Irq: Endgame
The question is: What is the endgame in Iraq? The way I see it there are only two possible endgames in Iraq – the administrations and total withdrawal.
The Administration’s Endgame
Unfortunately I do not know what this really entails. The administration has given us surprisingly little guidance on this issue. (Or, maybe not surprisingly). We hear from George W. that we must “stay the course” or “When the Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down.” But, the administration has not laid out a clear course to an endgame, or even what goals we are trying to truly achieve in Iraq. So, let’s look to both the rhetoric and the actions to try to piece together the possible endgame.
I guess we must start with why we went to war in the first place. I know you may not remember this since nobody has mentioned it in several years, but we did get in there for a reason – Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The intelligence community told us they had 100 to 500 tons of chemical and biological weapons and were trying to get nuclear weapons (you know yellow cake from Niger).
As a corollary to the main reason for war the administration mentioned regime change and the removal of Saddam Hussein. He was a brutal dictator and threatened the entire region. He used chemical weapons against both the Kurds and the Iranians. He had attacked both Iran and Kuwait at various times in the 1980s and 1990s. Therefore, we needed to get rid of him and his WMD.
These were the reasons to go to war. Therefore, according to cause and effect once the US military achieved those two goals they could go home. The military did a fantastic job removing Saddam Hussein from office: We can check that one off the list. And, apparently Bill Clinton’s bombing of 1998, the Iraqi military and IEAE and UN weapons inspectors had long since achieved the first goal. On May 1, 2003, George Bush stood on the USS Abraham Lincoln in front of a sign that said “Mission Accomplished” and declared major combat offensive over. Therefore, the military’s job is done – time to go home.
So, were WMD ever involved? Now, I only question the validity of the original argument. Paul Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair that WMD was chosen because it was the only thing that everyone involved could agree on as a good reason to go to war.
The only reason every one could agree on? Now, the idea behind war – at least in the modern liberal democratic age – is that you have a clear and present danger and must kill people into guaranteeing the survival of your nation-state and its people. World War II had Pearl Harbor, Viet Nam had the Gulf of Tonkin (which at least according to Adm. Stockdale never happened). If you have to have discussions regarding a valid reason to go to war – that’s called an excuse.
So the excuse to go to war was made. The US military achieved its goals quickly and decisively. If it weren’t more than an excuse, we would theoretically be home now.
Now we get to phase two. Phase two is what the administration has told us since we’ve been there. From this perhaps we can glean the possible endgame. As I see it there have now been three major reasons to stay that the administration has used since “Mission Accomplished” and the reasons for going to war were removed.
First, we have been told that we are now fighting al-Qaeda there. This is a completely valid reason to stay as it was al-Qaeda who were behind the 9/11 attacks. But, if this is the case should we not also send troops into Pakistan’s North-West Frontier? I mean we know that that is where the leadership of al-Qaeda is. The bulk of its operatives are there and in Afghanistan, yet, the vast majority of our forward deployed troops are in Iraq.
Isn’t this putting most of our troops in Kenya during the Cold War? I mean there were many Soviets in Ethiopia. We could have easy crushed the Soviet clients there. But, no, we aimed the missiles and put troops in Europe and Korea – near from where the main threat came. But apparently in the War on Terror we will not do that, let them live peacefully in Pakistan, supporting the president of the country that lets them stay there. (I’m sorry is he with us or against us?) And, instead, we will mass our forward troops in a place where a comparatively small number of the enemy is.
Second, we have been told that Iraq needs a stable government that is democratically elected before we leave. This is because the Administration holds democracy in such high esteem. Our major allies in the region include: Saudi Arabia, an autocratic kingdom; Kuwait, a emirate with democratically elected legislature (only 15% of all males can vote); Pakistan, a military dictatorship; Egypt, a single party state with small bits of democracy; and, Israel, a reasonably democratic nation if you are not Muslim. That cannot be it, because why do we not talk to these allies about democratizing. If the Administration wants to see democracy in Arab Muslim countries, why did they not deal with Hamas – the democratically elected government of the Palestinian Authority?
