To celebrate the relocation of Against Goliath to its new home, I would like to begin things by having an honest debate on withdrawing troops from Iraq. I will present what I believe to be true and I certainly welcome comments telling me I’m an idiot. I think honest debating would have gone a long way to preventing the current situation we’re in and opening up the world to better communication is the most powerful weapon in achieving peace.
Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has recently hinted that when the current UN Mandate expires at the end of the year, he would like to come to terms with the United States that would lay out a timeline for troop withdrawals. The United States, for its part, would like to exclude such a timeline and would like have complete immunity for its troops to arrest any Iraqi it deems necessary.
I strongly believe instead of brushing the desire of Maliki aside, the United States should embrace the desire of the Iraqi government to attain control of security and decision making in the country. The main reason, ostensibly, for the United States to remain in Iraq because security is still not up to par and, as our president very lucidly likes to explain, “Iraq will become a haven for terrorists who will take the fight to American soil.” (I actually covered a story for the Orange County Register where Representative Dana Rohrabacher echoed those words verbatim. I was the only person in the crowd who began laughing.)
Let’s break this down so we can better understand the security situation. First, al Qaeda is virtually destroyed in Iraq and has very little support amongst the Iraqi population, something that is absolutely mandatory for al Qaeda to strive. Al Qaeda is a Sunni militant group with Saudi origins that has recently verbally attacked Iran. A Shiite led Iraqi government surrounded by a Shiite led Iran and a pissed off Sunni led Saudi government is hardly the safe-haven as portrayed by our government (and most recently by John McCain).
Second, a professor of mine told me 60 percent of all the violence in Iraq is created by the al Mahdi Army, a group of men inspired and led by the Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr (I do not have supporting evidence to this claim besides the fact as a Middle East expert, I take my professor’s word to be true). The participation of al Sadr, who was part of the government and pulled out after disagreement with Iraqi leadership, is absolutely crucial to a stable Iraq. His main complaint? The occupation of American troops in his homeland. Contrary to popular belief, al Sadr will not follow the US back to American soil. He very much wants to take part in the government and create a peaceful Iraq where he and his family can live a good, decent life. He even expressed genuine happiness in support of Maliki’s statement about the withdrawal of American forces.
Also contrary to popular belief, these men are not irrational (except for the religious fanatics, who, for all intents and purposes, very well might just be the most rational of all of us). The majority of Islamists did not and do not support Osama bin Laden’s war on America, and in fact, many flatly called it foolish and a way to the destruction of all Islamist movements. These men don’t want war with the United States, they want the United States to leave them alone.
If I were the president of the United States (and I fully aspire to be one day), I would strike the deal with Maliki and say the majority of troops will be out of Iraq by the time the new congressional funding expires in a year. I would focus the remaining troops to protecting the American embassy and American construction crews in Iraq. I would dedicate more forces to Afghanistan and try to convince Pakistan to hunt down and turn over bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri. I don’t believe their power is very strong anymore and as far as I know, they are essentially broke and thus cannot really finance terrorist operations beyond their own inspirational rhetoric. However, considering many Islamists consider these men to be protected by Allah, it would be a interesting to see how they respond to God’s men being defeated.
Within three years of the withdrawal, I would focus on removing bases from Saudi Arabia. These bases, besides providing a barrier between the Kingdom and Kuwait, do not serve any tactical purpose and only enrage followers of Islam, a religion which states no other religion is permitted to occupy the land of the two holy spots.
This does not signify American weakness or appeasement, it signifies and honest attempt to work towards a better future without the use of violence which only works to create more terrorists. George Bush’s method of using body counts as a form of progress report is unacceptable and only goes to show he is a man with a delusional sense of reality with no real vision for a better future.
6 Comments
Here’s the comment telling you that you’re an idiot (just kidding), though I do disagree with a couple points.
I actually agree that we should heed Maliki, and consider military withdrawl from Iraq. I also will not argue that Al-Qa’ida is taking a beating in Iraq, and may never recover. However, the birthplace of civilization is not the Garden of Eden you describe.
The Al-Mahdi Brigades, led by Muq Al-Sadr, are, as you say, Shi’ite. Although not necessarily allied with Al-Qa’ida, this does not make them tree-hugging pacifists. “His main complaint? The occupation of American troops. . . ” Yeah, he wants us to leave so he can slaughter the Kurds and Sunnis with his Al-Mahdi Brigades, take control of the government, and create the Islamic Republic of Iraq. You were the one who pointed out, in an earlier post, that America is the only country born of an idea, not an ethnicity or race. Iraq is not a country born of an idea, and Al-Sadr would sooner have Iraq be a nation of Shi’ites, in the Iranian mold. There has been much evidence of Iranian involvement in training, funding, and arming Iraqi fighters.
