| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Second Best is No Solution for Iraq (Opinion) |
| 2004-05-07 |
| from TCS - TechCentralStation By Jay Currie | 05/05/2004 "So it is time, perhaps, to stop thinking about the best imaginable outcome, and instead settle for the best possible one, considering the state of world politics and the moral limitations free societies like ours place upon their war-fighting in the age of instant communications. Arab society will not become free and tolerant and self-critical, and much of the Islamic world will remain mired in ignorance and posturing and paranoia for the foreseeable future."Jack Birnbaum has looked the Iraqi challenge in the face and blinked. So, according to Robert Kagan writing in the Washington Post, has the Bush Administration, "All but the most blindly devoted Bush supporters can see that Bush administration officials have no clue about what to do in Iraq tomorrow, much less a month from now. Consider Falluja: One week they’re setting deadlines and threatening offensives; the next week they’re pulling back. The latest plan, naming one of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard generals to lead the pacification of the city, is the kind of bizarre idea that only desperate people can conjure. The Bush administration is evidently in a panic, and this panic is being conveyed to the American people." It’s time to get some perspective. The issue in Iraq has always been whether or not America had the will to stick out the process of building a democracy in Iraq. That process was never going to be easy. Thirty years of Saddam, the active hostility of Iran and Syria, the belligerence of much of the Arab world and the natural limits of the America when it came to the civil administration of a Muslim country all contributed to the difficulty of creating a genuine democratic alternative. The terror attacks and bombings mounted by Baathist die hards and jihadis have created significant security concerns in parts of Iraq. Worse, the relentless political correctness that has characterized the American handling of the Falluja and al-Sadr uprisings has tended to encourage a belief American power can be successfully challenged. If I were an Iraqi democrat I would be more than a little dismayed at the American reluctance to use force to crush anti-democratic forces. The implicit message the Bush administration seems to be sending is one of limits. Limits to American power, limits to American resolve and, most of all, limits as to how far America is prepared to go to actually radically reorder the Middle East. Steve den Beste takes a tour d’horizon of the implications of a sudden recognition of limits. From Pakistan to Saudi Arabia and all over the Arab Street, a retreat, however disguised, from a commitment to democracy in Iraq will suggest a return to business as usual in the Middle East. While Saddam will still be gone -- a good in itself for the Iraqi people -- the bigger issues the Iraqi action was meant to address will remain unresolved. Birnbaum goes on: "From time to time we will have to again step forward and do whatever is necessary to protect ourselves and our children; perhaps it is now time to think about reserving our treasure and the lives of our youth for those future times. That will have to be enough, and there would be nothing even remotely immoral about it." The point of the Iraq action was to begin to reduce the number of times America would have to step forward. It was to actually create and maintain the conditions in the Middle East in which an alternative to the al-Qaeda and the Wahhabis could begin to grow. Having expended blood and treasure overthrowing Saddam and quelling the anti-democratic forces in Iraq, settling for second best now would, in fact, be immoral and a strategic blunder of the first order. No one who is a tiny bit familiar with the process of creating a democracy will, for an instant, have thought that a year after the defeat of Saddam, there would be anything like a full democratic state in place in Iraq. That there are the beginnings of one is remarkable. But those beginnings need to be protected from both the enemies within Iraq and nations such as Syria and Iran which are threatening the Iraqi democracy for fear it might spread. To go from a climate of terror to a civil society is about tens of thousands of small things adding up to a sense of security and freedom. But for those small things to begin to accumulate, the thugs of Falluja and the fat little trouble maker in Najaf need to be taken down. Hard. If the Bush administration is unwilling to use force then it should indeed get out of Iraq with Spanish efficiency. Which would almost certainly mean a return to barbarism in Iraq and the sure conviction on behalf of the jihadis that they had defeated the United States as convincingly as they defeated the Russians in Afghanistan. Of all the possible Iraqi outcomes, victory for the jihadis is the worst possible news for America and the West. Every other alternative, including leveling Falluja, would leave the West better off. I concur. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #15 OldSpook, you've echoed what I've been telling many folks for weeks. Improvisation is the most important part of any campaign or operation, and the handling of Fallujah has been very good. Iraqi political realities are a legitimate constraining factor, given the overall mission objective. The actions in Fallujah, and the south, reflect a savvy and patient grasp of the situation. |
| Posted by: IceCold 2004-05-07 2:25:45 PM |
| #14 please dont get me started on Mel. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 1:55:08 PM |
| #13 Well you could throw a few pies every now and then. Could you imagine a Disney Corp being Disney again. They used to make wonderful historicly based programing. Remember Moonrakers. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-05-07 1:44:49 PM |
| #12 There are rumors that Disney shareholder groups are courting Gibson to take over for Eisner Oops - I don't think they will have any more church wedding ceremonies like in the "Father of the Bride", without the mention of God. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-05-07 1:44:46 PM |
