Something we need to talk about concerning Iraq

[beachmom]

I just read this on Iraq the Model:

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Kill us, but you won't enslave us.

Last week we stopped writing for a while and we apologized to our readers saying that we lost a close friend but we didn't want to give more details as we were overwhelmed by an exceptional situation and a huge shock. We also were afraid from writing more about this subject for security concerns but now I think I must share this with you as it's part of the pain and suffering my nation is going through.

Last week our little and peaceful family was struck by the tragic loss of one of its members in a savage criminal act of assassination. The member we lost was my sister's husband who lived with their two little children in our house.

snip

The terrorists and criminals are targeting all elements of life and they target anyone who wants to do something good for this country…They think by assassinating one of us they could deter us from going forward but will never succeed, they can delay us for years but we will never go back and abandon our dream.
We have vowed to follow the steps of our true martyrs and we will raise the new generation to continue the march, these children of today are the hope and the future.

What a difference between those who work to preserve life and those who work to end it…it's terrorism and crime and there are no other words to describe these acts.
They will keep trying to steal life from us and we will keep fighting back and we will keep exposing them but not with bullets and swords, we never carried arms and we will never do because we are not afraid and because we are not weak unlike those cowards who know no language but that of treason.
April will always be there to remind us of the sacrifice and remind us of the dream we fight for.

My God keep safe the Iraqis and their friends who stand with them in their noble cause, peace and prosperity may seem far away but we will get there and I hope our sacrifices be a bridge to a better world.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/04/kill-us-but-you-wont-enslave-us.html

If I were a war supporter, I would use this man's horrible grief and use it as a reason for "why we must stay in Iraq". Of course, the fact that this tragedy happened with our troops still there will be ignored. But there is a very good chance that this war is going to end (for us) VERY badly, not unlike 1975 Saigon. And people like Mohammed, Omar, Zeyad, and so many other Iraqi bloggers could very likely end up killed. These are good people, who are model Iraqi citizens with dreams of democracy and peace in Iraq. The religious ones actually practice their religion of Islam as the Prophet intended: as a religion of peace. And yet, in a tragedy like Iraq, they will be the ones killed, while the scumbags live on. The only hope is the summit Sen. Kerry speaks of needing to happen between all of the parties in Iraq as well as the region. Only when the important issues are resolved between Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds is there any chance that a true Iraqi national army and Iraqi police force can be formed.

Unfortunately, John Kerry is not the POTUS. Idiot is. And he is incapable of doing diplomacy -- it's "too much work". And after having read liberal hawk George Packer's recent article about Iraq in The New Yorker,

A long article found here: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060410fa_fact2

I have come to the conclusion that Iraq is going to be an incredibly devastating loss for the U.S., the Iraqi people, and the world, and will rank in our history as one of our country's Greatest Shames -- two, really. The first was to invade a country for no reason other than the fact "That We Could" and the second is to abandon it, after having completely broken it. If you read Packer's article it concurs with Biden that we're already withdrawing from Iraq. Maybe not in numbers, but in large swaths of Iraq, American troops stay in FOBs (Forward Operating Bases) and never venture out. They're doing nothing in terms of counterinsurgency warfare or protecting Iraqis from horrible crimes like the one above, as it will lead to more casualties. I actually agree with the hawks as to how to MAYBE "win" the war:

1. Double the number of troops (250,000)
2. Practice classic counterinsurgency warfare, which is 80% political and 20% military
3. All troops need to be well studied in Iraqi history and culture, trained in typical Iraqi situations, the languages needed. In short, they need to be Iraqi culture experts.
4. The troops need to have very long deployments like 5 years. If they keep rotating out, then you lose all of the trust that was gained by the first group of officers.
5. A huge amount of American troops are needed to train Iraqi troops/police, and also will need extremely long deployments to get the job done.
6. The summit mentioned above will HAVE to happen so that at the top of the hierarchy there is agreement among Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds as to their goals for a new Iraq.

So, before you all freak out on me that I'm calling for 250,000 troops in Iraq, ask yourself these questions. Does the White House have both the will, the political capital, and the ability to pull off those conditions I set up above? Secondly, do the armed forces have the will and ability to live under the above conditions without weakening our national defense elsewhere? Thirdly, do the American people have the will to put up with a rise in casualties and treasury for a long war like this? And here is the main kicker of them all: we could do ALL 6 steps and STILL fail, because if the Iraqis don't want to live together in peace and build a country, then there isn't a darn thing we can do about it. But anything LESS than the above, means we lose.

