Actions have consequences, and one of the consequences of invading Iraq, and not securing it was to further destabilize a rather already unstable area of the world. Iraq was secular and even in its’ weakened condition it was a check and balance against the nationalistic extremist in Iran. While it easy to draw parallels between the current situation in Iraq and or experiences in Viet Nam, such as it deteriorating into an ill-conceived mess, that is where the similarity ends. Leaving Viet Nam did not result in a tactical or strategic loss that harmed our interest, to any great degree. Our greatest loss aside from lives and money was morale and image.
The only thing I think Bush and his band of chicken hawks have been correct about is that failure really isn’t an option. The fact that the invasion is proving to have been unwarranted, at least for the reasons given, is immaterial. The reality is we have greatly contributed to the political instability of a region, that by a geologic fluke, contains most of the world proven and easily accessible petroleum reserves, the uninterrupted supply of which, is vital to maintaining the industrial worlds economic health. To leave this area destabilized, is a direct threat to the world’s well being, and is thus unacceptable
Rightly or wrongly, our presence also serves as a focal point for nationalistic extremists. I use the term nationalistic, because world powers, mostly western, have interfered in this regions politics even before the discovery of oil. Their religious institutions were one of the few places where they were allowed self-determination and expression. In the same way that the American civil rights movement was borne out of the black churches, their movement was borne out of the Mosques. Unfortunately for us, their movement has not emulated Gandhi’s example of non-violence, but more closely follows the example of the Klan’s, and Bull Conner’s’, reaction to the civil right’s movement.
You asked for solution, this is mine. It is two pronged, and would require simultaneous execution.
First 20,000 troops of which, maybe 6,000 are actually front line combat troops is not going to make much of a difference, we need enough combat troops to effectively disarm the country and secure its borders. These will have to be US troops, as Bush has screwed this up so bad, and alienated so many potential allies, that no one else wants to play with him anymore. We are talking on the order of 200,000 to 300,000 troops. At the same time we need to stop the paternalistic attitude we seem to project, and talk to the regions leaders as equals, instead of dictating to them. Recognize and respect the political system they have developed and adopted, and be thankful it is not ours. The people of this region are entitled to self-determination. I believe people get the government they deserve or want, eventually.
Couching this in terms of a holy war only serves to fuel their resolve and gives credence to the radicals among them. Our not talking with or recognizing some of the regions leaders because they undiplomatically call for our destruction while we diplomatically invite regime change only insures that neither side will come to terms with the reality on the ground.
We may be able to prevail militarily, but they have the luxury of time. They live in the area, they were there before we came they will be there after we leave. Thus the solution must in the end be political, and self determined. It is difficult to have a political resolution in the midst of a war. Any opportunity for success is severely limited, by time, and unfortunately I think we have about run out.
If we do not stabilize Iraq, and begin talking with Iran and other countries in the region, then when we leave Iraq, the Shia majorities of both countries will align themselves, and with the revenue from their petroleum products, they will be able to fund the Shia majorities of the other countries in the region and topple the Sunni minorities, that rule many of them and while we may place an embargo, against them and call them Godless scum, emerging countries like China and India, will happily ignore their chosen belief systems and buy their oil to fuel their continued industrial growth. If these two countries decide that America’s interests and theirs are at odds, what will we do? Between them they have almost half the worlds population, they have a high technical ability, China just shot down a satellite, India is a player in software development, China is a huge electronics manufacturer, and both have nuclear weapons. Not stabilizing Iraq is not an option, and 20,000 troops or a solely military action is not a solution. But hey I'm just an atheistic, secular humanist, liberal, so don't worry Bush has a plan.
Life is no joke but funny things happen
jon