| #11 Lucky - Lol! Hey, bro, I'm a programmer - there's nobody here less qualified to do marketing! Took me 20 yrs to learn that steaks need sizzle to sell! OS on the Board (and CIO, too?) makes great sense, however! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-05-07 1:25:12 PM |
| #10 Oh and also too. I'd vote for Old Spook to sit on the board of directors and PD could head marketing. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-05-07 1:18:59 PM |
| #9 There are rumors that Disney shareholder groups are courting Gibson to take over for Eisner... there ya go! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-05-07 1:18:26 PM |
| #8 Wretchards column today was a great read. That guy has a book in him. His telling about that polite mayor and how he welcomed his old adversary to bury the hatchet, let bygones be bygones, toothy smiles, batted eyelashes, tasty treats. Killer. Could you imagine if a guy like Mel Gibson could get the funding to establish a movie production company with real clout. And that company could use the type of thought you find filtering through Rantburg and others. That would have a big impact on the world. I'd buy shares in such a company. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-05-07 1:15:11 PM |
| #7 Nice analysis LH, rings true. I would also speculate that the foreigners have many contact/friends/networks established in Falluja over years due to its position on the smuggling route to Baghdad, which is why we might not see the same problem in cities elsewhere in Iraq. |
| Posted by: Carl in N.H 2004-05-07 12:38:41 PM |
| #6 BTW, kudos to Wretchard, who got mentioned in todays Washington Times. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 12:36:08 PM |
| #5 another thought on Fallujah. Latif seems to say no foreigners left there, etc. This is generally seen as a problem - either Latif is in denial (for nefarious reasons, no doubt) or we let em escape the trap, and now we'll just meetem somewhere else to our regret. But wait a minute. Was Fallujah a trap for the foreigners?? As opposed to anywhere else they go to?? Insurgents require local support to thrive - a "sea to swim in" Look at whats happening to Sadrs militants in Najaf and Karbala - away from the base in Sadr City, they get no real support from the locals, who look on cooly as the coalition forces kill Sadrists, and in at least a few cases pitch in themselves. Seems to me that Fallujah is the ONE city in Iraq MOST supportive of the foreign jihadis - its not only pro-Saddam, its also heavily wahabi. Anywhere else in the Sunni triangle they go, theyre gonna have fewer supporters, more coalition informants, etc. Aint no place for them to go. Maybe letting them out was DELIBERATE, a joint strategy of USMC and the locals. With surrounding friendly locals the jihadis are a threat - without them theyre much less so. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-05-07 12:29:34 PM |
| #4 OS - my thoughts exactly, but better/clearly expressed. I just hope W and Rumsfeld are thinking along the same lines |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-07 10:27:51 AM |
| #3 One thing the article did get right - we are expecting too much too soon. Even the Germans, most like us, after WW2 didnt get free election, a national currency or anything like that for several years after the war. Japan was similar - McArthur rule dwith an iron hand, but used the locals to his advantage, unlike what we have done. As for the stuff in Fallujah, I think it is over until the US patrols along side the Brigade. Thats the moment of choice: either they let the patrols alone, or all hell breaks loose, because the Fallujah Brigade will tear stuff up in a big way - they will not be as disciplined with their fire as the Marines. My bet it the foreigners inside Fallujah will try to fight, and even the locals will turn against them, coming to fight beside their cousins and brothers in the brigade. The history of this region and the tribal sheiks that run it point to just such a scenario. Why did we create that brigade? The reasons for the ex-Saddamist General and the Brigade (more like a battaliton) in Fallujah are 3 fold: 1) It gives the locals "one of their own" so there is less ability of the foreign fighters to rouse the rabble with "Fight the Infidel" talk. 2) It reverses the abandonment of many trained soldiers in that region. This reduces the pool of troublemakers available for forming a "Mahdi Army" type of activity. And these are the guys you want fighting the former Feydaheen Saddam (who are responsible for almost 100% of the non-foreigner based attacks in the SUnni areas). They want some payback, and these are their own neighborhoods they are defending. As long as we guide their responses and point them at the right targets, they will bring peace to their area. 3) It points a dagger at the heart of Sistani and the Shia who are supporting the foreign fighters who are behind 90% of all the crap going on outside the SUnni triangle. We are basically telling them: If you dont step up and start dealing with people like Sadr, we will give guns to the Sunnis and let them do it like they have the past 30 years. If this is the gambit they are trying, Moqtada Al Sadr should be coming under more and more intense pressure over the next week, from his own people, and from the local populace. And the so-called Mahdi army will be regarded with increasing scorn as a band of thugs, while its numbers dwindle. Its an interesting play. And a gutsy one for the US in Iraq. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-05-07 9:57:21 AM |
| #2 Leveling Falluja would be the BEST option militarily and the WORST one politcally. When Bremmmer took one of Saddam's ex-Generals and made him a warlord, we suddenly have a golden arrow in our quiver. We can use this Brigade to perform 'passification' and puts an Iraqis face on it. The problem in Iraq us not a square-peg/hole problem and will require a different way of looking at problems. Level Falluha? Sure give the Brigade the Arty and turn THEM loose. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-05-07 9:25:18 AM |
| #1 Amen, PD. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-05-07 8:49:28 AM |