You know, we did have to live with much worse than this in World War II. But that was because we the American people had the WILL to win that war, because we had no other choice. We also trusted our leaders. But the #1 reason why the people will not get behind winning the war in Iraq is because they were lied into the war. It was a lie, and you can't build a foundation for sacrifice based on a lie.

The anti-war rhetoric never talks about what will happen once we leave; they have a utopian view that all will be well when our soldiers are gone. That is a lie. As John Kerry said: tell the truth, so here it is: Mohammed, the Iraqi blogger, may die, and it will be our fault for abandoning him after he was promised pie in the sky dreams from the neoconservatives. And, we the American people are going to have to live with that shame for the rest of our lives. Nevertheless, I still support a full withdrawl of American troops this year. It is the least worst option. But make no mistake about it -- it's a very bad option, except all the rest.

[TayTay]

1. Sadly, I disagree. We can't do these things.

We don't have either the money or the troops to do what you say. The military, right now, is very nearly broken in this country. We don't have another 135,000 troops to send. They don't exist. The only way you get to that number now is with a draft and there is no will whatsoever to support a draft in this country. It's not going to happen.

We also don't have the money. The current cost of the war is about $300 billion. (Not counting ancillary costs which bring it closer to $1.5 trillion dollars.) The Bush Admin will not consider a tax increase no matter what. Those tax cuts mean everything to them, even more than their war. IT will not get through the Congress and the Pres would never, never, never sign it.

Iraq is now in civil war. There is almost nothing that the US can do about this. There will, no matter what we do, even with a draft even with 500,000 troops be almost nothing we can do to prevent this. It would take millions of troops to really restore order. There are 24 million Iraqis and 75 - 80% live in urban areas. The optimum US troops to native population for control purposes would be 20-1. (some say 12 -1) Not going to happen. We don't have the money, the people or the supply lines to achieve this. It does not exist. It is a physical impossibility.

This is what Kerry was trying to prevent. It is the worst case scenario. Now that it has happened, in all likelihood, Iraq will go through a violent civil war for a few years. Many people will die directly from the war, others will die from war's best friends: starvation, disease and neglect. In a few years, Iraq will probably partition itself into 3 separate nations. The US cannot stop this. This is the great lesson of history that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush ignored. They were warned about what would happen and that this war could not be accomplished 'on the cheap.' They did not care, did not listen and did not prepare. The rest follows history's script.

That is why everyone wants to avoid calling this a civil war. No one wins a civil war, it gets solved by attrition. The best the US can do is get 'our kids' out of there as fast as possible before they all die too.

[ProSense]

2. You peg it exactly!

The scenario in the OP reads like the escalation of Vietnam. This is similar to John McCain's call for increasing the number of troops, but as many have pointed out, it's the same failed strategy that was employed to try to "win" in Vietnam. Then there is the civil war aspect and, like it or not, a growing majority of the Iraqis want Americans out of their country. Increasing the number of troops is a formula for disaster.

[beachmom]

3. Oh, no, guys -- we totally agree on this!

What I was giving you was the "military" solution for staying in Iraq and "winning". It's impossible. It'll never happen. What * is doing now is losing slowly. Kerry is suggesting that we lose more quickly with less casualties. If you are familar with Tal Afar (which was a success), you will see what was needed to secure one town -- 1,000 troops, and constant diplomacy by military officers. Even then, there was still incredible hatred between the Sunnis and Shiites. But they're not doing that in the rest of the country, which is why there is so much uncontrolled violence in Baghdad.

But you need to know the pro-war arguments. I am SO ready for somebody to say "we would be abandoning the Iraqis" if we pull out. Then I will recite to them those 6 things for their theory to work. How many people are going to say "oh, yeah, let's double the troops in Iraq". They won't. And as far as Vietnam goes, Kerry was critical because they didn't do ANY of those counterinsurgency tactics. They just went on the Swift Boats on pointless patrols and free fire zones shooting at anything, and alienated the population. Kerry could have done a "Tal Afar", and done a brilliant job doing it. But that's not what he was ordered to do.

