Alright, I admit it. I'm a bit behind on the topics. However, this is one that I'd like to cover (slash discuss) before any further decisions are made by the current administration.
In the little Hamlet of Iraq we hear the musings, "To escalate or not to escalate, that is the question."
I'm not going to hold my faithful readers in suspense on this one. Here is my opinion:
Escalation in Iraq is not the answer. (No, Dr. James, do not attempt to adjust your monitor, you read that correctly.)
Here's why I think this is the case (And I'll offer a possible solution later in this post.): More troops in Iraq means more death in Iraq. There is no way of avoiding this. It's as simple as a law of averages. It's a gaurantee. I don't just mean more Iraqi deaths (as that is a foregone conclusion,) but many more American deaths as well. Furthermore, if you'll pardon the football analogy, I see the insurgents conducting themselves like the New England Patriots. New England usually does just enough to win. They don't often blow their opponents out of the water, they bide their time so that they end the game in victory. If the insurgents are doing this and we send more troops, they will increase their attacks. They will pour more of their seemingly limitless resourses into getting the US out resulting in even more deaths. I'll put it in a simple mathmatical equation so all (including the President) can understand:
Iraq + Escalation = Wicked Bad Idea!
There is speculation that "cutting and running" would create more death in Iraq as well as some believe that if we leave the consequence would be a civil war. However, that is not a certainty. More troops resulting in more death is.
Now for what I think I'd like to see. I've heard a theory that the Iraqi insurgents are attacking primarily because they want to see the US out of Iraq. Alright, let's conduct a little test. Iraq is not the weak, impotent nation that it was when the knee-jerkers first started calling for a "time-table for withdrawl" or a "complete retreat." I do not believe that it will crumble like Florida's defense will against Ohio State on Monday. I don't think we'll see another "Siagon." So let's leave with some conditions. We begin to slowly remove troops. No vacuum, no complete immediate withdrawl. A few hundred at a time we bring folks home. We do so as a message to the Iraqi people, government, and insurgents (in that order) that we so strongly care about the success of their democracy, that we are leaving so they can prove they are able to sustain their government and the peace. If the insurgents are attacking because we are present, they'd have no reason to continue their reign of destruction any longer. On our way out, we make it clear that we reserve the right to return the instant Iraq begins to look like Palestine/Israel. The moment we see anything that even resembles a civil war, we will be back so fast (with so many more "boots on the groung," "birds in the air," "resolve," and "shock and awe") that it will make thier heads spin. Iraq will become the 52nd state. (We'd have to make Puerto Rico the 51st or they'd be really peeved!)
So, that's what I think we should do. A slow withdrawl to see if the insurgency lessens and to give the Iraqis a chance to stand on their own two feet. What thinketh thou?
Mr. President, are you listening? Because this, after all, is just my opinion.
3 comments:
I think you're right. It's time to pull out. If a civil war ensues, let them duke it out.
Puerto Rico has had an outstanding offer to become a state for quite some time. They choose not to because they want the benefits they are receiving by being a US territory, but do not want to have to adhere to our rules.
I saw a really great bumper sticker: First, Iraq. Next, France.
I was in Washington D.C., recently and they really want to become a regular state, instead of whatever it is they are. Their slogan is "no taxation without representation"! Pretty catchy, eh?
My retired colonel father-in-law and I were discussing U.S. withdrawal from Iraq over dinner last week. According to him, this sort of thing would not be done publicly, but privately--even secretly. Thus, we could very well be pulling out now even while, publicly, we wave the banner of a surge. That's point one: from here on out, whatever is really happening over there may not resemble at all the public rhetoric, which, at this point, can only be smoke and mirrors.
Second point. The problem with the insurgency is not simply the U.S. U.S. deaths are incidental when compared to who actually dies there on a daily basis. The real violence is sunni/shia religious violence. A commentator on NPR last week said that vengeance is not a bad word in an Islamic middle east as it would be here in the West. An eye for an eye is justice. Therefore, in my mind, the kind of eye-for-an-eye violence that is ripping portions of that country apart is not something that is going to be seen as necessarily bad. Tribal loyalties matter in Iraq, the idea of a unifying national loyalty is just a political show. "When we were in Vietnam," said my father-in-law, "the majority of the people cared about their farm and their families. They had never even heard of "Vietnam" or cared about it." Exactly. The majority of the Iraqi population doesn't care a bit for the emergence of a democratic nation-state, they care about the boundary-lines that demarcate their tribal family, and they are involved in the "proper work" of exacting vengeance upon those who have or will do violence to it.
What, then, do we do? We decide what it is absolutely necessary for us to do there, and we do it secrety while publicly making a lot of noise in a completely opposite direction. Expect lots more "surge" language, and every time you hear it, change that word to "strategic repositioning," hear it as politically and militarily fading back into the shadows, and realize that we aren't going to be taking a firm hand off Iraq for a very, very long time. Think of how we've done it in Africa. How we've manipulated their politics and deposed and imposed political rulers. That's how it is going to be in Iraq. The Middle East is the new Africa.
Post a Comment