It seems that everyone in Washington is waiting for the Baker Commission to deliver its report on the best way to abandon Iraq. Those who suggest that by withdrawing from Iraq (redeployment in the current euphemism) the Iraqis will somehow be forced to come to terms with the violence plaguing their nation and will find the requisite will and capacity to attain peace are basing their optimism on a wishful fantasy. The premise that the American presence in Iraq is fueling the violence and without our provocations they will find their way, is actually partially correct; that is, once we leave Iraq, the violence will no longer be on our TV screens every night and will no longer dominate the news cycles. In effect, our departure would end the War for our Media, the politicians, and the bulk of the American public. The suggestion that by "talking" to Iran and Syria we will gain their assistance in lowering the level of violence in Iraq is also partially correct. Unfortunately, both wishes rest on a picture of Iraq that is quite distant from reality.
First of all, those who believe that we need to bring our troops home as soon as possible imagine that the Iraq War is a mistaken detour in the War on Islamic terrorism. Further, they do not recognize that the battle in Iraq is related to the other battle fields in the Middle East as part of a much larger war.
Ammar Abdulhamid is a Syrian author (now living in Silver Springs) who Blogs at A Heretic's Blog. Last week he posted on the HISH Alliance:
The assassination of Pierre Gemayel is not some haphazard ill-timed event, but a carefully calculated one meant to help push Lebanon further and further along the path of internal implosion. And the HISH (Hezbollah-Iran-Syria-Hamas) Alliance is definitely to blame here, the particular considerations related to their particular decision-making and implantation strategies notwithstanding.
The current summit on Iraq, which Tehran is currently hosting is another calculated event organized by HISH with the purpose of helping close ranks on the US presence in Iraq and their entire regional adventure. On the short run, however, HISH spin-doctors might make it appear as though the Alliance is actually taking a more proactive approach towards stabilizing the situation in Iraq thus helping establish a better negotiating position vis-à-vis the US.
But what is actually taking place is an attempt to hijack Iraq from the US, making US position there quite untenable by weakening its allies and uniting its detractors under a coalition affiliated with HISH. Pretty soon, the political scene in Iraq will be divided into two major currents, an embattled one made up of the last few pro-US statesmen and officials, and the a pro-HISH current made up of all parties opposed to US-presence in Iraq, a coalition that might actually grow to attract and accommodate many Sunnis, both Islamists and Baathists, in due course of time. (Initially though, the alliance of Islamists and Baathists might linger as a third current).
Understanding who we are fighting in Iraq is crucial to determining the best course of action. Too many opponents of the war seem to have no idea that we are involved in a regional conflict that may yet evolve into an active world war. Kris Sargent at the American Thinker has been laying out a series of options on the future conduct of the war and considers Upping the Ante:
In my previous post I admitted an inclination towards the Baker plan of phased withdrawal and regional dialogue, not because I think this will lead to Peace in the Middle East, or even that it will be successful in stabilizing Iraq, but because I believe an American strategic regrouping is necessary before we enter the next phase of this war. That means cultivating and bolstering our assets (public perception, political consensus, foreign alliance, the Army, etc.)
War is almost certainly coming (now there's a truism for mankind), and we need to be prepared for it—politically, militarily, economically and psychologically. If this means strengthening Iran and Syria in the short-term, so be it. Now, I might prefer enlarging the problem and taking the war to these agents of instability right now—I believe a confrontation is all but inevitable—but since the political will to do that is simply not there, it's best now to minimize our maximum loss by regrouping and steeling ourselves for the battles to come. I realize this is admitting defeat for Bush's agenda in Iraq, and I understand the very bad consequences that will come of it, but I truly see no other way to keep our people and our allies on our side as we move into the next phase of the war.
The Baker Commission has been touted as the triumph of the Realists. The Realists have always supported stability as the best approach to this volatile part of the world. There is a superficial plausibility to the argument that ff we "talk" to Iran and Syria, we will, in fact, gain stability. If the violence in Iraq decreases (which would be proof of Iran and Syria complicity in fomenting violence), we would then be able to withdraw our troops. As an important corollary, the American public will no longer be bombarded by images of blood and carnage; the violence in Iraq will recede from view and what violence persists will be off stage where no one will notice.
