In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough. Following is a range of options:
Gee, what happened to the "state of denial" that everybody was supposedly in? Some of the options he presents are worth considering, even the ones that bear a family resemblance to proposals made by Democrats who cannot wait to secure defeat for America in Iraq (a defeat they consider to be perfectly appropriate given that Iraq was a "misadventure" from the outset). The difference between what Rumsfeld proposes and what eager defeatists propose can be summed up like this: "al Qaeda."
The defeatist/realist view of Iraq is that it's a civil war now, there's nothing we can do about it , so let's cut our losses and get out before any more Americans die. The stubborn/state-of-denial view (supposedly) is that al Qaeda is inducing sectarian violence in Baghdad and is operating in a big way in the Andbar province, too. As such, the withdrawal of American troops now would be perceived as a major victory for the terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11. Rumsfled appreciates that fact, and I only wish that more of the defeatists who will soon be running things in congress could learn how to say the words "al Qaeda" without pretending that all of the terrorists are in Afghanistan.
Anyway, here are some interesting proposals from Rumsfeld:
Retain high-end SOF [Special Operations Force] capability and necessary support structure to target Al Qaeda, death squads, and Iranians in Iraq, while drawing down all other Coalition forces, except those necessary to provide certain key enablers for the ISF [Iraqi Security Force].
Rumsfeld is not necessarily advocating this approach, but he does present it as being infinitely preferable to simply withdrawing from Iraq in a state of denial (ironically) about al Qaeda. And this is probably just what we will do when Iraqi security forces can maintain the survival of the current government of Iraq. It's not our job to stop Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence. That's going to continue until the Sunnis finally realize that the game is over and that they either have to cooperate with the government (which means ending the insurgency) or be slaughtered by the majority Shiites. They appear to be choosing the latter option (though that may yet change), and there isn't much we can do about it. But our primary job is to leave behind a democratically elected government that can sustain itself and that is an active opponent of al Qaeda.
Another option that makes a lot of sense to me is this:
Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior. Put our reconstruction efforts in those parts of Iraq that are behaving, and invest and create havens of opportunity to reward them for their good behavior. As the old saying goes, “If you want more of something, reward it; if you want less of something, penalize it.” No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence.
We tried to win the hearts and minds of the Sunnis, but they have decided that their hatred for the Shiites and for America is more important that their own survival. It reminds me of that famous quote by Golda Meir:
"Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us."
The Palestinians are nowhere near that point and neither, it seems, are the Sunnis. Like the Palestinians, if the choice is between a better future for their children and self-destruction, they will choose the latter option every time. And, as I said, there is nothing we can really do about that. So, I like the Rumsfeld option of de-funding Sunni areas that support the insurgency. Here is another option I quite like:
Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government.
That will not only reduce infiltration, it will worry our new well-meaning negotiating partners in peace (well, that's what they are if you are a "realist," anyway). Still another option that seems OK to me is this:
Withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions -- cities, patrolling, etc. -- and move U.S. forces to a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance.
I previously described this as a phased redeployment plan that I could live with because -- unlike the John-Murtha-endorsed redeployment plan -- it keeps the focus on ensuring our success in Iraq. And something like this is presumably what we already planned to do once we thought that the Iraqi security forces were ready to give it a try on their own (as Maliki says they will be in June of '07).
Another option listed by Rumsfeld seems too dicey to me:
Initiate an approach where U.S. forces provide security only for those provinces or cities that openly request U.S. help and that actively cooperate, with the stipulation being that unless they cooperate fully, U.S. forces would leave their province.
Sunni attitudes are changing in favor of keeping American forces in Iraq as the Sunnis are systematically annihilated by Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army. Still, they mostly seem suicidally enraged over their new diminished status in Iraq, and they might refuse to request American help. If so, that would allow al Qaeda to move in unfettered, and it's hard to see how that would help anything. But if the Sunnis did request our help, that would amount to a sea change in the battle against al Qaeda in Iraq. As positive a development as that would be, it just seems too dicey to me. The Sunnis do not appear to acting in a rational manner, so I would expect an irrational response from them on this score.
Finally, the one terrible option listed by Rumsfeld is this:
Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and Coalition forces (start “taking our hand off the bicycle seat”), so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country.
As I have noted before, what is in doubt is our staying power, not our leaving power. The idea that we have to "send a message" to anyone to convince them that we might abandon those who have chosen to side with us in a life-or-death struggle is ridiculous. We proved our ability to do that when we abandoned the South Vietnamese, and then we proved it again when we allowed the Shiites to be slaughtered by Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War (back when the first George Bush encouraged the Shiites and Kurds to rise up against the Iraqi dictator).
