Victory in Iraq is Still an Option
In recent letters to the editor, national media outlets, political forums, and opinion editorials we at www.WinTheGWOT.org have felt like voices crying out in the wilderness with respect to the current situation in Iraq and what might be done about it. We tried in vain to get directly involved with the Iraq Study Group and waited expectantly for its report—all the while wondering if the ISG might actually produce a new and workable strategy for success in the war. Unfortunately, no new good ideas came from the ISG, and arguably they produced one or two very bad ideas.
Even the unmistakably clear message from the American people during the mid-term elections has only resulted in what appears to be a more open minded Bush Administration. The departure of Donald Rumsfeld is very appropriate and Secretary Gates is a good choice to succeed him, but recent polls indicate that the American people have lost all faith in the Bush Administration as far as the war is concerned. They favor pulling out as soon as possible and expect the incoming Democratic legislature to influence positive changes with respect to Iraq.
Our then candidates gave a wide range of confused and conflicting pre-election answers to questions about the war. Many of them avoided speaking on this critical topic like the plague, so we at WinTheGWOT fear that placing any hope in this new legislature to develop an actual strategy for success in Iraq is as misguided as thinking that the ISG would. It is obvious that political answers and compromises here at home do not produce practical and workable war time solutions.
Instead of a bi-partisan approach to solving the current challenge in Iraq, we need a non-partisan approach by independent military, counter-terrorism, counterinsurgency, and foreign socio-political subject matter experts. This approach should start with the premise that victory in Iraq is still possible, and that failure there will cost the US and the world tremendously more than the cost of staying will.
We define victory in Iraq is as a united country with a stable representative form of government with cities and neighborhoods that enjoy an environment of law and order and the potential for economic prosperity. Ethnic and religious diversity is tolerated and Human Rights and the rights of the accused are monitored and adhered to. Corruption is actively prosecuted and business and government policies are transparent and open to scrutiny.
The alternative, as so eloquently describe by Dr. Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute implies that the US would end up pulling its troops out of Iraq—likely under fire the entire way. Worse yet, the exit would be seen by our enemies as a victory and embolden them further. Worst of all, those people who currently rely upon the US for their safety and security would become the immediate victims of factional and ethnic attacks.
Like Dr. Kagan, we can think of no greater threat to the institutions of the US military than asking them to withdraw under fire, and then watch as the ensuing bloodbath kills and brutally displaces hundreds of thousands of people they were protecting.
Neighboring countries with majority Sunni populations are not likely to sit by and watch as that group is overwhelmed by Shiite death squads and the war would likely erupt into a regional conflict with global implications. Not the least of which would be the necessity to redeploy US combat troops back into the region.
Continued deployment of US forces today is costly in terms of life and resources, and presents a significant strain on our forces, but that strain is exacerbated by the fact that even our troops on the ground see futility in what the strategy they follow today. The three alternatives currently debated by politicians and the media are likely to fail, but changing to a more appropriate strategy—even though it requires more US troops in the near term would actually be a reduced strain on the morale and spirit of our forces if what they are doing creates tangible improvement on the ground in Iraq.
Morale, spirit, hope—whatever we call it means everything to both the Iraqis and the US troops.
The three options currently debated that we believe would fail are 1) immediate withdrawal, which will lead to the chaos described above, 2) an increased number of embedded trainers, which will do nothing to curb violence and might precipitate an increase in attacks. Furthermore, putting US troops in the Iraqi units and not leaving enough forces to both protect them and carryout other independent security operations will fail to change the overall environment, and 3) simply hoping that Iraq’s neighbors can somehow solve what is essentially an internal Iraqi dispute. We must use diplomacy with them to get them to discourage continued violence and decrease any arms or other support crossing their borders, but that is about all we can expect. Nonetheless, they all have a positive stake in a stable, prosperous, and peaceful Iraq.
We at WinTheGWOT have advocated a change in US strategy that Dr. Kagan eloquently states in recent discussions: "We must change our focus from training Iraqi soldiers to securing the Iraqi population and containing the rising violence. Securing the population has never been the primary mission of the U.S. military effort in Iraq, and now it must become the first priority."
This does not imply that we stop training—rather we emphasize that safety and security is paramount. From this, all other aspects of civil society can advance. Iraq has vast oil resources and plenty of reconstruction and development opportunities that can be financed through the sale of oil on the world market. These projects would re-employ large numbers of Iraqis who are currently out of work and express their frustration through support or active participation in anti-government and anti-US activities.
As we have stated repeatedly, this is the essence of the "long war" in Iraq. It will require that US and coalition troops remain in Iraq in some form for another decade, but a more peaceful and secure outcome is much more likely than what we see today, given the current strategy. If we had started the proposed strategy at the start of the "post invasion" phase in Iraq, we would be well on our way to a successful outcome.
___________________________________________
Frederick W. Kagan’s interim report from which we quote was presented at the American Enterprise Institutes discussion "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success" on December 14, 2006. The full report will be issued in January 2007.
Even the unmistakably clear message from the American people during the mid-term elections has only resulted in what appears to be a more open minded Bush Administration. The departure of Donald Rumsfeld is very appropriate and Secretary Gates is a good choice to succeed him, but recent polls indicate that the American people have lost all faith in the Bush Administration as far as the war is concerned. They favor pulling out as soon as possible and expect the incoming Democratic legislature to influence positive changes with respect to Iraq.
