In all the debate over the last week about George W. Bush's "surge" speech, several points have been left unmade. That's too bad, since these points, added to the debate, make it clear that our current Commander in Chief has no idea what he's doing.First, let's finally agree that our initial invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the so-called "war on terror." There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There were no Al Qaeda forces in Iraq prior to our invasion. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. In short, there was no legitimate reason for invading that country in the first place.
Having passed that point of no return, it is now almost four years since we invaded. We have now been occupying Iraq, and taking heavier losses with each passing month, longer than we were involved in World War II. This begs the question, what are we doing there? Only when we answer that question can we formulate a plan for future activities.
George W. Bush and his exceedingly few allies have advanced a few reasons for our presence in Iraq, none of which makes any sense. Let's take them one at a time.
The first is that Iraq is the "front line" in the continued war on terror. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of the violence in Iraq is between various factions that we call "Iraqis", most often Shia vs. Sunni. Violence aimed at U.S forces is only aimed at us because we continue to occupy their land. Once we get out, they will stop killing us. If the violence in Iraq had anything to do with the war on terror, our withdrawal would have no effect on the level of attacks on Americans.
While this conclusion cannot be proven absolutely, all the signs point to its basic truth. The methods by which Americans are being killed in Iraq are not terrorist methods. The people killing us are not aligned with terrorist groups. It stands to reason, therefore, that Iraq still has nothing to do with the war on terror.
Another explanation for our continued occupation of Iraq is that we cannot afford to "fail". Apparently, "failure" means an inability to set up a docile (read: "stable") government that kowtows to U.S. policy. This explanation falls apart on two levels.
First, there is no indication that anything approaching a stable form of government will ever exist while we continue to meddle in internal Iraqi affairs; the level of hatred and mistrust of the U.S., coming from all sides of the conflict, is too high to overcome. Historically, every time we attempt to set up a government through military force, we fail. Either the country descends into total chaos, or it gets a brutal dictator. This happened many times during the "cold war" years, and we should have learned our lesson by now. Neither alternative is even remotely acceptable any more. Additionally, our continued occupation, not to mention our daily military actions, only serves to add to the hatred, thereby making the job even harder.
Second, any government that is willing, even in the short term, to abide by U.S. policies concerning either internal affairs or foreign policy is doomed to fall apart as soon as U.S. troops leave. Again, the result will be either chaos or brutal dictatorship. Scratch trying to set up a "stable" government.
A third explanation for our seemingly interminable presence in Iraq is a modern version of the old domino theory. The idea here is that if Iraq falls apart, violence and chaos will spread throughout the Muslim crescent, resulting in global war and higher oil prices.
There is actually a difference between the domino theory in Vietnam and this current version. In Vietnam, when we pulled out, there was a government ready to move in and assume control. Indeed, the Hanoi government of North Vietnam did unify the country. Yes, there was chaos in Laos and especially Cambodia, but that was due more to our meddling in their internal affairs prior to withdrawing than to our presence in Vietnam.
In Iraq, there is no government ready to move in and take charge when we leave. The result of our withdrawal could therefore be more like Cambodia than Vietnam, with killing fields multiplying.
But that assumes we pull out without first engaging Iraq's neighbors, as the Iraq Study Group, also known as the Baker-Hamilton commission, recommended. If we get Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and Egypt involved, they will combine to ensure that any post-U.S. violence is kept to a minimum. And if we tell those countries that we are willing to accept whatever solution they and the Iraqi people decide for the region, they will be willing to get involved, if only for their own protection.
By engaging Iraq's neighbors, by letting them take the lead in finding a solution, we can withdraw without a major threat of violence spreading. Put simply, since none of Iraq's neighbors have anything to gain by widening the sphere of violence, they will take steps to insure that violence not only doesn't spread, but is actually dampened once we leave. Furthermore, once we leave, a major motivation for violence, our continued occupation, will be removed, making the situation even easier to deal with.
The arguments for staying in Iraq are false. Additionally, George W. Bush's plans for a "surge", plus the other details of his "plan", are clearly phony.
First of all, the level of American forces in Iraq has varied over the years, generally staying between 130,000 and 160,000 troops. Right now we're near the low end of that range; adding 21,500 troops will merely bring our presence up to higher end. There is no reason to believe that we can accomplish anything with that level of involvement. Despite Bush's claims, we will not have the necessary forces to "hold the areas that have been cleared" of insurgents.
Second, Bush's "plan" continues to rely heavily on Iraqi military forces to maintain order. There is no reason to believe that the Iraqi military is any more prepared now than they have been in the past. Additionally, American troops will be "embedded" with Iraqi units, staying away from fortified American positions. This will put our forces in greater danger of attack, while providing no additional security for the areas they are patrolling.
Third, there is no plan to increase the effectiveness of the Iraqi government, or to replace it with a governing body that can be effective. Nor is any method being established to allow either alternative to happen. Only by engaging Iraq's neighbors can we hope to establish a stable governing body in Iraq. But there is no plan to do so. Instead of engaging Iraq's neighbors, Bush threatens them. That is no way to bring peace to the region.
Fourth, George W. Bush claims that, "the Iraqi government will spend 10 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs." The obvious question is, where is that money going to come from? If they have it already, why aren't they spending it? And if they don't have it, where will they get it? Obviously, this is a lie, designed to show - or put on a show - that the Iraqi government is taking charge of its own economy.
Finally, there is the one fact that has been mentioned in debates. No U.S. foreign policy can succeed, or even continue for any reasonable length of time, without the support of the American people. Surveys show that two-thirds of the American people oppose this "plan". It is clear that we need to do something else.
The arguments made above form the outline of an alternative plan. In its simplest form, the alternative has two parts: First, engage Iraq's neighbors, and second, get American forces out of Iraq. Curiously, this is very similar to the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton commission, which George W. Bush has adamantly chosen to ignore.
Copyright 2007, Dan Jacoby
For a PDF version of this document, click here.
To contact Dan Jacoby, click here.
Return to the Main Menu