What to do in Iraq - you're all wrong

So what is the solution in Iraq? Put aside the lies that took us there - we're there. What do we do now?

There are the mil-bloggers that almost unanimously see success. Slow and difficult success, but success nonetheless. And while I am certain they do see some improvements where they are, the point remains that in terms of basics - security, water, electricity, sanitation, and oil shipments - it's not improving.

There is the right wing that still supports the war, saying that American power and prestige are on the line and requires that we see this through. While our power & prestige would take a hit if we left, we survived leaving Vietnam and if we are destined for failure, better to start recovering from that now.

And there is the right wing that sees this as a failed mission and sees no compelling national interest in our staying there. This country does have the resources that we could remain in Iraq indefinitely if we chose to, so this is really an argument that it is not worth the effort. Yet bringing democracy to the Middle East is clearly in the long term interests of the world. There is too much oil and too much money, and too many people there to just leave it as is.

On the left wing we have had consensus for some time - leave now. On the far left I believe most people take the view that 1) War is never the answer, 2) Bush is in favor of it so it must be wrong, and 3) The U.S. is the problem, not the solution. But clearly leaving now would lead to all-out civil war and partition of at least the Kurdish north - which would then bring in Turkey, Iran, and Syria. There are outcomes worse than what we presently have in Iraq.

On the near left (hey - that's me!), we have a desire to see some sort of Democracy take root (I'd settle for Japan/Mexico 1960 style) with a concern that we are failing and need to add troops for success. Yet this is akin to Vietnam where the troop levels kept growing and growing - and yet success stayed as elusive as ever.

So, what does this mean?

First off, anyone who says they know what we need to do in Iraq is wrong. No one knows what will work. I don't know, you don't know, and the Bush administration and Pentagon clearly don't know.

Second, a large part of what will work will depend on events we have no way of predicting. So even with perfect knowledge of how Iraqi's would react to any given action of ours today, that could all change tomorrow.

Third, sometimes a country just has to have a Civil War. If any one group things they will gain more from Civil War than any other approach, then you will have the war. It's only when all groups get tired of the fighting and decide that politics is a better solution that the war ends. Lebanon seems to have figured this out in 20 years. Ireland it was over 100 years. It may be that an ongoing low-level civil war is something Iraq's people must go through - to learn the hard way that it doesn't work.

So what should we do...

I don't know. But I do know what we are presently doing is not working. And our politicians are failing us because the only discussions are should we leave or should we stay the course. I hear no discussion about alternative approaches. Why not?

Step 1: The present approach is a mess. Fire everyone at the top who architect-ed this. Rumsfield and the other top civilians at the Pentagon. Pace and the other top Generals who are responsible for strategy. Bring in people who will look for alternative approaches. Promote the officers in the field who have been effective. (Eisenhower's permanent rank was still Colonel when he was first in command of all allied forces in Europe.) Find us our Generals Marshall, Eisenhower, Bradley, and Patton.

Step 2: Talk to the American people about what is going on and what is being tried. Continuing to just sell the plan, even if the administration comes up with a successful one, will not get the support of the American people. Time is running out and the only hope is either to leave or to get buy in for the public.

Step 3: Start looking at some different approaches.

• Why no discussion of making Iraq a loose federation with U.S. troops pulling back to patrol the borders between the three parts and leaving each group to work things out themselves. We did that for the Kurds and they built a functioning democracy.
• Why no discussion of cutting off insurgent cities and leaving them to starve or surrender. Yes innocents would die - but they are dying now with no end in sight.
• Why no discussion of how many troops it would take to successfully lock down the country, and what that would require.
• Why no discussion of securing the oil wells and pipelines and leaving the rest of the country to the Iraqis. This would leave them to settle their differences, would insure that oil still flows to the world, and would keep the oil money out of Iraqi hands so it didn't got to weapons for the civil war.

I'm not sure any of the above are good ideas. But they could be. And there must be hundreds of others that might be the road to success. But we're not going to know as long as the administration hunkers down to stay the course and congress is arguing over stay/go.

I don't know what the right solution is. But I do know if things continue with the present stay the course vs leave argument, we will be leaving within the next 4 years.

Agree? Disagree? Please comment - I would like to get other viewpoints on this.

