A New Objective in Iraq
Cross posted with Thoughts on the World.
As the British withdraw from Basra, we here in America are struggling to find a way to meet our goals in Iraq.
There have been many proposed solutions, but there are no good options; each plan to fix or to get out of Iraq contains serious flaws.
Our strategic objective in Iraq since the start of the war has been to create pro-American coalition government in Baghdad. The original Rumsfeld plan was to go in, create some degree of stability while training the Iraqis to pacify Iraq. We would then withdraw leaving the rest of the nation building to the Iraqis.
It didn’t work.
The options
We now have 3 options available. The first is to maintain the current strategy. This is the Bush Administration’s point of view. The second is a rapid withdrawal of forces, a position held by a fairly small group mostly on the left. The third is to start a phased withdrawal, beginning sometime in the next few months and concluding when circumstances allow. This is the consensus among most moderate Democrats and a growing number of Republicans. All three options, however, suffer from fatal defects.
Bush’s plan for staying the course makes very little sense. We have tried this option for 4 years now, and it has not been successful. As they say, trying the same method twice and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
But there is an argument for this case. The Bush Administration, as do the plan’s supporters, argue that this plan should continue indefinitely in order to avoid a more dangerous outcome: an Iranian controlled Middle East.
There is no question that if the U.S. were to withdraw, there would be a major power vacuum in the Middle East. Who else to fill that vacuum but Iran? Saudi Arabia does not have the military might to stand up to Iran.
But you must consider the defects of this approach. The army is near the breaking point and morale is low at home. The cost of this approach, in money and lives, will continue to rise.
The second option is a phased withdrawal. This appears to be the most reasonable, moderate proposal. But consider this: if the mission were to remain the same – fight the insurgents and train the Iraqi army in order to increase security – then we would be doing the same job with fewer troops, and still maintaining casualties. Fewer casualties, but nevertheless American injuries and deaths.
Only under a different strategic goal would phased withdrawal make sense. Most likely, that redefined goal would be dealing with Iran. But under the same strategic goal the U.S. has been pursuing since the start of the war, phased withdrawal is the least defensible strategy.
Championed by presidential candidate Bill Richardson, the third option is an immediate pullout. If we are to withdraw, this plan would be more attractive than a phased withdrawal; it achieves the same ends without the casualties.
The flaw of this strategy is that it opens the door for Iran to dominate Iraq. The only power in the region that could have any chance of stopping the Iranians is the Turks, and Turkey has no problem with a controlled Kurdish population.
Sunnis, Kurds and even some Shiites would resist Iran. But Iraq is much more important to Iran than it is to the U.S., and the authoritarian Iranian theocracy has a much higher pain resistance than the U.S.
The situation would be an extraordinary opportunity for the Iranians; they would be knocking on Saudi Arabia’s door. The Saudis don’t have the military might to stop Iran, and Saudi Arabia could be forced into a political agreement with the Iranians. Iran could even influence Saudi oil. The whole Arabian Peninsula would be threatened.
All three conventional options, therefore, contain serious flaws. Continuing the current strategy pursues an unattainable goal. Staged withdrawal exposes fewer U.S. troops to more aggressive enemy action. Rapid withdrawal quickly opens the door for possible regional Iranian hegemony — and lays a large part of the world’s oil reserves at Iran’s feet.
Changing the objective
We have three approaches, each with imperfections. The solution is to change the strategic goal.
The obvious choice for America’s new objective is the prevention of an Iranian hegemony. Besides creating a stable, pro-American government in Iraq, what is in our national interest in the Middle East? To stop anti-American forces. Expanded Iranian power will not help American interests in the Middle East or around the globe.
The U.S. cannot control the populace of Iraq. The U.S. has never been a great counterinsurgency force, but we remain a great conventional force. Therefore, we still have the ability to stop Iran. We could position our forces in Saudi Arabia, but the last time that happened, we helped sparked the rise of Islamic terrorism. The best remaining areas are Kurdistan and Kuwait.
Residual U.S. forces would be left in Kurdistan and Kuwait to keep Iran under control. This would allow for a rebuilding of the military and a reduction of American casualties.
Since all three conventional options are flawed, this is the only way out. We leave on our own terms, with fewer casualties, with our national honor. We would have a chance to rebuild the military, and a chance to salvage our interests in the Middle East.
Simmons also blogs at Thoughts on Global Warming; he can be contacted at worldthoughts(at)gmail.com
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
This scenario sounds implausible. The only scenario I can envisage that might have good results is the one in which the rich democracies would unite in a federation which would gradually bring democracy, prosperity, and peace to the rest of the world including Iraq and Afghanistan. If public opinion in the rich democracies could be persuaded to see such developments as a way of assuring peace in the world, maybe social hope could be revived. This scenario for the time being sounds even less plausible. In other words, the foreseeable future of the region looks to me gloomy: drenched in the blood and mud.
This scenario sounds implausible. The only scenario I can envisage that might have good results is the one in which the rich democracies would unite in a federation which would gradually bring democracy, prosperity, and peace to the rest of the world including Iraq and Afghanistan. If public opinion in the rich democracies could be persuaded to see such developments as a way of assuring peace in the world, maybe social hope could be revived. This scenario for the time being sounds even less plausible. In other words, the foreseeable future of the region looks to me gloomy: drenched in the blood and mud.