In order to do real counterinsurgency warfare, you need a LOT of boots on the ground. NOBODY wants that. So that means we fail. And even if we DID boots on the ground, we'd probably also fail without an airtight agreement between the three parties.

The Sunnis and Shiites will continue to fight each other after we leave -- 100s of thousands may die AFTER we leave. And that will be our shame. Because we opened that can of worms. Even if every last foreign Jihadi goes home, the Sunnis and Shiites will still kill each other, and the criminals and terrorists (those who thrive on chaos) will run the place even moreso than they do now. Because you know the Iraqis have now learned the tools of the trade from the foreign Jihadis. THAT can of worms was also opened.

[beachmom]

4. One more point about "losing the war"

I define losing as losing to chaos. Chaos HAS WON. The Sunni insurgents and foreign Jihadis will never win; maybe the Shiites will ultimately win, I'm not sure. But in the short term, chaos has won, and we're not going to defeat it. * has lost the war, but is procrastinating the "Great Shame" as I have described above. But Kerry knows that we (the U.S.) have lost The War on Chaos in Iraq. Now it is all up to the Iraqis. They will also fail against Chaos for a long time, until all sides become exhausted and people are forced to take a second look at peace.

Does that make sense?

[ProSense]

7. I agree.

Iraq has been declining into chaos for sometime. Kerry has mentioned signs that a civil was brewing many times. Bush doesn't want to admit it.

[ProSense]

6. But withdrawal isn't about

abandoning (that argument has been made before) the Iraqis or losing. It's about getting the soldiers out of harms way, since it has been determined that they are a catalsyt for the insurgency and a target for jihadist. It's also impossible to have them sitting in the middle of a civil war under those circumstances. The U.S. and the world can still play a role in diplomacy and security in the the region.

[sandnsea]

5. A different military strategy

Is to remove our troops to take away the excuse that local Iraqis are using for recruitment. The idea is that alot of the current fighting is being stirred up by extremists, not the majority of Iraqis. Once they don't have US troops to blame, the majority of the Iraqi people will start insisting on peace and turn their attention to their own government. That can't happen until our troops are out of there. When they get their own country under control, they will also stand up to al qaeda because Iraq doesn't like ANY foreigners. The worst thing we could do is send in more troops or try to end this violence ourselves, even if the goal were to "win". It's been the problem from the beginning, the idea that we can replicate Germany and Japan.

So to those who would say we're going to abandon Iraqi's, I'd say no, we're trying to get out of the way so Iraq has a chance to stand up on its own. If we do it right, in a measured way, sector by sector, that is what will happen.

[beachmom]

8. I hope that you are right, Sandnsea, but I am FAR more pessimistic

I think that even IF the Jihadis go home, the Sunnis and Shiites will continue to kill each other in a power grab for the oil.

Your point about attracting extremists is true but the Jihadis have actually even said that Shiites are a greater enemy than "the one without" (us).

It is my prediction that this war will continue for 20 years or more, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will die, and that is with no Americans there. I do think we abandoned the Iraqis -- read their blogs, their pleads that we not "abandon" them, in the same way that New Orleanians feel abandoned. Iraq the Model is very pro-American, but this guy is definitely not liking America but then said this:

P.S. to the U.S. Government.

Thank you for getting rid of Saddam’s Tyranny, No thanks for not having a plan B.
Your not free to go back home until you clean up your mess!

http://citycalledhell.blogspot.com/

They're going to hate us for a very long time . . .

(BTW -- I realize that 80% of Iraqis want us to leave, but I still think they will say after the fact that we abandoned them)

[ProSense]

9. If they're going to hate Americans,

it'll be for starting a phony war to remove Saddam with no plan to restore order. They want us out because we have become part of the problem. While a lot of Iraqis were thrilled to get rid of Saddam, they are less thrilled about life since the invasion. The way Bush has conducted his war has convinced many Iraqis that Americans are only interested in their oil. They will be glad to get rid of us for that reason and for creating an atmosphere that turned their country into a haven for foreign fighters. I believe that the majority, the 80% or so; the rest want us to stay.

IMO, the only thing Iraq and NO have in common is Bush's incompetence, which resulted in avoidable casualties.