Are We Now Pushing a Rope Uphill in Iraq?
By Matt Rowe, Executive Director, WinTheGWOT.org
More and more political leaders from both parties appear to be withdrawing their moral support for President Bush and the “surge” of US military forces in Iraq. Could this be the signal that the collapse of virtually all US support for the war is imminent? Most Americans can read the strategic and political situation we face there fairly well, so if the US is truly attempting to push a rope uphill then a partial withdrawal of US forces may simply be the most practical answer. After all, who is to say that a civil war would not have broken out had Saddam simply died of a heart attack and US troops were not even there? Nevertheless, our military actions clearly precipitated and created the environment that the Iraqis face today, so we have some duty to mitigate the situation as responsibly as we can.
Without a doubt, the Iraqis have the most responsibility to manage their affairs, but a withdrawal of the majority of US forces would go a long way toward easing the burden upon our own country while allowing the Iraqis to settle their own issues. However, maintaining a couple of army divisions in Iraq would allow us to keep some pressure on the situation. The knowledge that we could quickly redeploy more forces—should the situation warrant it—would discourage the involvement of neighboring countries, like Iran—which in reality, is more of an unconventional threat than an actual invasion threat. For example, the Iranian military is in relatively bad shape overall, so a limited military presence combined with heavy political and economic pressure could help keep the conflict contained in Iraq. Our ability to provide humanitarian relief could help mitigate the blame we share for the current situation as well.
Clearly, we cannot simply claim that the Iraqi government, its military, and its police are strong enough to manage the country in the same way that we did in Viet Nam at the end or our involvement there. A complete pull out would be folly and likely lead to a bloodier civil conflict that would drag on for some time. Neighboring countries could very well be drug into it, but US political and economic engagement with them would be far less costly and more politically sustainable than continuing along the current path of large-scale military occupation. Remember that no unconventionally based civil war has ever ended in anything less than a number of decades, and the end of this war is going to be ugly no matter what we do now.
Perhaps it is better to get to the end sooner rather than later and refocus our strained resources on the terrorists who actually threaten the United States.
More and more political leaders from both parties appear to be withdrawing their moral support for President Bush and the “surge” of US military forces in Iraq. Could this be the signal that the collapse of virtually all US support for the war is imminent? Most Americans can read the strategic and political situation we face there fairly well, so if the US is truly attempting to push a rope uphill then a partial withdrawal of US forces may simply be the most practical answer. After all, who is to say that a civil war would not have broken out had Saddam simply died of a heart attack and US troops were not even there? Nevertheless, our military actions clearly precipitated and created the environment that the Iraqis face today, so we have some duty to mitigate the situation as responsibly as we can.
Without a doubt, the Iraqis have the most responsibility to manage their affairs, but a withdrawal of the majority of US forces would go a long way toward easing the burden upon our own country while allowing the Iraqis to settle their own issues. However, maintaining a couple of army divisions in Iraq would allow us to keep some pressure on the situation. The knowledge that we could quickly redeploy more forces—should the situation warrant it—would discourage the involvement of neighboring countries, like Iran—which in reality, is more of an unconventional threat than an actual invasion threat. For example, the Iranian military is in relatively bad shape overall, so a limited military presence combined with heavy political and economic pressure could help keep the conflict contained in Iraq. Our ability to provide humanitarian relief could help mitigate the blame we share for the current situation as well.
Clearly, we cannot simply claim that the Iraqi government, its military, and its police are strong enough to manage the country in the same way that we did in Viet Nam at the end or our involvement there. A complete pull out would be folly and likely lead to a bloodier civil conflict that would drag on for some time. Neighboring countries could very well be drug into it, but US political and economic engagement with them would be far less costly and more politically sustainable than continuing along the current path of large-scale military occupation. Remember that no unconventionally based civil war has ever ended in anything less than a number of decades, and the end of this war is going to be ugly no matter what we do now.
Perhaps it is better to get to the end sooner rather than later and refocus our strained resources on the terrorists who actually threaten the United States.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home