I can't see your scenario being any more likelier. We can't impose democracy on other countries. We can help them along their way, but sending in a military force to rebuild a country (AKA nation building) does not work.
"I can't see your scenario being any more likelier," said Simmons. I entirely agree. This is why I wrote, "This scenario [my scenario] for the time being sounds even less plausible."
The crux of the problem is who fills in the power vaccuum when we eventually do leave. Nobody is even talking about Turkey who plausibly could try for a land grab in the north as well.
"Bush’s plan for staying the course makes very little sense. We have tried this option for 4 years now, and it has not been successful." A great misconception of "staying the course" is exemplified in this sentence. Staying the course is more in not giving up when things look bad as ups and downs are in a continuous flux. Staying the course has been the clarion call, but staying the course is not what has not been successful. Previously tactics are what did and didn't work; you throw out what doesn't work and try what might. This recent "surge" in a new tactic and not "staying the course," and it is paying dividends. To my mind losing or winning is not a 51% losing, 49% winning so we'd better pack it up; 60% losing and 40% winning, then 59/41…56/44…57/43…and back up again, whatever. Losing is giving up and giving in and this is one fight that you have said yourself is a tricky wicket (obviously not your words Sim, but you catch my drift). It is not a sieve that we are staving off for nothing, it is buying time. I believe the alternatives are to see actions that might be necessary that none of us want to think about and in that vein, we ain't seen nothin' yet. Great post by the way Sim, very thoughtful and honest…that PG guy isn't a stupe for pulling you into the Grind! Bravo!
UB's comment is excellent, baked with analytic reasoning.
"who fills in the power vacuum when we eventually do leave," wrote Chris. My answer is, nobody. Iraq will be come no-man-land ruled by atomized war lords, criminal, and, above all, international jihadists; analogous to Mad Max minus the good guy: middleMaxeast
You note in your piece (which is extremely well done) that only a small group of liberals favor a quick withdrawl of troops. I think that the base of support for such a proposition is larger than this and grows by the day, especially with respect to the report issued by General P. this week. Here is the problem. The leftists try to say that we have no purpose for being in Iraq. The neocons say that we cannot leave until we "achieve the objectives." The problem is that we already won the war on May 1, 2003. At this point, we achieved the objective set forth at the start of the war– the defeat and elimination of Saddam Hussein and his regime. It is unfair for the president and the neocons to continue moving the goal posts on the military. For example, why does the president continue to redefine the mission when the original mission was accomplished as of May 1, 2003? It smacks of dishonesty on the administration's part to do this, yet, at the same time, it shows complete incompetence on the left for them to keep saying that there was never a legitimate mission to start with. The bottom line is, to paraphrase former libertarian gubernatorial candidate Ken Krawchuk, if the people keep voting the way they've been voting, they are going to keep getting what they've been getting. It's time to wise up and support a candidate who means what he says and says what he means– Ron Paul. Nathan
Great minds think alike, right? My next major article was going to be on Turkey.
Of course we wanted to take out Saddam, but we also wanted a government that's a teensy bit more friendly to us and our interests in the region.
Damn straight. Nathan
Nathan says: It is unfair for the president and the neocons to continue moving the goal posts on the military. For example, why does the president continue to redefine the mission when the original mission was accomplished as of May 1, 2003? It smacks of dishonesty on the administration's part to do this, yet, at the same time, it shows complete incompetence on the left for them to keep saying that there was never a legitimate mission to start with." In the scheme of things, ending the game of chicken that Saddam was playing with the UN and the United States was the right thing to do for a couple of reasons. First off, after 9/11, no one gets the benefit of the doubt anymore. Several countries believed he had WMD, and whether he actually did or not hardly matters - he made us believe he did and someone finally called him out. It was just our good luck that Saddam invited into his country because after years of turning our backs of those who had declared war on us, we finally turned to face them and found a place to do it. Remember - Al Qaeda is not a country or a government, so we needed a stick bomb to attract them to a place where they could fight against Americans who were armed for a change. We couldn't go traipsing into other countries chasing down terrorists because we'd have angered allies and enemies alike - we have to respect the sovereignty of other countries. Saddam gave us a field of battle - and we didn't start this fight, but our military aims to finish it. Lastly - we won the war in Iraq but we couldn't leave that place a gaping invitation for Syria, Iran or Turkey to waltz in to and take over the oil fields. Americans spend more time rebuilding our enemies cities than any other civilization in human history. But it wasn't incompetence that defeated our designs - listen to General Pace's remarks concerning the mistakes he made. He said that at the time he went with the best information he had and the hunches that come with them - he never expected that Iraqis, after years of torture and murder, would want to continue to live like that. He was wrong - but has there ever been a war where there were no mistakes? Ever? War isn't about planning, its more about reacting to the mistakes you and your enemies make. The president has brought in General Patraeus and his new perspective seems to be giving us the results we've been waiting for. The learning curve is long and unfortunately bloody - but for those who think the next world war starts in the Middle East - the lessons we're learning now are worth their weight in blood.
Sorry for all the spelling mistakes - these small boxes to comment in are atrocious. By the way - we needed a "stink bomb" to attract terrorists from their hideouts behind foreign borders. A stick bomb would just get us expelled from school!
Even in that scenario, some group has to take control. Probably a civil war.