate) the funding and resources they need to operate. These forces can effectively deal with the local insurgents. At the same time, the Special Forces troops and their civilian partners can work with other military and civilian agencies to help manage high visibility civic action projects in the local areas that create jobs and engage the people in something other than expressing their anger and frustration via attacks on US convoys and other religious/ethnic factions.
Contrary to popular opinion, we must reduce the Iraqi perception of the US military presence. We should do this by moving the larger conventional units out of the high visibility areas they now occupy, but keeping them close by as a quick reaction force. We could even bring some of the heavier units back home, since we really do not need 130,000 troops in Iraq. We just need a number of independent and highly mobile brigades to remain and support this unconventional strategy. This way they can react to any overwhelming hostile action taken against the Special Forces troops and their allies. If the insurgents decide to attack the smaller Special Forces units in force, then the larger US units can come to the rescue and then return to their bases. Otherwise, the local forces supported by Special Forces should deal with the terrorist insurgents.
The simple fact is that we must offer the Iraqis something better than we have offered them to date, and we must hold them accountable whenever they refuse to take advantage of that offer.
We are the occupiers of Iraq and we have allowed this civil unrest to explode. We must face the fact that we are now the only ones who are really in charge there. We have a moral obligation to stand in the way of a civil war. Furthermore, we cannot forget that allowing a civil war would be the exact failure that Al-Qaeda needs to generate more sympathy and support for its cause. In this sense, President Bush is correct that we cannot lose in Iraq.
It is clear that the Iraqi government is powerless to provide the carrots and to use the sticks as appropriate. Nonetheless, the US can—and should—do both. We just need a lot more carrots and a lot less stick, and when the stick comes out, it must be precise, swift, and certain.
We can continue to act as hostile occupiers and watch the situation spin further out of control while Iraqi citizens and US troops continue to die. There will come a point where we cannot stop it.
Alternatively, we can change our strategy and act like the liberators we once were and slowly stop the situation from eroding any further. Once we get to that point, we can begin helping the Iraqis to rebuild their country.
Unfortunately, we do not have two years to wait until the next President is in office. By then it will be too late. We must act now.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home