Iraq - Some Perspective Is Needed

cross posted at Gadfly's Muse

Discussions of the war have never been elevated, but they have now degenerated to a Warner Brother's cartoon -- with Sylvester, Tweety, Elmer and Bugs all cranked up on speed and self-righteousness.

STRATFOR GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT 08.02.2005  Stratfor.com

A friend sent me this link the other day because he thought it offered some worthwhile reading.  I agree.  This particular report focuses on the strategic geo-political objectives of Al Quaida and the manner in which this war serves to frustrate them.  It does not specifically say that this is the best arena for such an effort nor that it is being prosecuted in a way best suited to thwarting those objectives, but it does give some needed discussion.

The sentence quoted above is correct also.  Too much of what is passing forth between the parties dividing this nation is centered on emotional rhetoric and not enough is focused on finding a perspective that can serve to unite us.  Too much discussion is motivated by blind desire on both sides.  Some are willing to do or say anything to discredit the current administration.  Others, out of fear or an equivalent blind support, make similar statements.  What all of us need to do is find some common ground for analysis.  I am not so arrogant as to consider that I can supply that ground, but perhaps I might offer some pointers which might be helpful  toward that end.

First:  We need to stop talking so much about why we are in Iraq in the first place.  Let the post-war historians do that.  I am certain that GWB had some personal motives in desiring to replace Saddam Hussein.  If someone had taken a shot at my mother and father I would harbor a long lasting desire to sever their head from their body also.  But, I am equally certain that he did not undertake this effort in a vacuum.  He had military advisors, political advisors and a host of other counselors who, to a greater or lesser extent, went along with what he said.  Having spent 23 years in the military, several of which were involved in dealing with issues in the Pentagon, I know to what extent politicians can override military advice and to what extent they usually don't.  A major effort like this represented the general concurrence of those closest to the President and the reasons why they thought it was a good idea will probably not be completely disclosed until political and intelligence considerations have been mitigated.  If we still don't know what really happened in JFK's assassination, we probably won't know what really happened in the White House on this matter for some time.

Second:

What we need to focus on is the fact that WE  ARE THERE!  Saddam Hussein's government has been overthrown and that reality has to be faced and dealt with from a long-term "best interests" view point.  Whose "best interests?"  I would offer a two fold comparable equity answer:  the best interests of the region & the best interests of our nation.

I would offer an historical observation as a means by which we may achieve some perspective on how these "best interests" might be addressed.

The American War Between the States was a highly  disputed  and divisive war, particularly in the North (the United States).  By any reasonable interpretation, a plain reading of the constitution as it existed in those days, did not prevent any state which had freely joined the Union from freely dissolving that tie.  So all the questions about "why we are there" had to be faced then also.  But the primary reason for raising this analogy is not the war itself but the post-war occupation (the so called "reconstruction.")  In this situation, the United States found itself occupying a resentful and motivated primary population which was mixed with a large sub-group of previously repressed minority.  This minority was not equipped to deal with its sudden legal equality and freedom nor was it empowered to exercise the rights of democratic citizenship in a meaningful way.

I am of the opinion that the "Reconstruction" failed in 1878 because of pressures and political considerations that are very similar to the pressures and political considerations that are being brought to bear on the decisions our country is making today.

(1) There was the resort to terrorism to achieve what direct armed conflict failed to attain.

As is the case in Iraq, after conventional warfare ended, terrorism sprang up in the South.  What started out as a childish farcical "fraternity" moved rapidly to bands of night riders dressed in sheets who sought through terror and intimidation to reinforce a political agenda for ending Federal occupation and restoring the White Supremist political/religious power structure to local government. At first these various terrorist activities were un-coordinated and sporadic without a clear-cut organization or strategic goal.  That all changed rapidly and by 1868 the KKK was the shadow government ruling the Southern regions. 

(2) The strategic goal was political concessions which would allow the re-establishment of a repressive government with institutionalized discrimination and terror.

It can be argued that in 1869 the KKK was effectively and ruthlessly suppressed but that ignores the political reality of the situation.  The only thing that kept the "lid on" after 1869 was a large-scale, vigilant occupying force.  The central organization of the KKK, much like what has happened with Al Quaida today, was severly hampered in its freedom of movement and ability to coordinate region-wide massive attacks.  As is the case with Iraq today, what continued was a defocused turn to a tactical war of attrition and demoralization.  The terrorist war continued but without the huge flashy successes of the early years. 