Now let’s return to the removal of US military forces. We need to do everything feasible to lend credibility and sovreignty to the Iraqi government, but there are lines we can’t cross. We have enough trouble with militant rhetoric to/from Iran. Should we double the size of the country and give it twice as much oil? Should we sign on to the genocidal slaughter of Kurds? (We’ve been supporting them since 1991, though not always very well) Should we allow Iran and Iraqi Shi’ites to declare war on Iraqi Sunnis, which will no doubt enflame the remainder of the Middle Eastern Sunnis (including your militant Palestinian cab-driver), opening a Pandora’s box that cannot be re-shut.
I don’t argue that we are in a precarious position in Iraq. We’re trying to do something that (you said) has never been done, except in America. In my opinion, the most cautious course from here is the safest. Don’t act hastily, don’t act impulsively. This is like trying to walk out of a barfight after everyone has pulled their gun. Speak calmly, don’t lose sight of the threat, and make your way SLOWLY to the door.
I agree, a hasty withdrawal is most likely not practical, but coming to terms with Maliki and at least expressing a desire to wind down our major participation could go a long way to show the entire international community that if they don’t want Iraq to fall into a state of perpetual chaos largely run by Iran, they had better step in. I certainly did not mean to paint a rosy picture of Iraq and along the same lines as the sectarian violence you mention, I think a lot of the progressive calm over Iraq has to do with the Sunni brigades allied with America. Of course, unless these tribal-affiliated troops are molded into a national army, it will only prove to drive further divides into Iraqi politics and security.
The fact is, no one knows for sure what will happen if we remain in Iraq or if we withdraw from the country, just as no one in power knew what the outcome would be when we entered Iraq in the first place. Will al Sadr wield his power and massacre Kurds and Sunnis? Maybe. Will Iran move in and take Iraq under its wing? Maybe. Will Saudi Arabia come to the defense of the Sunnis and start a massive war in the Middle East? Again, maybe.
I hate to be the one that says it’s not our problem, but at the way the Iraq picture is playing out five years after the war began, there is always going to be a reason to stay. Until we show a willingness – even if it’s just an abstract willingness without hard deadlines – the international community will see no reason to get in the way of the 140,000 troops stationed in Iraq. If, as you say and very well might be right, the Kurds begin getting slaughtered, then it becomes a problem for NATO and the UN peacekeepers as well as the nations within the Middle East region. Sadly, the United States does not have a deep precedent where we get involved in sectarian genocide. Iran does mess around in Iraq, but wouldn’t we get involved if Canada was in such condition? Frankly, it’s rather naïve of us to think they wouldn’t exert some sort of influence. If they do in fact invade or make an alliance with the Iraqi Shiites and mess with oil production, it again becomes a matter resolved with a unified coalition of America, Israel, the EU, China, Russia, etc., etc.
America is the only country based on an idea, and it is the same idea we are attempting to push onto Iraq. Perhaps this is naïve of me, but it is the very sectarian divide that makes Iraq the country it is, for better or worse. These three ethnicities will either go to war or resolve their differences, but I personally don’t see American involvement easing the tensions. One way or the other, we will leave, and the tensions will come to a head. Or as Rumsfeld says, until you remove your hand from the child’s bike, he’ll never learn how to ride it. (Ok, I laughed when I just wrote that.)
Again, I agree that “no one knows for sure what will happen if we remain in Iraq. . .” But I think I see our difference:
You hate to be the one to say it’s not our problem, but that is how you feel. I believe it IS our problem, not because of the “Pottery Barn Rule” (you break it, you bought it), but because it is in our national interest to deter an escalation of the conflict in the region. I’ve got two reasons for doing so: (1) National Security, and (2) Perception Management.
(1) (Disclaimer: I drive an SUV!) Whether or not you drive a hybrid car, the American economy is currently running on oil. All of us hop in our cars (running on gas, greased with oil) and drive on roads (asphalt) to our businesses everyday with our lunch in a tupperware container (made from long-chained polymers = oil). Unless we want to see a precipitous collapse in the American economy, followed by The Great Depression – Part Deux, it is in our national interest, not necessarily to control the price of oil, but to ensure that it keeps coming through the Strait of Hormuz to market. You think Iran has a legitimate interest in Iraq, the way we would in Canada. The difference is: Motive. It may be naive of us to think they wouldn’t exert influence, but I don’t believe their aim is philanthropic. I think Iran is active in Iraq because (a) they get to poke a proxy stick at the Great Satan, and (b) They want to turn the whole joint (not to mention the rest of the world) into an Islamic State.