Our then candidates gave a wide range of confused and conflicting pre-election answers to questions about the war. Many of them avoided speaking on this critical topic like the plague, so we at WinTheGWOT fear that placing any hope in this new legislature to develop an actual strategy for success in Iraq is as misguided as thinking that the ISG would. It is obvious that political answers and compromises here at home do not produce practical and workable war time solutions.
Instead of a bi-partisan approach to solving the current challenge in Iraq, we need a non-partisan approach by independent military, counter-terrorism, counterinsurgency, and foreign socio-political subject matter experts. This approach should start with the premise that victory in Iraq is still possible, and that failure there will cost the US and the world tremendously more than the cost of staying will.
We define victory in Iraq is as a united country with a stable representative form of government with cities and neighborhoods that enjoy an environment of law and order and the potential for economic prosperity. Ethnic and religious diversity is tolerated and Human Rights and the rights of the accused are monitored and adhered to. Corruption is actively prosecuted and business and government policies are transparent and open to scrutiny.
The alternative, as so eloquently describe by Dr. Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute implies that the US would end up pulling its troops out of Iraq—likely under fire the entire way. Worse yet, the exit would be seen by our enemies as a victory and embolden them further. Worst of all, those people who currently rely upon the US for their safety and security would become the immediate victims of factional and ethnic attacks.
Like Dr. Kagan, we can think of no greater threat to the institutions of the US military than asking them to withdraw under fire, and then watch as the ensuing bloodbath kills and brutally displaces hundreds of thousands of people they were protecting.
Neighboring countries with majority Sunni populations are not likely to sit by and watch as that group is overwhelmed by Shiite death squads and the war would likely erupt into a regional conflict with global implications. Not the least of which would be the necessity to redeploy US combat troops back into the region.
Continued deployment of US forces today is costly in terms of life and resources, and presents a significant strain on our forces, but that strain is exacerbated by the fact that even our troops on the ground see futility in what the strategy they follow today. The three alternatives currently debated by politicians and the media are likely to fail, but changing to a more appropriate strategy—even though it requires more US troops in the near term would actually be a reduced strain on the morale and spirit of our forces if what they are doing creates tangible improvement on the ground in Iraq.
Morale, spirit, hope—whatever we call it means everything to both the Iraqis and the US troops.
The three options currently debated that we believe would fail are 1) immediate withdrawal, which will lead to the chaos described above, 2) an increased number of embedded trainers, which will do nothing to curb violence and might precipitate an increase in attacks. Furthermore, putting US troops in the Iraqi units and not leaving enough forces to both protect them and carryout other independent security operations will fail to change the overall environment, and 3) simply hoping that Iraq’s neighbors can somehow solve what is essentially an internal Iraqi dispute. We must use diplomacy with them to get them to discourage continued violence and decrease any arms or other support crossing their borders, but that is about all we can expect. Nonetheless, they all have a positive stake in a stable, prosperous, and peaceful Iraq.
We at WinTheGWOT have advocated a change in US strategy that Dr. Kagan eloquently states in recent discussions: "We must change our focus from training Iraqi soldiers to securing the Iraqi population and containing the rising violence. Securing the population has never been the primary mission of the U.S. military effort in Iraq, and now it must become the first priority."
This does not imply that we stop training—rather we emphasize that safety and security is paramount. From this, all other aspects of civil society can advance. Iraq has vast oil resources and plenty of reconstruction and development opportunities that can be financed through the sale of oil on the world market. These projects would re-employ large numbers of Iraqis who are currently out of work and express their frustration through support or active participation in anti-government and anti-US activities.
As we have stated repeatedly, this is the essence of the "long war" in Iraq. It will require that US and coalition troops remain in Iraq in some form for another decade, but a more peaceful and secure outcome is much more likely than what we see today, given the current strategy. If we had started the proposed strategy at the start of the "post invasion" phase in Iraq, we would be well on our way to a successful outcome.
___________________________________________
Frederick W. Kagan’s interim report from which we quote was presented at the American Enterprise Institutes discussion "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success" on December 14, 2006. The full report will be issued in January 2007.
1 Comments:
I believe that we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place, and I've believed that from the beginning. I believe, that we have wasted the last 3 years in Iraq, when we should have been going after the Taliban & Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan with a real troop commitment, not a small force backing up the local drug dealers are warlords.
But the fact of the matter with Iraq is, not only was it the wrong war but we've done it completely wrong as well. If we were going to partake in this misguided mission, we should have gone in with the overwhelming force required to secure the country in the first place. Trying to do it now after 3 years will not work. Now our troops are stretched too thin and have had their tours extended multiple times, or have been rotated in more often then they should be.
It has been clear for quite some time that this President and his Administration are incapable of changing their strategy. And even if they were to change, I have no confidence in their ability to execute whatever plan they come up with. The incompetence of this Administration was put on full view in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and the rising violence in Iraq only underscores the point.
The only option is a diplomatic one. I believe Sen. Biden's plan of partition is possibly the most viable option if you can figure out a way to spread the oil revenue around. We have a 50 state republic with a strong central government, I don't see why we can't set Iraq up as a 3 state republic with a strong central government.
But whatever we do, we must do it quickly, because we must get out and give our military a chance to rest and rebuild.
-Matt Cesca
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
-Martin Luther King Jr.
"The country is run by extremists because moderates have shit to do."
-Jon Stewart
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home