Armageddon 2

With the growing sentiments in Washington among lawmakers turning away from our continued presence in Iraq building momentum, it appears that the military strategists have been working on exit strategies. It is especially important to consider options as the President continues to play the Armageddon card to use fear tactics to coerce people to continue to support his Iraq policies. Because of my skepticism of this administration, I cannot accept at face value any predictions that they make, no matter how sincere they may appear on the surface.

So what do our brilliant military minds with the help of millions of tax payer dollars predict the outcome of our withdrawal will be? As usual that depends on who you talk to, some tend to side with the end of the world crowd, but many more tend to believe that while it will be bad, it will not be the apocalyptic scenario being bandied around the Beltway.

That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly."

However, just as few envisioned the long Iraq war, now in its fifth year, or the many setbacks along the way, there are no firm conclusions regarding the consequences of a reduction in U.S. troops. A senior administration official closely involved in Iraq policy imagines a vast internecine slaughter as Iraq descends into chaos but cautions that it is impossible to know the outcome. "We've got to be very modest about our predictive capabilities," the official said.[1]

The consensus is that Iraq will be divided into the three ethnic groups that now comprise Iraq. We will have the Kurds in the north, the Sunnis in the west, and the Shia in the center and south. I listen to these predictions with a grain of salt, remember these are the same guys who predicted that we would be welcomed with garland wreaths, that the insurgency was dead, and that the mission was accomplished.

I have a different take on the outcome of our withdrawal. Now of course for all of us this is conjecture, but for what it’s worth here is my two cents. I think that the government is going to collapse shortly after our departure. This government has shown time and again that it is either incapable or unwilling to protect, govern, or enlist the support of the people. More and more Iraqis believe that this government in particular and politics in general have nothing to do with their day to day survival. An infant government cannot rule without the support of the people. So, the government collapses, then what?

I believe that after some sectarian violence and infighting, Mr. Moktada al-Sadr, the Shite cleric will emerge as the de facto leader of Iraq. Mr. Sadr has already been aligning himself to become the populist leader that the Iraqi people can rally behind. Mr. Sadr has been able to gain traction being on both sides, he appears as an outsider, but uses politics to advance his agenda, he appears as a peaceful man, yet his Sadr Brigade has been carrying out attacks against Sunnis. He already has a reputation for standing up against the Americans and he does not have a clear alliance with Iran.

BAGHDAD, July 18 — After months of lying low, the anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr has re-emerged with a shrewd strategy that reaches out to Iraqis on the street while distancing himself from the increasingly unpopular government.

Mr. Sadr and his political allies have largely disengaged from government, contributing to the political paralysis noted in a White House report last week. That outsider status has enhanced Mr. Sadr’s appeal to Iraqis, who consider politics less and less relevant to their daily lives.

Mr. Sadr has been working tirelessly to build support at the grass-roots level, opening storefront offices across Baghdad and southern Iraq that dispense services that are not being provided by the government. In this he seems to be following the model established by Hezbollah, the radical Lebanese Shiite group, as well as Hamas in Gaza, with entwined social and military wings that serve as a parallel government.[2]

If I were working on the plan after withdrawal, I would be trying to rehabilitate the relationship with Mr. Sadr. He will be one of the main, if not the main player after our withdrawal. Of course our clowns in Washington will find a way to let another opportunity slip away. Once again they will allow short-sightedness and our relationship to Israel to ruin any chance we could have to continue to exert some level of influence in Iraq. Mark my words when this thing goes bad, it will deteriorate quickly. Once we withdrawal there will be a lot of people jockeying for position. My fear is that due to our inaction or maybe by our design we will end up with another Saddam. Another line in the dictator/strongman series that Washington and the Pentagon love to use for just such an emergency. There are many twists and turns waiting to be played out in this plot, but my money is on Mr. Sadr and short of his assassination I think he will be king. It’s good to be king!

---

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/16/AR2007071601680_2.html?hpid=topnews

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/world/middleeast/19sadr.html

Read more!

Armageddon

BAGHDAD, July 9 — The Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, warned today that an early American withdrawal from Iraq could bring on an all-out civil war and regional conflict, pointedly telling the United States that it had responsibilities to continue lending support to the Baghdad government.

Mr. Zebari also asserted that Iraq’s neighbor Turkey had massed 140,000 troops near his country’s northern border and urged it to resolve differences with dialogue, not through force.

Mr. Zebari, who is a Kurd, said Iraq was ready “to address all Turkish legitimate security concerns over the P.K.K. or any terrorist activities,” but he warned that Turkey should not use force, and that the Iraqi government was “definitely opposed to any military incursion or any violations of Iraqi sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

He insisted his government was not “running away from our responsibilities” in Iraqi Kurdistan, but he pleaded for patience, saying that Iraq’s security forces were already overstretched “fighting terrorism here in the streets and neighborhoods of Baghdad.” He urged the revival of a security and military commission to bring together the United States, Iraq and Turkey “to agree on practical measures” to resolve the situation.[1]

As the level of support quickly vanishes from the “surge” strategy, the administration and its Iraqi frontmen are already starting to sound the alarm. This is the final card left to play in an attempt to resurrect this failed war. How can you scare people when there have already been well over 150,000 people killed with the threat of more deaths. This is akin to going down to hell and threatening to turn up the heat, it’s already a little warm here.

