| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ubiquitous" |
| Date: |
16 May 2007 11:59:10 AM |
| Object: |
The new strategy in Iraq can work. But Washington has to give it time. |
BY MAX BOOT
Tuesday, May 15, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
There is a serious and widening disconnect between the timetables that
commanders are using to guide their actions in Iraq and those being demanded
by politicians in Washington. Gen. David Petraeus and Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno,
the senior U.S. commanders in Iraq, are quite properly planning for the troop
"surge" to extend well into next year. That's why the Pentagon has alerted 10
combat brigades with some 40,000 soldiers to get ready to deploy in August.
They will be needed to replace troops rotating home.
Back home, however, politicians are demanding results in the next few
months--or else. And not just Democrats. House Minority Leader John Boehner
has said that if they don't see progress by the fall, even House Republicans
will start demanding a Plan B for Iraq, which would presumably involve
pulling troops out, not sending more. That message was reinforced by the
group of 11 House Republicans who visited the White House last week.
Gen. Petraeus has promised to report back to Congress by September on what
kind of progress he is making, but don't expect a definitive answer. He is
unlikely to say "the surge has worked" or "the surge has failed." He will
instead probably point to a variety of indicators, some of which will be
positive, others negative. It will be left to the American people and their
leaders to interpret these results as they see fit.
Inevitably, since suicide attacks will still be occurring in Iraq in
September, many commentators and politicians will write off the surge as a
failure. Many are already doing so, even though the Baghdad Security Plan is
barely three months old and the fourth extra U.S. brigade has only recently
arrived. The fifth and final one won't be in place until June. It will take
many months after that to see whether security conditions are improving--and
even if they are (perhaps especially if they are) it would be the height of
folly to then start withdrawing U.S. troops, something that Secretary of
Defense Bob Gates has indicated might happen.
An article in USA Today reported on a Pentagon-funded study which confirms
what military historians already know--an average insurgency can run for a
decade, but most fail in the end. Translation: If we're going to be
successful in Iraq, we're going to have to make a long-term commitment. That
doesn't mean 170,000 U.S. combat troops stationed there for 10 years, but it
does mean a substantial force--tens of thousands of soldiers--will be needed
for many years to come. If we're planning to start withdrawing in September
2007--or even September 2008--we might as well run up the white flag now and
let the great Iraqi civil war unfold in all its horror.
Most Americans seem resigned to that fate. In fact many think that the civil
war has already begun, and we can't or shouldn't do anything about it. We
hear all the time that "we have no business getting into the middle of
someone else's civil war"--often from the very same people who in the 1990s
were (rightly) urging that we get involved in the civil wars of the former
Yugoslavia or who today (rightly) urge us to get involved in the civil war in
Sudan.
The reality is that Iraq has been experiencing a fairly low-grade civil war
until now--one that has been contained by the presence of U.S. troops. While
the troop surge in Baghdad hasn't yet decreased the overall level of
violence--suicide bombings, which are notoriously difficult to stop, remain
undiminished--the presence of more Iraqi and American troops on the streets
has managed to reduce sectarian murders by two-thirds since January. Sunni
fanatics are still able to set off their car bombs, but Shiite fanatics are
not able to respond in kind by torturing to death 100 Sunnis a night. In
other words, the surge is containing the results of the suicide bombings,
slowing the cycle of violence that last year was leading Iraq to the brink of
the abyss.
If U.S. troops were to pull out anytime in the foreseeable future, the
probable result would not be (as so many advocates of withdrawal claim) that
Iraqis would "get their act together" and take care of their problems
themselves. The far more likely consequence would be an all-out civil war.
Not only would this be a humanitarian tragedy for which the U.S. would bear
indirect responsibility, but it would also be a catastrophe for American
interests in the region. If we are seen as the losers in Iraq, al Qaeda would
be seen as the winner. The perception of American weakness fed by a pullout
would lead to increased terrorism against the U.S. and our allies, just as
occurred following our withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 and from Beirut in
1983.
In the ensuing chaos, it is quite possible that al Qaeda terrorists would
succeed in turning western Iraq into a Taliban-style base for international
terrorism. Although the momentum at the moment is running against al Qaeda in
Anbar Province, the tribal forces who are now cooperating with the Iraqi
government would be incapable of defeating al Qaeda on their own. If the U.S.
were to pull out, the tribes would likely go back to cooperating with al
Qaeda for the sake of self-preservation. And a handful of American Special
Operations Forces operating from far-off bases would be helpless to stop the
terrorists because they would lack the kind of human intelligence now
generated by U.S. troops on the ground.