Trackbacks: DailyKos, ColoradoPols, Mudville Gazette, The Command T.O.C.

Comments

[Darrell]

First off I want to thank you for the trackbacks. Although I think we will likely disagree on most political issues you do present your arguments in a compelling manner.

I will return later to make a more substantitive response to your article here, but one statement I do want to address now.

"I don't know. But I do know what we are presently doing is not working. And our politicians are failing us because the only discussions are should we leave or should we stay the course. I hear no discussion about alternative approaches. Why not?"

I'll agree that the progress in Iraq is not as rapid as we had wanted, though there is progress being made. The discussion of what to do in Iraq is limited to two positions the Cut-n-Run crowd, and the Stay the Course crowd. My humble opinion of why is pretty simple really.

Should Republicans admit they need a change in tactics they are afraid that the admission will be interpreted as that they were wrong all along; and The Democrats can't endorse any strategy other than Cut-n-Run because to do so would validate the reasoning for removing Saddam to begin with. Essentially, as a nation we are polarized politically, more so than we have ever been before.

Darrell

[Ryan]

I'm a former sailor in the USN (United States Navy). Now let me tell you this- We stayed in East Berlin for how long? Years on top of years. Wars are not won by launching a few missiles and dispatching a few baddies. When I joined the military I swore and oath to defend and protect the Constitution of The United States of America. War is a necessary evil. If not for WWII, Hitler would have stayed in power (League of Nations appeased the Germans)the USA would not have become the SuperPower we are now... But we may lose it- please support the troops, never forget the POWs, and those fallen to keep us free. Never forget 9/11/01, never forget Pearl Harbor. Debate is healthy, but to run from a fight is the most cowardly thing- especially when our freedom and more importantly, our lives are in constant danger. I don't care if the president is Replubican, Democrat, or whatever- as long as they do what they must to defend us from any more attacks.

[Bigol]

One thought to your statement: “The present approach is a mess”

Interesting. May I suggest there is more to know out there that is not being reported?

Unlike WWII where the news was filled with stories from all fronts, and represented both the good and the bad, in today’s world there is only snap shot views in the interest of gaining market share. Not good. Not bad. Just in the intest of grabbing the eyeballs.

And while this is not WWII there is a general similarity to the approach. Let’s just say few people in the US did NOT understand the importance of the US landings in North Africa – though it was far removed from Japan.... From the limited reporting at the time [newspaper, radio, and movies] both the grand strategy and the tactics were outlined. And so when the disaster at Kasserine Pass was reported, it was not met with the same degree of panic as what we see today when a place of worship is destroyed. The number of mistakes made in that “good war” is staggering. From weapons, tactics, strategic thinking, training, and on and on. And no, not all were corrected, and there are some that continue on today. Yet the allies won.

What is missing today is context. This is not about bombings, or about Iraq, or even about the Middle East... Yet all we see is “bomb kills X number of people in Y place” or “x number of marines killed today.” And truly, this tells us nothing.

Now then, is Iraq a mess? Perhaps. Perhaps not. There are some messy areas, but over all the battle there is being won. And the military IS adapting, learning, and changing every day.

In fact, the battle is being won in more places around the world then not.

Context.

Think of it this way, if all you could read is the headlines in your local paper each day what would the perception be of your hometown. And would it be right? And would it be fair to judge your hometown with that data?

B

[Papa Ray]

You list some fair ideas, but leave how the "how" part, which is always the hard part.

We are going to be in Iraq for at least ten years most likely fifty just like in other parts of the world.

We are building "Megabases" now out in the boonies, complete with nice large airports, bunkers, hangers and every thing else. They will make our Viet Nam bases look like they were trailer parks.

We are in the ME to stay, we are going for the "Long War" and we will be repositioning our troops and assets to match our threats.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan all are growing threats, so thats were we will be for for the forseeable future, unless of course, the Islamic radicals blow themselves all to hell,

by our hand.

Papa ray
West Texas
USA

[Dave Wolf]

I think you're right on target. IMHO, we do need to do something different and its obvious that the current leadership is not going to find a workable solution on thier own. I've often wondered why the loose federation option was so roundly discarded. Seems it might have some benefits for the two minority groups.