Who Shall We Invade Next?
Again and again in news articles, opinions, letters to the editor, and other sources there is debate on the issue of whether the US should stay in Iraq or begin planning for our withdrawal. The two polarized and dominant political views have very clear and over simplified agendas….stay the course, or pull out. One almost never reads anything in the main stream press that discusses how we should be changing our overall strategy for Iraq and the global war on terror.
General Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, even helped write the manual on counterinsurgency. He of all people understands that anything he does in Iraq is merely a tactical battle in the overall global strategy against Islamic terror. He most certainly understands that we should be doing something very different than we are. In his counterisurgency manual a key point is emphasized, and we quote, "Nonmilitary capacity is the exit strategy."
Iraq is in a form of civil war, aggravated to some extent by foreign Jihadists and to a large extent by US actions and regional political issues. Many of the foreign actors who come to Iraq are not there to set up for some sort of great jihad against the US, though the Islamic extremist minority would have us believe that. Iran isn’t trying to influence the war in Iraq so that it can better support terrorists striking the US…it is there for its own political and religious advantage in the region. Al Qaeda would have us believe the opposite, but that simply does not make it so.
Recent estimates are that some 20-30,000 Iraqis are active in the insurgency (including militias). If one generously assumes that there are 100 Iraqis actively supporting each insurgent, then less than 12% of the total Iraqi population is involved in any meaningful way. Some 90% may be sympathetic, but they are not sympathetic enough to take real action. Otherwise, the 27 million Iraqis would have easily run our 165,000 troops out of the country by now. Nonetheless, too many of our precious defense resources are focusing on Iraq and not enough are being focused on the very real global threat.
We face a globally dispersed strategic war on terror. The terrorists and insurgents use guerrilla tactics…that is, they hit and they run. They are not going to let us win by defeating and destroying them in Iraq as long as they have somewhere safe to retreat to. Even if it became clear that we were somehow going to truly wrest control of Iraq through the use of our military might, the terrorists would simply move somewhere else. That's how they fight, after all. They hit when they have the advantage and they hide until they do.
Current discussions on the war in Iraq and the Global War on Terror are not strategic…they are tactical…and that limited line of thinking will not lead us to victory or safety. Until our political leaders (and would be leaders) begin to develop a truly strategic understanding of how to fight the global threat of Islamic extremists we are most certainly going to face the same level of threat that we have in the past.
Following the currently flawed line of strategic thought one has to ask, “Who shall we invade next?”
General Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, even helped write the manual on counterinsurgency. He of all people understands that anything he does in Iraq is merely a tactical battle in the overall global strategy against Islamic terror. He most certainly understands that we should be doing something very different than we are. In his counterisurgency manual a key point is emphasized, and we quote, "Nonmilitary capacity is the exit strategy."
Iraq is in a form of civil war, aggravated to some extent by foreign Jihadists and to a large extent by US actions and regional political issues. Many of the foreign actors who come to Iraq are not there to set up for some sort of great jihad against the US, though the Islamic extremist minority would have us believe that. Iran isn’t trying to influence the war in Iraq so that it can better support terrorists striking the US…it is there for its own political and religious advantage in the region. Al Qaeda would have us believe the opposite, but that simply does not make it so.
Recent estimates are that some 20-30,000 Iraqis are active in the insurgency (including militias). If one generously assumes that there are 100 Iraqis actively supporting each insurgent, then less than 12% of the total Iraqi population is involved in any meaningful way. Some 90% may be sympathetic, but they are not sympathetic enough to take real action. Otherwise, the 27 million Iraqis would have easily run our 165,000 troops out of the country by now. Nonetheless, too many of our precious defense resources are focusing on Iraq and not enough are being focused on the very real global threat.
We face a globally dispersed strategic war on terror. The terrorists and insurgents use guerrilla tactics…that is, they hit and they run. They are not going to let us win by defeating and destroying them in Iraq as long as they have somewhere safe to retreat to. Even if it became clear that we were somehow going to truly wrest control of Iraq through the use of our military might, the terrorists would simply move somewhere else. That's how they fight, after all. They hit when they have the advantage and they hide until they do.
Current discussions on the war in Iraq and the Global War on Terror are not strategic…they are tactical…and that limited line of thinking will not lead us to victory or safety. Until our political leaders (and would be leaders) begin to develop a truly strategic understanding of how to fight the global threat of Islamic extremists we are most certainly going to face the same level of threat that we have in the past.
Following the currently flawed line of strategic thought one has to ask, “Who shall we invade next?”
2 Comments:
Does this still hold true - "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy." John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States. MO
Apparently not, but then it did hold not back then either. We developed a Navy specifically to deal with the Babary Prirates of North Africa shortly after the revolutionary war. It is this situation that created a great naval power that earned the respect of the much older European navies and led to the Marine Corps hymn including the line "...to the shores of Tripoli." They never actually made it to Tripoli, however. A great book about US interaction with what we call the MIddle East today is "Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America and the Middle East 1776 to the Present." If you like gripping history...this is a great book.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home