The third reason we cannot just leave is that the Iraqi government must pass the oil revenue sharing plan. This on the surface seems like an excellent idea. The nation gets to stay together and regardless of whether your region has oil or not, you get a share of the oil revenues.
Yet, this is the administration that has tried to get Serbia to privatize its industry, privatize Social Security, nip every socialized medicine plan in the head by calling it “Communist,” and rejected the Common Agricultural Policy of Europe since it is nothing more than socialist subsidies. Shared oil revenue is socialism. I would mean that the government would be in charge of large amounts of money and provincial governments would determine how and where money should be placed.
That’s not “ownership” that’s socialist welfare. The oil revenue plan however also requires that private industry drill for oil. Private industry would pay “user fees” (i.e. a tax that does not increase when profits go up) to the Iraqi government. Wow that’s great all those private Iraqi oil companies will be able to profit from this. Wait a minute! There are no private Iraqi Oil companies!
So, the fact of the matter is we do not know the Administration’s end game because there is not one. They plan to get access to the oil for their cronies – then find a new reason to stay. There was no exit strategy because they never planned to exit. The bases will be like the Philippines, Japan or Germany – American oases to maintain geo-political standing.
Total Withdrawal
The fact of the matter is that anything the administration does to attempt to achieve its dubious ill-defined goals will not work. If the privates and sergeants on the ground do not know their goals they will probably not achieve them. If the Iraqi people feel that they are occupied – they won’t like it.
Bob Woodward alluded to the image of the fall of Saigon. The Seventh Fleet’s helicopters and brave Marine pilots flew sortie after sortie getting hundreds of Marines, embassy workers and citizens of Saigon – whom we had guaranteed peace and freedom to years earlier – out of the city before the NVA conquered the city.
The fact is we will withdraw en masse from Iraq in retreat. And, many members of the Marine Corps will be proud to be involved in such a retreat to save their compatriots from a Baghdad Embassy. But, we do not have to do that. Instead we can withdraw today, like the French out of Algiers. Or we can kill more and more Americans and Iraqis and have the last minute airlifts out five years from now.
Which Endgame would you prefer?
The Administration’s Endgame
Unfortunately I do not know what this really entails. The administration has given us surprisingly little guidance on this issue. (Or, maybe not surprisingly). We hear from George W. that we must “stay the course” or “When the Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down.” But, the administration has not laid out a clear course to an endgame, or even what goals we are trying to truly achieve in Iraq. So, let’s look to both the rhetoric and the actions to try to piece together the possible endgame.
I guess we must start with why we went to war in the first place. I know you may not remember this since nobody has mentioned it in several years, but we did get in there for a reason – Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The intelligence community told us they had 100 to 500 tons of chemical and biological weapons and were trying to get nuclear weapons (you know yellow cake from Niger).
As a corollary to the main reason for war the administration mentioned regime change and the removal of Saddam Hussein. He was a brutal dictator and threatened the entire region. He used chemical weapons against both the Kurds and the Iranians. He had attacked both Iran and Kuwait at various times in the 1980s and 1990s. Therefore, we needed to get rid of him and his WMD.
These were the reasons to go to war. Therefore, according to cause and effect once the US military achieved those two goals they could go home. The military did a fantastic job removing Saddam Hussein from office: We can check that one off the list. And, apparently Bill Clinton’s bombing of 1998, the Iraqi military and IEAE and UN weapons inspectors had long since achieved the first goal. On May 1, 2003, George Bush stood on the USS Abraham Lincoln in front of a sign that said “Mission Accomplished” and declared major combat offensive over. Therefore, the military’s job is done – time to go home.
So, were WMD ever involved? Now, I only question the validity of the original argument. Paul Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair that WMD was chosen because it was the only thing that everyone involved could agree on as a good reason to go to war.
The only reason every one could agree on? Now, the idea behind war – at least in the modern liberal democratic age – is that you have a clear and present danger and must kill people into guaranteeing the survival of your nation-state and its people. World War II had Pearl Harbor, Viet Nam had the Gulf of Tonkin (which at least according to Adm. Stockdale never happened). If you have to have discussions regarding a valid reason to go to war – that’s called an excuse.
