Why We Cannot Yet Leave Iraq
Basra The Model
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in War — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Merely because certain portions of Iraq are currently safer and calmer than they were in the past--thanks to the recently fully implemented American surge of troops--does not mean that in the near future, American troops can withdraw. There have been statements to the contrary recently from the Bush Administration. Those statements need to stop now. If the Administration really believes that everything will remain fine after a troop drawdown that may be ordered pursuant to the belief that "peace is at hand," it only needs to look at Basra to see what will happen if troops are withdrawn too early:
As British forces pull back from Basra in southern Iraq, Shiite militias there have escalated a violent battle against each other for political supremacy and control over oil resources, deepening concerns among some U.S. officials in Baghdad that elements of Iraq's Shiite-dominated national government will turn on one another once U.S. troops begin to draw down.
Three major Shiite political groups are locked in a bloody conflict that has left the city in the hands of militias and criminal gangs, whose control extends to municipal offices and neighborhood streets. The city is plagued by "the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighborhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias that increasingly intermingle with political actors," a recent report by the International Crisis Group said.
After Saddam Hussein was overthrown in April 2003, British forces took control of the region, and the cosmopolitan port city of Basra thrived with trade, arts and universities. As recently as February, Vice President Cheney hailed Basra as a part of Iraq "where things are going pretty well."
But "it's hard now to paint Basra as a success story," said a senior U.S. official in Baghdad with long experience in the south. Instead, it has become a different model, one that U.S. officials with experience in the region are concerned will be replicated throughout the Iraqi Shiite homeland from Baghdad to the Persian Gulf. A recent series of war games commissioned by the Pentagon also warned of civil war among Shiites after a reduction in U.S. forces.
Basra was a success story until the withdrawal of the British troops. It could be a success story again so long as there are sufficient troops in the theater to ensure that peace and order are kept and the sects are able to live with one another.
Either that, or the case for partition or confederation is made anew. In any event, a security and humanitarian disaster will take place if a drawdown of troops occurs anytime soon. Basra has given us a glimpse into the future we must seek to avoid. The question now is whether or not we will have the courage to avoid it.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | So long, Scott — Comments (21) »
Why We Cannot Yet Leave Iraq 12 Comments (0 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The Sunni faction resigned from the government of Iraq last week!
Playing whack-a-mole with the various security issues is not a real strategy for success. The Iraqi's are not ready to peacefully co-exist that's the cold hard truth.
Should we pull out sooner and save some lives and money and watch it disintegrate or should we pull out later and watch it disintegrate?
Of course Bush will chose later....leaving the humanitarian disater to be blamed on whoever has the stones to pull out.
do you know there is going to be a humanitarian disaster?...
Ok, you don't?...then please, STFU...respectfully, of course.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
assertion that there will be a humanitarian disaster.
I concur with his thoughts and expand them to a time period longer than the US will be willing to stay baby sitting.
I presume that your words are meant for Pejman too?
but the same old negative crap. Pej says 'if'.....allowing for a potential of success to come of this.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
I'm gonna beat my dead horse here. It continues to pain me that little attention is paid in the media and in Washington to what I see as a commonsense approach to Iraq policy, and instead we're left with a suboptimal false dichotomy of options.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/aug/02/a_common_sense_iraq_...
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/apr/29/iraq_strategy_a_sens...
Conservatives, who are more likely to have read military history than liberals, should know better that a war is not lost simply because it has not been won after four years - even if the situation looks very difficult.
It would certainly help, of course, if the President understood that it will take significantly more troops - but his mistake doesn't need to cost us the war.
Thanks for your work, Pejman.
Join the Win the War campaign, joshlevy@yahoo.com, www.win-the-war.com.
Our leaders waver, but we can give them the courage they need.
gideon,
I think you will find that many are waiting on General P's report in September to give serious consideration to what they are going to support going forward in Iraq. I realize that you have already made up your mind on the issue, funny same charge against the Donks on having already made up their mind without facts, but I think most are willing to waiting until the report comes in to make up our minds. Maybe then you'll get more folks to join your choir.
If all we hear come September from the Whitehouse is this quarters version of "Stay the course", without real progress being made on both the political front and the training of Iraqi forces, selling continuing on the same course going into a election will be a tough sell.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
Seems like we already know roughly what Gen. Petraeus will report: some military progress, progress in getting some cooperation and increasing Iraqi responsibility on the local level (particularly in Anbar vs. al Qaeda), little (perhaps some) progress on the Iraqi army's ability to fight without us, and essentially zero progress on the political reconciliation that everyone agrees is vital if all this effort, expense, and loss of life is to have a beneficial effect by preventing (or mitigating) full-scale civil war and all its consequences. If his report is very frank, it will even say that the Iraqis (particularly the Shiites) are not even making a good-faith effort to achieve reconciliation.
So what do we do? The Dems will continue irresponsibly calling for a definite timeline for withdrawal (either complete or at least the bulk of our presence) and Bush will probably say "stay the course". But I continue to hope the policy I've been advocating is adopted instead (see my comments above and the links). If not, ultimately we'll probably end up either pulling out (followed by full-scale civil war, thus accomplishing nothing by the occupation) or continuing our presence with no political progress and then adopting my approach after more lost years and lives.
Did someone change the traps? Are we using the bait that gets on their feet so they take it back to their nest to kill the whole colony?
Moe said he's going to be away for a couple of days. Maybe he struck pre-emptively and wiped them all out.
"In any event, a security and humanitarian disaster will take place if a drawdown of troops occurs anytime soon."
A security disaster? We're in real trouble if the security of the United States depends on putting down every militia in the world. Shiites are not Al Qaeda.
A humanitarian disater? I think making peace between factions is for the Iraqis to worry about. That's a necessary part of forming a long-term government - assuming that Iraq doesn't eventually decide that partition is a better answer.
And when is anytime soon? This sounds like an argument for staying in force perhaps a decade, since peace is not a sufficient sign of progress. How is Iraq going to repay us for such efforts? (Or alternatively, when did the U.S. armed forces become a charity?)