The newspapers are full of stories about the fourth anniversary of our adventure in Iraq and the start of our fifth unprofitable year in this corner of the world. How do we get out and explain away the fact that we were beaten by the Iraqis, 60 percent of whom are illiterate?
Maybe it is time for Congress to redefine the mission of the U.S. military so that withdrawal from Iraq will be required by the new mission statement. We can sell our Iraq operation the way that a big company might sell a division after its focus changes.
Suppose that the mission of the U.S. military were defined to be “Shooting and bombing people who don’t like the United States until they are too weak and poor to act on their animosity”. The first few weeks of the Iraq operation fit this mission statement pretty well. We destroyed a lot of infrastructure and military hardware to the point that Saddam Hussein was no longer in command of anything very impressive. The recent U.S. operation in Somalia fits this mission too. We sent some AC-130 gunships to circle at 5000′ and blow up the cars and trucks of the escaping former government.
Who will take over the nation-building and relief operations that our military has been saddled with? We have other U.S. government agencies that specialize in development work and we can always pay other countries to do the grubby on-the-ground stuff (as we are in most African conflicts these days).
Once the U.S. military’s mission has been explicitly redefined to a purely military one, our troops can withdraw from Iraq the very next week, saying “this operation is no longer the kind of thing that we do.”
[Note that this proposal is neutral as to the level of belligerence that we wish to apply to the rest of the world. I am not advocating that we shoot or bomb more or fewer people, only that we say “the military’s mission is exclusively belligerent.”]
The Iraqis did not beat the US. The insurgency is creating great trouble for the Iraqi government and its friends. Amazingly, the Iraqi government was democratically elected by millions of purple-fingered Iraqis.
The Sunni insurgents and the Baathists, no respecters of democracy or elections, decided smash things up and create a climate of mutual ethnic cleansing. They have succeeded.
Since the Sunnia and the Baathists are minorities, the impact of a US departure is likely to be a massacre of the insurgents and Baathists by the Shia and Kurds. Although other outcomes are possible, there is nobody but the US to defend the masses of Sunni.
Technical note: The Kurds are also Sunni Muslims but are not who is meant when we say “Sunni”.
Interesting concept, Phil. It’s foolish to imagine one can impose democracy on a population that has little cultural basis for understanding what it means. I agree with Fred that the Sunnis are doomed as soon as the US leaves. That’s gonna happen, whether we leave in 10 years or tomorrow; why is it in our interest to delay the inevitable? It’s not, of course, unless you’re a private contractor being paid tax dollars to provide mercen–er–security services. As always, follow the money.
Someone in the White House should read up on our occupation of Haiti from 1915 to 1934.
philg: How do we get out and explain away the fact that we were beaten by the Iraqis, 60 percent of whom are illiterate?
Unfortunately, it’s not possible to explain away this defeat. It’s only possible to accept defeat and to withdraw as gracefully as possible–see this Washington Post story for some references to proposals coming from outside the White House–or to cling to the hope that victory is still possible, prolonging the agony.
Suppose that the mission of the U.S. military were defined to be “Shooting and bombing people who don’t like the United States until they are too weak and poor to act on their animosity”.
The key thing to remember is that war is a means, not an end in itself. The objective is not physical–the destruction of the opposing military force–but psychological: the objective is to convince your opponent to change a policy that conflicts with yours. A successful military strategy is one that accomplishes this goal with the minimum force required. The actual war in Iraq, in which the US applied a huge amount of destructive force and only succeeded in strengthening its antagonists (now the radical Islamists can claim to have defeated both superpowers, the USSR in Afghanistan and the US in Iraq), would be a textbook example of a failed military strategy.
Iran is funding the insurgency, is that not an accurate statement? Further, it seems the US is in the un-enviable position of “darned if you do, darned if you don’t” – if Saddam had been left in power, he would have continued funding Palestinian suicide bombers, giving aid and shelter to other terrorist groups, sheltering terrorists, etc.
And the US would have been rightly criticized for allowing him to get away with breaking the conditions of his surrender (no fly zones etc). And how many more are alive today instead of raped and wood-chippered?
At least with Saddam and his sons dead, there is a chance that Iraq can become a halfway decent state. If it prospers economically then it will suck the air out of the other Arab despotisms.
They didn’t beat us, we got ourselves into an unwinnable corner. The only way to get out is to get out! Whether we leave tomorrow or in 10 years it will be a mess, except if we choose the later we will be a lot poorer and a lot more of our kids will die. Al Queda wants us to stay, which is why they are taunting us with our own ideas of cowardness saying if we leave they will have beaten us. They are very clever and Bush is falling right into it like a puppet under their control. With us there they have the reason to build their cause; look, even Saudi Arabia chimed in today and said our “illegal occupation of Iraq” must end. The Arabs don’t care if they slaughter each other over differences in interpretation of the Koran, look at how viciously they kill each other, more so then against us! I say get the heck out and let the chips fall where they may. That’s how that corner of the world solves their problems. At least then we can begin to heal the damage we have caused our military, our worldwide standing, and our economy.
patrick giagnocavo: Iran is funding the insurgency, is that not an accurate statement?
No. Iran is supporting the Shiites, not the Sunnis. Iran is predominantly Shiite; many important Shiite religious sites are in Iraq; and of course Shiites are the majority in Iraq. Saddam Hussein’s government was predominantly drawn from the Sunni minority. International Crisis Group, Iraq Backgrounder: What Lies Beneath, October 2002. Max Rodenbeck, The Time of the Shia, New York Review of Books, August 10, 2006.
Further, it seems the US is in the un-enviable position of “darned if you do, darned if you don’t” –
Absolutely. George F. Kennan: “I tried to point out, on the strength of this example, that our choices in foreign policy were not always between good and evil, but more often the greater and the lesser of two evils.” (From American Diplomacy 1900-1950.)
My whole thought on this is that we achieved our major objectives once we captured Saddam Hussein. We deposed him as a dictator and assured ourselves and the world that Iraq didn’t have WMDs. What we are doing now is well above and beyond what is necessary. We are trying to reconstruct their country and deliver democracy. If that is what they wanted, we would have the near responsibility to do so given that we caused so much damage. Given that a substantial proportion of their population doesn’t want this, I don’t see any remaining responsibility. Our only legacy responsibility at this juncture is simply to ensure that a Iraq doesn’t become one large terrorist training camp. We can use the money we save on withdrawal to establish surveillance and deal with this at a later date if it becomes necessary.
We did not lose to anyone.
We ousted Saddam but have not yet nabbed Osama.
Is Osama in Iraq? Not likely. Is Iraq a country that we know can somehow morph into a democracy? Very difficult question to answer.
Have we stayed too long in Iraq? Yes.
The situation there now is like trying to catch a bunch of hotdog wrappers as they blow around a parking lot in gusty winds: There is no symetry to what these insurgents do and hence no way for anyone to totally eliminate them.
We are seeing a new “enemy”, one who changes shapes and conforms to none of the “normal” enemy standars that world history has shown us over the last two thousand years.
Part of this would require that the concept of what a “vital national interest” is to engender a change to a military mission. The military does not exist in a vacuum so until you can divorce policy-maker’s vested interests in supporting and directing what the military does, this would just be an exercise in futility. I lay the blame squarely on EVERYONE in Washington who aren’t doing the right thing (whatever that may be). Maybe everyone there needs to be refreshed with a read of Clausewitz.