Comments and Notes:
Information above is from a privately purchased database and/or unverified user submissions. Please verify all information before depending on it for anything critical. We welcome corrections!
| 2007-08-27 register | login | ||
Iraq: what now?Iraq 2007 : now what?----------------------------------------------------- Pull out immediately? Over a longer term? Stay indefinitely? Invade Iran? None of the above options provides much hope for reduction of violence and terrorist threat, let alone hope for a peaceful, democratic country. The military cannot win this war, because it is a war with an ideology and a people, not an army. Only the Iraqis can reform themselves - but, without US presence, any reformers are likely to be murdered. Thus, this proposal: pull the troops back to a designated Safe Zone, and expand the purpose of this zone to incubating democratic ideas, schools for girls, open discussion of reforming Islam, and providing asylum to those Iraqis who are in danger from promoting democracy. Embolden reformers by providing hope for them and their families, that they may not be killed after all. Also use our continued presence for intelligence gathering, diplomacy, and targeted reprisals for the inevitable terrorist attacks. Continue to train Iraqi troops, as security for the Iraqi people will be their responsibility. Broadcast a radio and TV station with no-holds-barred discussion of every aspect of Iraqi society. Obviously there are major obstacles to overcome. Following are detailed sections on Security, Intelligence, Logistics, Kurdistan, American contractors, international involvement, women's issues, education, rules for reprisals, the need for multiple safe zones, and more in-depth goals for the program. Iran and the border may still be a legitimate military focus. The primary advantages of the Safe Zone approach are that it stops the unrealistic overextension of our military, recognizes human rights, does not abandon those who have risked their lives to support us, and allows us to continue gathering intelligence to combat terrorism. =============================================== Historical background and justification: Before discussing logistics in detail, the rationale for providing a safe haven to our friends among the Iraqis should be thoroughly understood. Before Hamas became a major terrorist threat to Israel, it dedicated itself to killing Palestinian collaborators. Palestinians who wanted peace with Israel quite literally had no where to turn. If we allow the Muslim Brotherhood and allied extremists in Iraq to do the same, in ten years we may have not a democratic Iraq, but a highly disciplined, unified fundamentalist force purged of democratic elements. Why not simply 'stay the course', whatever it takes? It is probable that keeping the Coalition forces in place would be better for the majority of Iraqis. The US does have a moral imperative to stem the violence in Iraq. If we are truly committed to this option, a draft should be implemented and our allies in NATO should be formally asked to do the same. Otherwise, those of us supporting our moral imperative to defend the Iraqis are doing so at the expense of young men and women who have been misled repeatedly by our military and who have no exit in sight. In Vietnam at least the period of service was clear, and draftees could look forward to returning home at a specified date. A close friend of mine has a son in Iraq. He just left to return to his second extended (15-month) tour of duty in Iraq. He spent time as a M50 gunner on top of a Bradley vehicle and has now trained as a Special Forces sniper. Steven, the young man, is so sick of the war and all the bs that has gone along with it he cannot tolerate even those who come up to him to thank him for his service. From his years of front-line experience, he has stated (as relayed by his father) 'These people don't want democracy - they want a dictator!' He has observed that 'women are treated as expendable dirt'. When I asked how the military was being treated by ordinary Iraqis, if they were given respect, the answer was 'Not Anymore. The Iraqis blame the Americans for the whole mess.' Women soldiers are treated worst. When Steven signed up for the army he naively believed his military recruiter, who told him he would serve in Germany and '6 months max' in Iraq. When he was sent to Iraq he was told he would be done with his service in a specified amount of time. When his time was up, he was subject to the stop-loss program an in effect told 'we say when you can go home'. No one has any idea when he will be allowed to leave. Now the Coalition forces are guarding Sunni neighborhoods where most recently they were shot at. What exactly is the moral imperative that states that Steven, who has already risked his life for over two years defending Iraqis, must now risk it again guarding individuals who were most recently trying to kill his fellow soldiers? It is understandable that mid-level officers in the Iraqi army would argue strongly for more time and patience, as their lives are most at risk when the US pulls back. Many peoples of the world would benefit from military intervention and protection against their enemies, and in some cases the US has some prior involvement and responsiblity: Darfur, rural areas of Afghanistan, many nations in Africa which were used as Cold War battlefields, Guatemala where many thousands were killed and tortured by a US supported dictator - I am not an expert in international affairs but it is clear enough that the United States cannot militarily intervene at the neighborhood level in all places that need it. The stop-loss program is effectively taking dedicated, patriotic and highly skilled soldiers and turning them into deeply embittered men. Even those who started out gung-ho, strongly supporting the 'cause' have become fed up with the situation they are being put in. There is a huge disconnect between the 'talking heads' on TV, those making policy, and the front-line soldiers serving in the field. Planning for the Long-Term, Realistically Like it or not, the US is deeply involved with Iraq. As Cordesman states in 'The Tenuous Case for Strategic Patience' it would take about two years to fully withdraw in a deliberate manner. ------------------------------- I'm not a policy expert, but it seems like we all have a responsibility to try and figure out what to do now, and where we stand. Comments and suggestions most welcome." |
||