Winning Iraq?

What does "winning" mean when it comes to Iraq? For that matter, failing "winning," what would "success" be? I must say, that as far as the United States goes, I have no idea what yardstick Bush and his politicos might use. It is pretty clear what "losing" and "failure" looks like. It looks like the daily tragedy of Iraq.

Yesterday (12/18/06), Robert Gates was installed as the new Secretary of Defense. In his speech, he stated:

"Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility, and endanger Americans for decades to come."

Exactly what rock has Mr. Gates been hiding under? International polls for the last two years have consistently placed the United States, and George W. Bush, at the top of the "biggest threat to peace" lists. The United States lost "credibility" when we preemptively invaded a nation which was no threat to us for the purpose of "regime change." It is now known that both Bush and Blair knew that the case being made for the invasion of Iraq was a lie. [Many pieces of information have come out regarding this. The latest is Diplomat's Suppressed Document Lays Bare the Lies behind Iraq War (12/15/06 Brown & McSmith, Independent)]

It has also become clear that the continued occupation of Iraq is strengthening global terrorist recruiting, and that Iraq is now a "magnet" for external terrorists.

The U.S. destabilization of Iraq, the creation of a power vacuum, and the failure to either provide safety nor improved infrastructure, is part and parcel of the escalating violence Iraq is now experiencing.

The U.S. has "failed," and indeed it is a calamity. It has impaired our credibility. It will endanger the United States, and possibly the rest of the world, "for decades to come."

The people of the United States and those of Iraq have called for the U.S. to get out of Iraq. The Iraq Study Group calls for a phased withdrawal. The Generals are largely supportive of a draw down, re-tasking, and redeployment of U.S. forces (Wright & Tyson, 12/14/06).

However, that is not what Bush wants. He wants to "double down" U.S. forces. That means dramatically increasing the number of troops in Iraq, and for years - not a "surge." He wants this in spite of warnings that it will break the Army. Instead, Bush calls for an expansion of U.S. forces. It is not at all clear how a dramatic uptick in recruits will occur, nor how we will fund such an expansion. However, it is the Congress that must approve any increase in the size of the military. Predictably, the Democrat's leadership has said they will support a "surge" and sign off on the massive supplemental funding for the military.

Bush may need more troops for other adventures besides Iraq. Let's see, the Army, Airforce, and Marines are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who does that leave ...? Oh yeah. The Navy. Got to find something for them to do. Let's see. Why not send them to the Persian Gulf to threaten Iran. Yes, that is exactly what is happening. The Navy is massing in the Gulf to "warn" Iran - (or see the CBS video).

But back to Iraq. One has to wonder what has happened on the Hill. While most military pundits are saying "no way" to more troops, McCain (and Bush) are apparently talking to someone else. That someone apparently thinks that we have 35,000 more troops that can be sent to Iraq. There has got to be an issue here as Bush felt it was necessary to say there's no disagreement on troops for Iraq.

Meanwhile, al-Maliki (and likely the U.S.) are considering "re-Ba'athification." Maliki has been reaching out to former officers from Hussein's army to join the new Iraqi army. They are apparently not too interested as many decided not to show up to hear what al-Maliki had to offer. Why should they? After all, at least some of them have their own forces. For example, the ones who were called in to help the U.S. in Falluja.

We certainly do have a problem - in Iraq and Afghanistan. Further, the entire Middle East and South Asia are ripe for chaos. Major instability and conflict will suck in Russia, China, and others. Bush has set the stage for what could become a global conflict. The main question now is to how to avert a major conflagration. Somehow I don't expect the Bush team to come up with a saving strategy. Heck, they won't even talk to nations they don't like (North Korea, Iran, Syria). We leave that up to others (like Russia and China). That strategy dramatically increases their political and economic investment with those Bush won't talk to. Now that seems like a winning strategy - but for whom?

Posted by rowan at December 20, 2006 10:35 AM | [eMail this article!] |