[This is one way in which Vietnam is instructive. Once we left, and then pulled the financial plug on the South, the million Vietnamese and two million Cambodians who eventually were murdered by the victorious Communists returned to becoming unknown statistics. Once they no longer served the purposes of the anti-War media, they no longer existed, out of sight and out of mind.]
The stability will be temporary and illusory, of course. Iran will continue recruiting suicide bombers, will push forward on obtaining a nuclear capability, and the Syrians, as the opportunities present themselves, will continue to destabilize Lebanon. The two terrorist proxies in the HISH Alliance, Hamas and Hezbollah have been feverishly arming and re-arming in preparation for their next round of fighting.
Another illusion that the Realists have in the past espoused is that solving the Palestinian Israeli problem will lead to peace. This is, if anything, even more of a fantasy. The Palestinians have always allowed the most radical elements to define their default position and the present circumstances are no different, with a faux ceasefire (not even reaching the level of a Hudna since the missiles have continued to fly from Gaza into Israel) the current meme du jour. The Palestinians continue to insist on the end of Israel and until the Jewish state agrees to commit suicide, there will be no peace:
Palestinians: Right of return is sacred
The Palestinian Authority on Monday gave a lukewarm reaction to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's offer to withdraw from large parts of the West Bank and return to the negotiating table, while Hamas described the statements as a "conspiracy."
....
Commenting on the speech, PA negotiator Saeb Erekat said the Palestinians were ready to negotiate a final peace deal.
"I believe Mr. Olmert knows he has a partner, and that is President Abbas. He knows that to achieve peace and security for all, we need to shoot for the end game," Erekat said.
As a first step, Erekat added, the two sides need to sustain the cease-fire that was announced earlier this week between Israel and the Palestinians and to extend it to the West Bank. "That will open the key to a political horizon," he said.
Hamas spokesmen, on the other hand, denounced Olmert's statements as "a new conspiracy" against the Palestinians. Referring to Olmert's demand that the Palestinians relinquish the right of return for the refugees to their original homes inside Israel, Ghazi Hamad, spokesman for the Hamas-led government said: "This is a conspiracy, especially since Olmert is trying to bypass the core of the Palestinian cause, namely the right of return for the refugees. This speech is lacking in clarity."
Syria-based Musa Abu Marzouk, the No. 2 man in the Hamas leadership, said the right of return for the refugees is "sacred" for all Palestinians. "The Palestinian people will never give up this sacred right," he said. "Our people have been fighting for 58 years to achieve the right of return for all those who were expelled from their homeland. We reject any deal that does not recognize the right of return."
A great many very smart people know that we are facing a coordinated set of battle fields against the HISH Alliance, yet there has been no real preparation by the current administration, and active opposition from the press and the Democratic party elites, to the idea that we are engaged in a larger, longer war of which Iraq is an integral part.
Both Ammar and Kris suggest that any withdrawal should be considered a tactical withdrawal designed to enhance our longer term strategic options. While that might ultimately be the only available option, I do not see it as a very good option. An anonymous commenter to Ammar's post suggested why this would be a poor option:
What the U.S. "should" do and what the U.S. "will" do are two very different things at this point.I do not think it is an overstatement to say that the U.S. electorate is disgusted with the situation in the Middle East and will have no stomach for "round two" as you say.
No, my guess is that the citizens of the U.S. will turn their backs on the repression and slaughter that surely will ensue, just as they did in Southeast Asia.
He catalogs a number of other problems with the withdrawal scenario. The major problem is that if we pull out of Iraq and have a period of relative peace and quiet, there will be no way to mobilize the American public for the next necessary steps in the war. We will go back to sleep and take another break from history. We already know how that turned out last time. While it may seem foolhardy, I would like to see us keep our troops in Iraq, perhaps maintaining a lower profile ensconced in Kurdistan for example, and ready and available for Round 2 if and/or when it becomes necessary.
Recent Comments