Everybody knows that America is capable of cutting and running. Half our country votes for politicians who openly want to do that. Even the Bush/Kerry contest was amazingly close, and no one in Iraq could imagine that -- with 47% of the nation prepared to vote for someone like John Kerry -- that America will never abandon its allies. The default assumption is that we will do that, which is why this option on Rumsfeld's list is the only one that never should have made it into that memo.
UPDATE: Up above, I said "It's not our job to stop Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence. That's going to continue until the Sunnis finally realize that the game is over and that they either have to cooperate with the government (which means ending the insurgency) or be slaughtered by the majority Shiites." Well, according to this story, the Sunnis have decided to be as self-destructive as the Palestinians reliably are:
Spokesman for Saddam's Baathist loyalists cites stringent conditions before any talks
SALAH NASRAWI
Associated Press
DAMASCUS, Syria - A man claiming to be the top spokesman for Iraq's former ruling party said the group will not stop aiding the insurgency or engage in national reconciliation efforts unless the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad accepts conditions that would lead to its end.
Among the demands are the complete withdrawal of American troops, the abolition of laws enacted since the ouster of Saddam Hussein's regime and trials of all Iraqis who cooperated with the United States and the U.S.-supported administration.
I somehow doubt that the other 80% of Iraqis (the Kurds and Shiites) are going to accept such demands. They'd rather use Shiite militias to systematically exterminate the Sunnis, and that's just what is going to happen, as far as I can tell. In fact, it already is happening, and it's just going to get worse. The Sunni insurgency seems to think that it is negotiating from a position of power. It's probably too late, but they had better come running to the negotiating table now or they'll be negotiating their own demise at the hands of Muqtada al Sadr later.
11 comments:
HAHAH, so the very knowledgable man with a Phd in middle east history and fluency in Arabic and Persian is now talking about Golda Meir?? You mean the Golda Meir that said that Palestinians dont exist?? She was right about that wasnt she...
Why dont you actually bring up cases of "generous" Israeli offers and then we can talk instead of making this idiotic, racist statements about people you know nothing about. Youre knowledge of the middle east is headline knowledge, and nothing more. Go study the history, learn the languages, then come back and see if you have these same idiotic opinions which are based on the most shallow and unsophisticated ideas.
"Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior. Put our reconstruction efforts in those parts of Iraq that are behaving, and invest and create havens of opportunity to reward them for their good behavior. As the old saying goes, “If you want more of something, reward it; if you want less of something, penalize it.” No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence."
hahha, how nice, the white man telling the savages to behave themselves. In other words, if you oppose US policy in the country of Iraq and resist that, then you will be starved. Do we have any more indication than this of Rumsfelds commitment to "Democracy". Or yours for that matter Engram?? You think the insurgency of the Sunnis will end when...Sunnis are even MORE marginalized. You are proving your intelligence and sophistication, and the fact that your mind cannot even go back so far as 4 years, let alone 4 decades. To be fair, the mIddle east was your specialty field in college. Oh wait...
"Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Governmen"
hahaha, engram is funny. I mean, do you know who is in power in Iraq right now?? The largest Shia political movement spent its exile years in Iran. Maliki himself lived in Iran for 10 YEARS. What world exactly do you live in?? You think controlling borders will end Iranian influence in Iraq? 3000 years of exchanged culture, ideas, religion, politics will suddenly be removed and non-existent?. Wait i know, you al of a sudden became a "terrorism and Middle East expert" after 9/11 right?? lol.
The greatest irony of all is that Engram really does not give a damn about the Iraqis themselves or what they want. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis want US forces out of their country and view them as aggravators to the situations. Is this because those Iraqis are irrational oh Engram?? Maybe you, who are so well versed in Middle East politics since it is your specialty and your incredible grasping of the Arabic language and iraqi dialect in particular know better than they do??
Pathetic,
Congratulations on your choice of name. Your hysterical ad hominen attacks are indeed pathetic.
"The overwhelming majority of Iraqis want US forces out of their country and view them as aggravators to the situations."
"Aggravators to the situations"
How elegant. So what is your source? The discredited Zogby poll?
The democratically elected Iraq government wants the Americans to stay. End of story.
"At one time, this was primarily a call by the Sunni minority, but now the Shiites have also come around to this view. The survey by much-respected World Public Opinion (WPO), taken in September, found that 74% of Shiites and 91% of Sunnis in Iraq want us to leave within a year. The number of Shiites making this call in Baghdad, where the U.S. may send more troops to bring order, is even higher (80%). In contrast, earlier this year, 57% of this same group backed an "open-ended" U.S. stay.