That is only one of many possible effects of an Iraqi civil war that we need
to contemplate before making the fateful decision to give up the fight.
Daniel Byman and Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution, two serious
Democratic analysts, issued a sobering study in January called "Things Fall
Apart: Containing the Spillover From an Iraqi Civil War" that should be
required reading for anyone calling for a pullout. Messrs. Byman and Pollack
studied a number of civil wars stretching back to the 1970s in countries from
Congo to Lebanon, and found that they are never confined within the borders
drawn neatly on maps.
Civil wars export refugees, terrorists, militant ideologies and economic woes
that destabilize neighboring states, and those states in turn usually
intervene to try to limit the fallout or to expand their sphere of influence.
"We found that 'spillover' is common in massive civil wars; that while its
intensity can vary considerably, at its worst it can have truly catastrophic
effects; and that Iraq has all the earmarks of creating quite severe
spillover problems," they write. No surprise: After all, Iraq, with its oil
wealth, has far more to fight over than Congo or Lebanon or Chechnya.
While a civil war is the most likely outcome in Iraq, it is not inevitable.
Contrary to the common myth, Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis have not been at
daggers drawn since the dawn of time. Until fairly recently, they lived
peaceably side by side; intermarriage was common and major tribes still have
both Sunni and Shiite components. The slide toward civil war occurred because
of an implosion of central authority and a breakdown of law and order that
allowed demagogues on both sides--the likes of Moqtada al Sadr and Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi--to posture as the defenders of their sectarian groups. That
dynamic, while strong, could still be reversed if the Iraqi government, with
American support, were able to offer ordinary people what they most ardently
desire--security.
With U.S. and Iraqi forces now on the offensive, there have been some
encouraging signs of responsible leaders on both sides pulling back from the
brink. Sunni tribal chiefs have organized themselves into the Anbar Salvation
Council to try to work with the U.S. and the government of Iraq, and Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki has made some important gestures toward the Sunnis,
such as his support for an equitable oil-revenue sharing law (which hasn't
yet passed parliament).
Slow progress toward an acceptable modus vivendi may still be possible as
long as the U.S. doesn't insist on artificial timetables to resolve complex
and emotional issues. What incentive do Iraqi politicians have to make
compromises if they think that American troops are heading out the door? If
that's the case, Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds would be well advised to avoid
making any concessions that would strengthen their mortal enemies. Thus all
the talk in Washington about troop withdrawals has the opposite effect from
what is intended. Instead of spurring Iraqi politicians to compromise, it
leads them to be more obdurate.
It's still possible to stave off catastrophic defeat in Iraq. But the only
way to do it is to give Gen. Petraeus and his troops more time--at least
another year--to try to change the dynamics on the ground. The surge strategy
may be a long shot but every alternative is even worse.
* Mr. Boot is a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council
* on Foreign Relations and author of "War Made New: Technology, Warfare,
* and the Course of History, 1500 to Today" (Gotham Books, 2006).
--
The trouble with American journalism, in short, isn't that it's too
skeptical, but that it's too willing to throw skepticism to the wind when it
suits the agenda of proclaiming every war a Vietnam and every Republican
president a Nixon.
.
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: The new strategy in Iraq can work. But Washington has to give it time. |
17 May 2007 10:02:42 PM |
|
|
Yeah!
Us liberals only like consequential bigots
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Bush ignores leak crime. Sez 'there's nobody here but us chickenhawks'
People that don't like tariffs, but DO like outsourcing
Tricky Dicky Cheney is not only a Chickenhawk, but an enemy collaborator.
Re : : Stupid crap, but funny
Re: W for war but eager to avoid it, prof recalls
Terrorists Off-Limits But Christians Fair Game
American troops die in Bush's stupid war but it's orgy time in Washington
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
| Compass' Departure as New Orleans Chief 'Right, but not enough,' says SAF
No U.S. Visa for You! But How About a Nice Trip to Iraq?
No surprise, but Bush's Iraqi Elections glowing spin was wrong
DeLay is gone but the Republican 'culture of corruption' is still with us
Fat Asstert sez folks making $40,000 don't pay taxes. But he forgot...............................
'BUT IN MEXICO IT'S OK": Adult illegals screw kids, taxpayers pay for El =?iso-8859-1?Q?Beb=E9?=
US soldiers - Not just murderers and rapists, but PEDOPHILES too
|
|
|