The chorus will continue to build as the US ambassador to Iraq, the President, and of course the ever truthful Tony Snow will began blowing the trumpet of impending doom should we decide to finally take our toys and go home. Of course the difficulty of the situation is that no one involved has a lick of credibility left. This administration has forfeited any “political capital” and credibility it had throughout the prosecution of this war.

The next question is, “Are we responsible for what happens in Iraq after we withdrawal?” And should our withdrawal policy be based on the possible outcomes in Iraq. Are we still under the, you broke it doctrine? Can we completely leave Iraq in the state it is in and not look back. Have we created a hornet’s nest of terrorism that we can just walk away from and not expect it to follow us home, stinging us all the way? What if anything do we owe the Iraqi people?

Today we have many more questions than answers and while no one really knows what will happen in Iraq when we leave despite all the dire predictions. We don’t know what is going to happen tomorrow, but we do know what has happened and what is happening today and that is that we are not making Iraq more secure and we are not helping the Iraqis to have a better life. It appears that our only purpose now is to allow the Shai and the Kurds to cement their power structures and in the end propagate continued strife and bloodshed as they exert their dominance and settle scores of the past. It will be another Middle East country stuck in the viscous cycle of senseless violence and retaliation.

I do believe in our absence there will be a spike in violence, but not to the apocalyptic level that these people are projecting. There will be efforts to quell the insurgency and the terrorist activities and these are going to require an upswing in violence. In the end the violence will subside and the Iraqis will either go about the business of rebuilding their country together or separate, it will be their choice. How they resolve the decisions that affect their future will, as it always has been, by their choice. It is the height of arrogance to believe that we are controlling that debate or the outcome. As I have stated many times, democracy cannot be exported at the end of a gun. The Iraqis will either embrace democracy or they won’t; our presence there will not force them into it. As we have seen, our pressure on the new government has backfired; the Iraqi government has yet to make substantial progress on any of the so-called benchmarks given by the President. And despite this evidence you still have the die-hards wanting to stay the course.

But Connecticut independent, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, continued his longtime support of Bush's war strategy on the Senate floor Tuesday, saying that "American and Iraqi security forces are winning." The 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate accused lawmakers of bowing to opinion polls and upcoming elections.[2]

Do they drug test these guys? If not, I think we should make it mandatory. This guy has to be on drugs to say some of the things he says. No rational person could see what is happening in Iraq and claim victory. Let’s try something new and different, let’s allow the people of a country to decide their own future…Oooooo pretty scary stuff!

---

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iraq.html

[2] http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/10/us.iraq/index.html

Read more!

Tomato or To-mato?

I believe that the American military is on target when officers ask for a mission that includes maintaining -- either at bases in Iraq at the request of Iraq or in bases in Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia -- a military force powerful enough to launch special operations missions against al-Qaeda or Sunni insurgents in Iraq; train Iraqi troops to defend their own country; and guarantee the security of the Iraqi government, if so desired by Iraq.

This approach of drawing down our forces while maintaining the military presence needed to preserve democracy in the country and launch special operations missions against terrorists would save U.S. lives and tax dollars as well as prevent Iraq from becoming a base of operations for foreign jihadists and buy valuable time to train Iraqi forces.[1]

This is an excerpt from an open letter to the Washington Post from Republican presidential candidate, James Gilmore. It amazes me how important in the political spectrum words have become. It’s amazing because someone has obviously spent a lot of money and time figuring out that if you say the right word, it doesn’t matter what it is attached to it will sell or spin. We have completely divorced words from their meanings, they now just float aimlessly in space waiting to be brought down and used for any purpose we so desire. This administration has taken this talent to a whole new level; who could forget their many hits, Clear Skies, No Child Left Behind, Healthy Forests. Clear Skies weakened environmental laws NCLB has left millions behind and Healthy Forests allows for increased logging.

The point being if you say something often enough you can change the meaning of it. This of course is true, the reason the words have the definitions that they do is enough people used them enough to mean the same thing and it caught on. It is irrelevant that the words now mean the complete opposite of their original meaning.

Reading the above quote I was struck that the candidate was promoting a partial withdrawal from Iraq. Mr. Gilmore is attempting to distance himself from the presidents Iraq policy and current strategy. This on the surface would appear to be what the Democratic candidates are promoting, but according to Mr. Gilmore this would be in error. You see, Mr. Gilmore is promoting a “drawdown”, not a withdrawal. There is obviously a big difference between the two and yet for the life of me I am unable to figure out what they are. As I read through his letter I was looking for the differences, besides semantic and I couldn’t find it.

Like you, I reject the Democrats' policy of an immediate withdrawal or a withdrawal on a timetable. Unfortunately, they are playing to the polls to obtain political advantage at home, to the detriment of the United States. But I also believe we cannot continue our present policy. We must find a third way.[2]

So, when Democrats suggest another alternative for the failed Iraq policy they are playing to the polls, but when Republicans do it, it is for the sake of the country. This strategy is as much of a failure as Iraq has been. When the ship completely sinks which it will do, these die hard war mongers will have a difficult time selling this garbage. This just illustrates that both parties can see this war has been a failure, but for the sake of political expediency they have chosen to ignore our troops. I can hardly wait to see the language of withdrawal when the Republicans get done with it. I have a feeling withdrawal won’t really mean withdrawal; it will mean a “redeployment” of our assets. I don’t know about you, but I have had enough of this name game. It is time to do what everyone knows must be done. There is no honor in stupidity or stubbornness. Wishing will not make it so, more troops will not make it so, and word games will definitely not make it so…End this war now!

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/17/AR2007061700943.html
[2] Ibid

Read more!