So the excuse to go to war was made. The US military achieved its goals quickly and decisively. If it weren’t more than an excuse, we would theoretically be home now.
Now we get to phase two. Phase two is what the administration has told us since we’ve been there. From this perhaps we can glean the possible endgame. As I see it there have now been three major reasons to stay that the administration has used since “Mission Accomplished” and the reasons for going to war were removed.
First, we have been told that we are now fighting al-Qaeda there. This is a completely valid reason to stay as it was al-Qaeda who were behind the 9/11 attacks. But, if this is the case should we not also send troops into Pakistan’s North-West Frontier? I mean we know that that is where the leadership of al-Qaeda is. The bulk of its operatives are there and in Afghanistan, yet, the vast majority of our forward deployed troops are in Iraq.
Isn’t this putting most of our troops in Kenya during the Cold War? I mean there were many Soviets in Ethiopia. We could have easy crushed the Soviet clients there. But, no, we aimed the missiles and put troops in Europe and Korea – near from where the main threat came. But apparently in the War on Terror we will not do that, let them live peacefully in Pakistan, supporting the president of the country that lets them stay there. (I’m sorry is he with us or against us?) And, instead, we will mass our forward troops in a place where a comparatively small number of the enemy is.
Second, we have been told that Iraq needs a stable government that is democratically elected before we leave. This is because the Administration holds democracy in such high esteem. Our major allies in the region include: Saudi Arabia, an autocratic kingdom; Kuwait, a emirate with democratically elected legislature (only 15% of all males can vote); Pakistan, a military dictatorship; Egypt, a single party state with small bits of democracy; and, Israel, a reasonably democratic nation if you are not Muslim. That cannot be it, because why do we not talk to these allies about democratizing. If the Administration wants to see democracy in Arab Muslim countries, why did they not deal with Hamas – the democratically elected government of the Palestinian Authority?
The third reason we cannot just leave is that the Iraqi government must pass the oil revenue sharing plan. This on the surface seems like an excellent idea. The nation gets to stay together and regardless of whether your region has oil or not, you get a share of the oil revenues.
Yet, this is the administration that has tried to get Serbia to privatize its industry, privatize Social Security, nip every socialized medicine plan in the head by calling it “Communist,” and rejected the Common Agricultural Policy of Europe since it is nothing more than socialist subsidies. Shared oil revenue is socialism. I would mean that the government would be in charge of large amounts of money and provincial governments would determine how and where money should be placed.
That’s not “ownership” that’s socialist welfare. The oil revenue plan however also requires that private industry drill for oil. Private industry would pay “user fees” (i.e. a tax that does not increase when profits go up) to the Iraqi government. Wow that’s great all those private Iraqi oil companies will be able to profit from this. Wait a minute! There are no private Iraqi Oil companies!
So, the fact of the matter is we do not know the Administration’s end game because there is not one. They plan to get access to the oil for their cronies – then find a new reason to stay. There was no exit strategy because they never planned to exit. The bases will be like the Philippines, Japan or Germany – American oases to maintain geo-political standing.
Total Withdrawal
The fact of the matter is that anything the administration does to attempt to achieve its dubious ill-defined goals will not work. If the privates and sergeants on the ground do not know their goals they will probably not achieve them. If the Iraqi people feel that they are occupied – they won’t like it.
Bob Woodward alluded to the image of the fall of Saigon. The Seventh Fleet’s helicopters and brave Marine pilots flew sortie after sortie getting hundreds of Marines, embassy workers and citizens of Saigon – whom we had guaranteed peace and freedom to years earlier – out of the city before the NVA conquered the city.
The fact is we will withdraw en masse from Iraq in retreat. And, many members of the Marine Corps will be proud to be involved in such a retreat to save their compatriots from a Baghdad Embassy. But, we do not have to do that. Instead we can withdraw today, like the French out of Algiers. Or we can kill more and more Americans and Iraqis and have the last minute airlifts out five years from now.
Which Endgame would you prefer?
posted by Eucleides of America at 11:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home