NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been watching reports on Jim Lehrer's News Hour, on SBS' World News and so on and so forth for weeks now, and I can't help but wonder.

It's about the parts of Iraq which have actually been cleared and stabilised by the surge. It doesn't seem who you ask, the extra troops actually having a clear goal and being used to achieve it have made a difference to the security situation on the ground. At the same time (and partly because of it), militias finally saw the Americans as someone they can work with to restore security in their own neighbourhoods, which did no end of good.

Of course, while the stories coming from those places are great, they cause no end of confusion for me. For one thing the Iraqi government has been conspicuously absent from...well...everything the past few weeks. I assume they still haven't figured out who should be the speaker of parliament.

So any gains that have been made can only be kept in place on a micro level by local militias, armed citizens and strictly defined community enclaves, since there is no one to command the police or the military, or indeed to make laws. Which in turn means that Iraq isn't really a country at all.

The other question concerns all those places where there was no surge. Sure, many of these weren't as dangerous before, but ultimately the insurgent elements haven't disappeared, they've just relocated and will come out of the woodwork as soon as it's safe for them to do so. It wouldn't the first time.

So I see these great stories, and I see what could still be salvaged out of this mess if there is some serious engagement and commitment on the ground. But at the same time I know that these gains are meaningless if there is no government to back it up and, realistically not enough troops to do it everywhere.

Has the surge and what appears to be its localised success changed your position on Iraq? Has anyone over the past few weeks or months come up with a great new option so that I can finally be confident that I have some sort of justifiable stance on the issue?

Call me silly, but I guess that small localized success, is too little, too late.
Sure, its great that any success at all can be acheived at all out of this mess, but I think that we have to take a serious look at restructuring our goals in Iraq.

There is no actual "victory" that can be won with military strength alone.
The best we can hope for would be a complete end of violence in the streets.
This is not possible without complete and total martial law being enforced in every city.
Thats not logistically possible.

Closer to the point, no permanent change for democracy in Iraq can be acheived without full cooperation from all Iraqi's. Shi'ite, Sunni, and Khurd.
Religious extremism is everywhere, and getting these people to work together
simply isnt going to happen on any timetable that the American people are going to be comfortable with.
This sort of thing will require a military presence in major town in Iraq for the next 20 years, and likely longer.

If we pull out now, we watch the country fall into complete civil war.
If we stay, we risk losing access to a lot of oil, that isnt getting any cheaper,
and with a continuous falling dollar.
"Terror", has little to do with it.

Seek reliable information about the disposition of the enemy.
Reliable information —
Cannot be divined.
Cannot be drawn from experience.
Cannot be deduced through analysis.
Reliable information can only be gained from people with direct knowledge.
-Sun Tzu, the art of war.

America won every battle in Vietnam, but yet they lost the war, why was that?
It's because US military thinking is still based around a war of attrition bodycount comparative with the enemy. This doesn't work in asymmetrical wars because the enemy is not a military structure separate from the civilian population as in symmetrical wars, but the enemy is the civilian population itself. For this reason success cannot be judged based on tactical bodycounts because if that were true the objective would be to exterminate the entire populace. Success is instead judged based on political goals and the asymmetrical insurgent movement being separated itself from the civilian populace. From my point of view of course the civil war will will be suppress if you flood troops into the area, but is that a real solution? Of course not, US troops will not be in the country indefinitely, so Bush's 'strategy' will only ever produce tactical results, strategically the US cannot stay in Iraq for so many reasons.

The insurgency has lost momentum and the Iraqi government has gained. Critics of the war are terrified of an American success in Iraq - so the calls for withdrawal have increased in spite of success.

The obvious truth is that American troops will be in Iraq for at least as long as they have been in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. Eventually the troops will become as much a part of the Iraq scenery as they are in other places. Had American troops not stayed so long in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. they would not enjoy the freedoms they now posses - it will be the same for the middle east.

Imagine a middle east where they have not had to spend on military for a half century - they can then all become socialist and criticize the nation which made it possible for them to exist! - and Americans will be pleased with them none- the - less.

I have a simple plan: let the Iranians handle it

they have managed to avoid making any cock-ups so far so lets just sit back and watch the Iranians have there slices of cake

Had American troops not stayed so long in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. they would not enjoy the freedoms they now posses - it will be the same for the middle east.

are you suggesting a Marshall Plan style strategy where America actually works on rebuilding war-torn nation instead of stomping on them every few years through economic/military means? (that would of been a good idea in maybe 1991 with the former Soviet bloc)

also its nice to see how you equate America looking after its own ass to help

Imagine a middle east where they have not had to spend on military for a half century - they can then all become socialist and criticize the nation which made it possible for them to exist! - and Americans will be pleased with them none- the - less.

aww bless whilst the whole world has decided to scale down their armed forces in a general "well that was stupid" realization America marches on

Has the surge and what appears to be its localised success changed your position on Iraq? Has anyone over the past few weeks or months come up with a great new option so that I can finally be confident that I have some sort of justifiable stance on the issue?

It has, actually, a little. Though it does nonetheless, in my mind, prove that if the US had invaded with sufficient boots on the ground, few of the security issues we see today would have plagued the occupation. But nevermind that now...

The surge is giving the Iraqis some breathing space, and the US seem to be using it for all it's worth (see how they're targeting the financial element, so that the al-Qaeda insurgents that are in it for the money won't get paid) - unfortunately, the Iraqi government is largely absent during this period. But there is hope...

If they can just wake up and not let this opportunity pass them by before it's too late, it would be marvelous!

(Of course, just because I see some hope, some light in the tunnel where there was only darkness before, doesn't change the fac that the entire adventure in Iraq is a huge and bloody mistake.)

The surge seems to have been helpful; however, success in Iraq depends on the Iraqi factions finding peace and defeating Al-Qaeda and Iranian-supported militias in the south, according to what I have read. The drop in violence is great, and our military is first-rate, but like they say: you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Luckily, it looks like the horse is beginning to sip. :)

At this point I'd liken our approach to Iraq and the problems there to using a hammer to drive a screw.

Instead of a military victory we should be looking for a political one. Maybe not unification of Sunni and Shi'ite but at least peace. Putting troops on their land will only create more resentment.

Here's what I think.

Now, we recognize that the Iraq war was a mistake. It was foolish, irresponsible, and has cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, thousands of American lives, and has displaced millions. It was a bad idea.

BUT

We cannot simply just leave the mess as it is now. That would be even more irresponsible in my mind. If we just leave everything, it might get even worse than it already is. Further, we made this mess. We have to clean it up.

Am I advocating we continue exactly as we are? No. That obviously isn't working. But pulling out isn't the solution either. We need a middle ground.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want the families of the Iraqis and Americans who have died because of this war to live with the fact that the losses were completely pointless, because that's exactly what would happen if we just pulled out entirely without trying to fix things. Give their lives some meaning at least...make something good out of this mess. Otherwise, we'd be no better than Bush and his cronies.