By a wide margin, both groups believe U.S. forces are provoking more violence than they're preventing -- and that day-to-day security would improve if we left. "
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003410658
Wait, the Iraqi govt wants the US to stay?? You mean the Iraqi govt which couldnt exist without massive US military presence to ensure its very existence??? Really?? I dont believe it. lol
To be fair, that poll may be outdated. After all, that article was published almost two weeks ago. Im sure Bush has made much progress since then. LOL.
Pathetic,
You seem very young and rather emotional to me (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Look at the trends in the polling of the Iraqis -- the Shiites increasing want us to leave as they gain the upper hand. The attitudes of the Sunnis have gone the other way as they are being systematically slaughtered by Shiite militias. A year or so ago, almost 90% of Sunnis wanted US forces out right away. That figure has dropped a lot, and in Baghdad it's all the way down to 25%. As time goes on, that's how it's going to be in other Sunni areas as well.
And it is true that the democratically elected government of Iraq does not want us to leave yet. That's how democracies work. That is, you don't govern by the latest polls. Instead, democratically elected leaders make the decisions. It's that way in the US and in Iraq. Do you live in a democracy? If so, you should know that.
Finally, the idea that the presence of American troops is causing Sunnis (and their al Qaeda allies) to bomb Shiite markets and causing Shiite militias to exterminate young Sunni males cannot be taken seriously. The Sunnis and Shiites hate each other beyond comprehension, and the slaughter will only accelerate exponentially when we leave. It's the Sunnis who are really going to pay the price when we leave (unless they come to their senses before then).
Thanks for the comments.
The "leaked" Rumsfeld memorandum was in my view a calculated Rumsfeldian exit strategy. Rumsfeld did not want to leave forever tied to a failed policy of stubborness on Iraq. Instead, a convenient two days before his ouster, he writes a memo [hint: it was probably drafted weeks before] to leave the impression that he, too, was flexible, needed a change in direction, and by the way imply that the decisions on all this were really in the hands of the "Decider," and that he, Rumsfeld, was simply trying to help by making suggestions. Rumsfeld's reputation as one of the longest survivors of Washington's bureaucratic wars is well-deserved. Whatever his invovlement in any position that he's held, he has been adept at somehow disavowing his role in any major or minor disaster so as to survive and serve again....My views from a half-a-century of Washington involvement and viewing...,
Engram, I disagree with this interpretation of the motives of the Sunni Arab Iraqi insurgency:
We tried to win the hearts and minds of the Sunnis, but they have decided that their hatred for the Shiites and for America is more important that their own survival.
Certainly those are motives but they're not the only motives. The Sunni Arabs (most of the Kurds in Iraq are also Sunnis) are fighting for their way of life. It was a way of life based on receiving a greater share of the resources of Iraq than their numbers would justify and that's not something they can secure by participating in the democratic process.
They're also fighting for their status as top dogs (important in a face society).
I don't agree with any of these motives but I think that they're important to consider because they suggest that finding a formula under which Sunni Arabs will participate peacefully and enthusiastically in a democratic Iraq will be very hard to find.
engram, it seems you are not seeting the pattern. Iraqi polls for the last couple years have consistently shown that US troops are viewed more as occupiers and liberators. This trend is a consistent one. Moreover, it is a bizarre assertion that the majority of Sunnies will all of a sudden look favorably towards US troops. That means they would accept the Shiite (Islamist) and Kurdish (warlord) dominated governement propped up in its own country by the US. Now only that, but it would also mean that all of a sudden the US troops which are heavily involved in occupying Sunni towns and raiding Sunni homes and bombing Sunnis would be loved. Look at the polls which show how the Sunnis of Iraq view the US occupation of Iraq. Its pretty clear. And your reducing the conflict to Sunnies and Shiites "hating each other" reflects the level of sophistication you have with regards to Middle East affairs.
I don't know pathetic's origins, but he has the American liberal idea down pat: cite polls as proof of correctness.
Polls are for elections. They are not helpful for anything else. Polls, by their very design, separate opinions into either-or categories. Most people don't hold either-or opinions, but see advantages and disadvantages of many options.
Polls are more likely to reflect recent changes than ongoing sentiment. Iraqis have had periods of high pro-American sentiment after big celebratory events, and this support wanes as people get tired of things and want to blame someone. Did you believe that America had done the right thing when they were high in the polls, pathetic? I doubt that. Do not be quick, then, to cite them as proof of anything meaningful now.
Post a Comment