US troops are part of the solution, part of the problem
US generals are saying publicly now that the insurgency in Iraq could go on for many years and that, in fact, holding out until it’s over is a non-runner. The emphasis must be on training the Iraqis to deal with it themselves.
Herein lies a problem, however. Leaving aside the relative inability of the very average Iraqi army to fill in for the mighty US one to combat a fierce and murderous suicide campaign, the very presence of the US military means the Iraqi Army will never learn to stand on its own two feet.
Furthermore, according to the Generals, it may well be that the US presence in Iraq is actually fuelling the very insurgency they are fighting.
During a trip to Washington, the generals said the presence of U.S. forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi armed forces and energizing terrorists across the Middle East.
“This has been hinted at before, but it’s a big shift for them to be saying that publicly,” said Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution in Washington. “It means they recognize that there is a cost to staying just as there is a benefit to staying. And this has not really been factored in as a central part of the strategy before.”
I doubt the insurgency will decrease significantly until all the coalition troops are gone - and even then the killing may go on against what the insurgents will see as collaborators. This will include most of the Iraqi security and police forces.
Additionally, an ideal exit strategy is going to be difficult - if impossible - to come by. If staying in Iraq until the insurgency is defeated is now not an option then the US has to be extremely careful that any pullout does not appear to be surrender in the insurgents’ eyes. Every attempt will be made to ensure it’s seen as one.
This war between the west and Muslim terrorists is being played out on battlefield Iraq. The world is watching but it is the US who has most to lose if the world concludes that it blinked first…
I think the problem is that the US let the French led anti-American Coalition rush the process of bringing democracy to Iraq. Any sober assessment would have realised (though not to be bluntly stated publicly - sugar coated) that to establish democracy in an Arab country will require the presence of the US Coalition for at least 30 years to ensure it gets bedded down. And equally, using diplomatic finesse, make clear that our first reason for being in Iraq is to protect our security, and if Iraqis prefer dictatorship to democracy (by voting in extreme Islamists loons who will do away with democracy) then they can have dictatorship - only our dictatorship, and we’ll pile up as many dead Iraqi bodies as is needed until Iraqis (and the Arab world) decide they’d rather join the civilised world and have democracy. For Bush to have taken this line (albeit in sugar-coated form) he would have had to attack France and her allies for the bad faith in which they were acting in trying to rush democracy and heighten the chances of its faliure so Iraq ends up with another corrupt dictatorship with whom they can do business. It seems that Bush weighed this option up and decided that strategically it was too risky. I think he may be thinking differently now. But this not to condemn President Bush in any way. He’s a truly great American whose done what he sees as best. The only thing the Americans can possibly be faulted for is too much idealism, and their are far worst faults you can find in a people and in a nation. Just look at France and its poodles Spain and Germany - yuk!
PS liked your post at RotPup to bring a bit of sanity and reason to that place!
Comment by Hal — October 4, 2005 @ 5:45 pm
Hal,
Thanks for commenting. Comments from first-timers at this blog are moderated because I am receiving several hundred spam comments a day at present. From now on though your username will be recognised and your comments will post immediately. Sorry for the delay.
I’m not entirely sure from which direction your viewpoint on Iraq is coming but it seems to be the authoritarian right. The imposition of that Greek method of government known as democracy on an Islamic tribal society was always going to be a bit tricky.
From a purist conservative view-point it was also always going to be difficult to justify. I wrote a little about this here - take a look if you get a moment.
Cheers…
Comment by Gary Monro — October 4, 2005 @ 5:59 pm
Hi Gary, well, believe it or not, it is possible to be 100% behind Bush’s actions in Iraq without being on the authoritarian right (I thought you may have intuited this by my post - if you read it - on RP concerning Mrs Menezes), just as it is possible to be against the war in 2003 without being ‘anti-American´which you appear not to be. Time pressures only allowed me to skim the blog you gave after the first 4 or so paragraphs. In response, I’ll just make the following points.
1. The issue of WMD’s was to make the liberation of Iraq a UN War which would have been better for all concerned, but owing to France’s and Russia’s alliance with Saddam Hussein based on corrupt self-interest and bribery, this was never going to happen.
2. The invasion of Iraq is based on the strategy of defeating terrorism with democracy. Bin Laden evidently greatly fears this strategy as he has said that if Al Qa’eda lose in Iraq it will be the end of Islam.
3. To answer the point you made in your link blog, it is impossible to impose democracy on anyone. If the people of Iraq dont want it they’ll vote for a party that will do away with it.
3. What happened on 9/11 stemmed from the festering hate and evil that grows in a culture of dictatorship and Ayatollahs. If we dont civilise the Arab/Muslim world with democracy we are inviting Bin Laden and his minions to ‘bring it on’ to us tenfold. Inspite of the difficulties we face in Iraq, hugely exacerbated by the anti-Amercican French alliance as delineated above, I feel infinitely safer that we went into Iraq than if we hadn’t of done. The only thing that does send a chill down my span is if the 5th Columnists and useful idiots aided and abetted by Gramscian subversives in the media succeeded in acheiving the aims of the enemy, and we elect a Government that gives in to them.
If I have understood your position right, as much as you opposed the war in 2003, you are fully behind the success of the democratisation of Iraq now it is underway, inspite of your misgivings about it?
Comment by Hal — October 5, 2005 @ 9:53 am