(3) The success of the terrorist agenda was in forcing political concessions injurious to the repressed minorities of the region.

What happened was that the cost of the occupation, the continued drain on military resources, the "self-interests" orientation of the Northern commercial power, all went together to drain the resolve needed to persevere in the long-term vision needed to bring true equality and empowerment to the whole political situation in the South.  In the compromise of 1878, in order to get Rutherford B. Hayes elected, an entire people was sold out and it took another 100 years for democracy in this country to be anywhere near fully attained.  Another 100 years of lynchings, repression and systematic diminishment took their terrible toll. Why, because we in the United States did not have the resolve to do what needed to be done in the face of a relentlessly antagonistic, terrorist minded foe bent upon reasserting its power over a subject people.

It seems to me that the general analogy drawn above has some merit in considering how the United States ought to deal with the current situation. 

Whether the War Between the States ought to have been fought, on purely legal considerations, was moot.  It had been fought and the US now was an occupying power.  What was needed was not just a general outline of strategic goals for truly "reconstructing" the South.  What was desperately needed was a unified public committment to doing whatever was necessary to make the best out of the situation as it existed. 

I will contend that now, as then, the long term best interests of the United States was exactly the same as the long term best interest of the occupied region.  What was needed was a sense of dedication to the extended protection of the people until such time as the general populace had achieved the social stability required for true-self government.

In our own country that meant more than 12 years.  It still had not been achieved by 1878 though the War had officially ended in 1865.  Why on earth do we have any idea that it will take us less time now? 

In our own country the continued occupation was a drain on economic, political and human resources.  People were being killed, brutally raped or whipped, and otherwise subjected to terror throughout that time.  The effect in the North was to gradually desensitize the population to the plight of the indigenous people and cause them to focus just on the cost they themselves were having to pay.  This self-centeredness was the real sell-out and it was reflected in many ways.

If we abandon Iraq before the strategic objectives necessary to continued stability are in effect, the probability of a post-Viet Nam type blood bath is quite high.  The United States will be further diminished in the eyes of the world, not because we went into Iraq in the first place, but because, having gone into it, we did not have the moral capital necessary to do that which is manifestly in its own best interests.  No matter how large our military nor our economic strength, from that point on, we will be clearly recognized as completely devoid of stamina.  What will happen is that the world will know - that the war in Viet Nam was not just an aberration in our character, it defined it. 

Further, the long term best interests of the region will be totally given over.  Al Quaida does not have a real strategic objective aimed a simply restoring a specific form of Islamic government in Iraq.  Their goal, conforming to the general plans of Iran, is to destabilize all the current Islamic governments in the region which have any kind of open relations to the West and are susceptible to Western style ideas.  Their real objectives are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Palestine (the elimination of Israel) and others.  Their goal is to form in the Middle East a general alignment comparable to the European Union.  Such a unified bloc would have more in common with the old USSR than it does to Europe.  It would place the majority of the world's oil supplies in the hands of ruthless people motivated by idealist principles oriented toward elitist and racial purification.  Such is not in the long term interests of the subject people over whom they would govern and such is not in the long term interests of the people of this nation.

What we need to do is stop the flaming rhetoric and find some way to talk about how we can guard against a world wide reenactment of what happened in this country in the 19th century.  Until we are clearly successful we should have no thought of abandoning the effort.  I do believe that this country will have to be placed on a "war-footing" to accomplish this goal.  We will have to take on a sense of self-sacrifice and submission to perseverance.  It will cost us precious resources in terms of human and other treasures.  But, we are there, and we need to get away from our petty self-preoccupation and think about big picture ideas.

What must not happen is that the presidential election of 2008 be turned into a mandate for withdrawal of troops.  We must insist on presidential candidates who, unlike Rutherford B. Hayes, are not willing to sell their souls for short-term political gain.  We need to truly be that which our Nation has long been reputed, a generous people who genuinely care what happens to other people.  We did well in the reconstruction of Germany and Japan.  The issues there, especially Japan, don't seem to be that much greater than the issues in Iraq.  Let's build on that idea and do what is necessary to establish a political entity in Iraq which is sovereignly capable of governing itself and resisting the world of terror existing in its region.