A Call For Change
All four branches of the military will run editorials in their newspapers on Monday calling for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. George W. Bush has just reaffirmed his support for Rumsfeld (although he did the same for Brownie too, so maybe there is some hope here).
This can't be good.
The military strategy in Iraq has changed very little since it transformed itself from a liberating force to an occupying one. As an occupying force, it's mission is to maintain the peace while Iraqi leaders would get together and frame a new constitution, elect new leadership and reach compromise for peace. In the meantime, the vacuum of lawlessness acted as a magnet for al Qaeda types who could come in and fight to foster chaos and a loss of control. Religious militias rose to varying levels of power. Only in Northern Iraq, where the Kurds have been based, has the military somewhat achieved order.
As more and more injustices, errors and killing occurs, Iraqi resentment for America has built. Staying the course has meant that the military enter various suburbs of Baghdad and "clear it out". Think of the Willo district as a 'hotbed'...the military enters, goes house to house, attempting to clear the district of weapons and fight any remaining insurgents, only in advance they warn the neighborhood that they are coming. Insurgents go and stay with friends in another neighborhood (say Roosevelt) and wait for the military to clear out Willo of weapons.
Then the US military would do something amazing. They would leave.
The insurgents would return and do a 'cleansing' of those who did not support their cause and establish deeper roots of fear in that community. This process was repeated over and over until recently, when the military decided to stay behind and help secure Iraq neighborhood by neighborhood, and police it afterwards.
Then suddenly a 'pissing match' develops between Al Maliki and the US, and Maliki orders US troops to leave one such neighborhood (in fact one where an American soldier had been kidnapped, and no he did not run off with his bride, he was kidnapped) only to instantly follow Maliki's orders and withdraw border checkpoints leaving a US soldier's captives escape routes and allowing the milita in that neighborhood to regain strength. (One that supports Al Maliki). Fortunately for the missing soldier, the US military is not abandoning the effort to locate this soldier.
With friends like A Maliki, who needs enemies.
So, what to do in Iraq?
There are four choices really.
One. Stay the course. If we do this, our military will ultimately break. Our soldiers have paid an incredible cost and have stayed in Iraq well beyond their reasonable term of service in many cases. This is not an option, and the American people are voting to send the message that staying the course in Iraq is unacceptable.
Two. Increase troop levels and finish the job. Call this the McCain option, and this would mean a draft, or a redeployment of troops from other parts of the world. So without a draft, where would these troops come from? South Korea? Afghanistan? Does this mean that we have given up the hunt for Bin Laden?
Three. Come Home. This may truly be the best option, but what do we leave behind? Surely Iraq would slip into feudalism or all out civil war. Iran may be left alone to operate freely in Iraq and establish a large very powerful nuclear religious country (kind of like the one we have now). What of the Kurds? How would this affect the US economy? While coming home may still be the best option, it is an option of defeat. While we should have never engaged there in the first place, much less doing it "on the cheap" a la Rumsfeld, their are some very real issues should we just leave a vacuum.
Should we call on the world community for support in Iraq? Yes, but that card has been played and international US diplomacy has been damaged beyond short term repair. I don;t see this as a viable option unless we enlist the assistance of Muslim countries that we have been loath to deal with in the past.
Four. Partitioning. This seems to be a pretty solid option for the SHORT TERM. US troops would leave Baghdad and redeploy to the North, Afghanistan and into Kuwait. The US military could lend support diplomatically and militarily on an 'as needed' basis, which would be rare and only with a specific concludable mission of protection of innocent populations and taking the fight to Al Qaeda in Iraq, and take out any facilities that are fostering military insurgency.
A mess to be sure.
If you would like to see some specifics on the military strategy in Iraq, you can visit this US military website here:
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6983&Itemid=30
This can't be good.
The military strategy in Iraq has changed very little since it transformed itself from a liberating force to an occupying one. As an occupying force, it's mission is to maintain the peace while Iraqi leaders would get together and frame a new constitution, elect new leadership and reach compromise for peace. In the meantime, the vacuum of lawlessness acted as a magnet for al Qaeda types who could come in and fight to foster chaos and a loss of control. Religious militias rose to varying levels of power. Only in Northern Iraq, where the Kurds have been based, has the military somewhat achieved order.
As more and more injustices, errors and killing occurs, Iraqi resentment for America has built. Staying the course has meant that the military enter various suburbs of Baghdad and "clear it out". Think of the Willo district as a 'hotbed'...the military enters, goes house to house, attempting to clear the district of weapons and fight any remaining insurgents, only in advance they warn the neighborhood that they are coming. Insurgents go and stay with friends in another neighborhood (say Roosevelt) and wait for the military to clear out Willo of weapons.
Then the US military would do something amazing. They would leave.
The insurgents would return and do a 'cleansing' of those who did not support their cause and establish deeper roots of fear in that community. This process was repeated over and over until recently, when the military decided to stay behind and help secure Iraq neighborhood by neighborhood, and police it afterwards.
Then suddenly a 'pissing match' develops between Al Maliki and the US, and Maliki orders US troops to leave one such neighborhood (in fact one where an American soldier had been kidnapped, and no he did not run off with his bride, he was kidnapped) only to instantly follow Maliki's orders and withdraw border checkpoints leaving a US soldier's captives escape routes and allowing the milita in that neighborhood to regain strength. (One that supports Al Maliki). Fortunately for the missing soldier, the US military is not abandoning the effort to locate this soldier.
With friends like A Maliki, who needs enemies.
So, what to do in Iraq?
There are four choices really.
One. Stay the course. If we do this, our military will ultimately break. Our soldiers have paid an incredible cost and have stayed in Iraq well beyond their reasonable term of service in many cases. This is not an option, and the American people are voting to send the message that staying the course in Iraq is unacceptable.
Two. Increase troop levels and finish the job. Call this the McCain option, and this would mean a draft, or a redeployment of troops from other parts of the world. So without a draft, where would these troops come from? South Korea? Afghanistan? Does this mean that we have given up the hunt for Bin Laden?
Three. Come Home. This may truly be the best option, but what do we leave behind? Surely Iraq would slip into feudalism or all out civil war. Iran may be left alone to operate freely in Iraq and establish a large very powerful nuclear religious country (kind of like the one we have now). What of the Kurds? How would this affect the US economy? While coming home may still be the best option, it is an option of defeat. While we should have never engaged there in the first place, much less doing it "on the cheap" a la Rumsfeld, their are some very real issues should we just leave a vacuum.
Should we call on the world community for support in Iraq? Yes, but that card has been played and international US diplomacy has been damaged beyond short term repair. I don;t see this as a viable option unless we enlist the assistance of Muslim countries that we have been loath to deal with in the past.
Four. Partitioning. This seems to be a pretty solid option for the SHORT TERM. US troops would leave Baghdad and redeploy to the North, Afghanistan and into Kuwait. The US military could lend support diplomatically and militarily on an 'as needed' basis, which would be rare and only with a specific concludable mission of protection of innocent populations and taking the fight to Al Qaeda in Iraq, and take out any facilities that are fostering military insurgency.
A mess to be sure.
If you would like to see some specifics on the military strategy in Iraq, you can visit this US military website here:
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6983&Itemid=30
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Posted by
fig |
9:33 AM
The removed post was not an objection to the post, or in anyway related, but was spam.
Posted by
Squib aka TwistedOreo |
9:41 AM
Post a Comment