(2) Since it is in OUR national interest, I don’t mind doing the heavy-lifting, and being seen as the crew doing the hard work. No, we don’t have a deep precedent for preventing sectarian violence. How about starting one? (At least where we have already committed resources and where our military men and women have given the last full measure.) I’m not necessarily a proponent of the Vietnam War, but I think the way we threw the South Vietnamese under the bus was disgraceful. Let’s be the generation that starts a NEW precedent. (To be truthful, I don’t care whether they all go kill each other, but if we’re there protecting OUR interests, why can’t we help the Iraqis, too?) Our NATO and UN “partners” aren’t helping (much) in Afghanistan, and they aren’t doing anything in Darfur, Tibet, Zimbabwe, or any number of other places. I propose that America become the answer to problems (at least where we have a stake in the outcome and resources in place!) On a side note, and not to poke fun, any coalition that starts with America and Israel will not be a recipe for success in the Middle East.
I don’t think that any American wants to stay in Iraq for the fireworks. I just want to ensure the security of our economy, and try to do something good for the Iraqis at the same time. If that means 1 more month until all is quiet, GREAT!! If that means we have troops stationed there for 50 years (like Korea) or 60 years (like Germany and Japan), I’m cool with that, too.
I agree with everything you just said, save this: I don’t mind doing the heavy lifting so long as the issue I’m dedicating my time and energy to is a noble cause that does in fact benefit national security. So, in terms of national security, a few points.
One, our national security is far worse off now than it was before we invaded due to the perception that America has created throughout the world that we will impose our will wherever we please. While Saddam Hussein was awful, he at least created a semblance of stability (even if that meant simply killing anyone who tried to stand up to him). Now, Iraq really has become a hotbed for terrorism and sectarian violence is tearing the country in part. In turn, we go out and kill “the bad guys” and in doing so, leave families and friends who now will hate America for the rest of their lives. Now we have to deal with changing the perception that we aren’t in fact “the Great Satan” but genuinely want to make a difference for the betterment of the world. I honestly don’t believe Iraqi terrorists will follow us back home , but I’d rather commit to a strong national defense instead of committing our troops to conflicts abroad.
Second, in terms of oil and gas, yes, our economy does function as a well-oiled machine (that was a pretty good pun…). However, a couple things. First, this war and the tensions growing with Iran and what it could mean for oil supplies and the security of the Strait of Hormuz have driven prices through the roof which is crippling our economy. I’m not unrealistic, I don’t think we can just flick a switch and our dependency on foreign oil will go away, but perhaps this is an opportunity to show that oil isn’t going to be the deciding factor in our decisions anymore and actually focus on creating alternative energies (such as hybrids and heavy taxes on Suburban-drivers…). Until we can figure out how to do that, let’s try and focus on maintaining supply and lowering prices, which means ceasing tensions with Iran, actually talking to them through direct negotiations, and signaling that we’re making our way to the door in Iraq. Through direct negotiations, we can tell Iran, if you invade Iraq or attempt to disrupt oil security through the Strait of Hormuz, you will face the full force of the American military.
I don’t mind having a presence in Iraq or around the world, but a presence and an entire army are very different. You mention Germany and Japan as examples. The difference there is that the Germans (I’m not sure about Japan) welcomed our presence after the Nazi party collapsed, and both countries had functioning institutions so the countries didn’t fall apart. We cannot be expected to rebuild Iraq with taxpayer dollars, even if it means oil prices will be more expensive.
Dave, this will be my last post on the subject. Mostly because (a) we’re never going to agree, and (b) because I’m really busy watching DVR’ed episodes of “So you think you can dance.”
Saddam “created a sense of stability”? The man defied UN regulations (of the sort you condone) for, what, 12 years. When, exactly, was the UN going to do something to enforce their own resolutions?
Second, you encourage direct negotiations with Iran, unless they invade Iraq or attempt to disrupt oil security. Then, they would “face the full force of the American military.” You think we should go to war for that, but not because someone is defying UN inspections of an alleged CBRNE program? (Alleged, mind you, by France, England, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry.)
I don’t get you, Dave. I don’t get you. (Especially taxing the Suburban-drivers. What a cheapshot!)
I agree wholeheartly with your blog on Irag. It was such a stupid, costly mistake to invade Iraq. Anything we do now to leave Iraq as fast as we entered it would save lives for both countries. I am glad the head of the Iraq gov. has asked for a timetable for removal of American forces. All of Iraq would return to the peace it had before we invaded it. As for Iran, diplomacy and negotiations and face to face talks are in order. Like the old saying “Give Peace a Chance” If that does’t work, we can always bomb the hell out of them.