A defeat in the War on Terror

[iron81]

On 9-11, we identified Radical Islam as the greatest enemy that America faces. Their goal was to spread their ideology throughout the Middle East. When we invaded Iraq, we presented them with a golden opportunity to advance this goal.

Back when the insurgency began, we began to get an inkling that Al-Qaeda types were trying to infiltrate Iraq. They wanted to prevent the formation of a classically liberal democracy and install a theocracy similar to Iran. The tactic they chose to accomplish this was terror. They wanted to create chaos in the the country so the American occupation and Iraqi government would become untenable. They believed that when this was accomplished, a theocracy would take root.

The defeat for America and her allies is that they have achieved the first part of this plan. The sectarian violence caused by people sympathetic to Al-Qaeda has spiraled to the point that radical Islamists have seized entire cities in Iraq and dozens of people are being killed every day. The Iraqi government is falling apart.

When I say lost, I intentionally used the past tense. There is nothing the American military can do to stop this sectarian violence. The simple fact that the US and Iraq hasn't shut down these militias proves that they don't have the firepower or the political capital to do it.

Unlike some liberals, I believe that Iraq is a major part in the War on Terror. Where I differ from conservatives is that our continued presence is a major hinderance to this effort. Donald Rumsfeld once wondered aloud whether we were winning the war on terror. He was curious because there is no front line to measure the success of our campaign. One tactic that historians use to measure the success of military campaigns is to keep track of the winners and losers of the battles. Since the battle to establish an Iraqi government is the latest campaign in this war, I think it is fair to say we are losing the War on Terror.

So what do we do now? Any military tactician worth his salt will tell you that when your situation in battle is untenable, there is no shame in a tactical retreat. "Live to fight another day" is a perfectly sound strategy. The best chance for preventing an Islamic takeover of Iraq is to remove the irritant that started the insurgency: American troops. The Iraqi government has hundreds of thousands of troops and police officers under its command, if they can't stop it now, they won't be able to stop it after 3 more years of Iraqi rage at the presence of American troops. The best chance we have to win the War on Terror is to leave Iraq before it degenerates into complete anarchy.

[BluffTHIS!]

So you are saying that if we withdrew tomorrow that order and stability would quickly follow? Your argument would make more sense if it posited anarchy would be the result either way.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
So you are saying that if we withdrew tomorrow that order and stability would quickly follow? Your argument would make more sense if it posited anarchy would be the result either way.

[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I don't know if the Iraqi government would survive if we withdraw tomorrow. What I do know that we will eventually leave, but the longer we drag it out, the less likely it is that they will survive when we do leave. Also, the longer the chaos persists under US rule, the more likely it is that an Islamist government will take over instead of a more palatable alternative like a split.

[evil twin]

The big problem now is that if all troops and support left the place would become even more of a sectarian bloodbath than it already is. How long that would last is up for debate but there would for sure be a major wave of killing beyond anything we've seen already. That's not to diminish how bad it is now, it's terrible.

I was going to post a seperate thread but this probably fits in here reasonably.

"Medics beg for help as Iraqis die needlessly"
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1904962.ece

The problem is the country is severely under resourced, we have allowed the infrastructure to go backwards so many years that if we abandon these people now I can't imagine how bad it would get before any sort of improvement arrives.

The amazing thing to me is that people still support this action as the right thing. I wasn't pro the war at the time but I certainly wasn't anti it either. On paper the idea of getting rid of a terrible dictator seemed a sound plan. Had I known anything of the history of how Iraq came to be or how Saddam held together the factions of people who mostly hate each other I would have been against it. I don't understand how the president of the US and the prime minister of the UK both utterly failed to understand the historical backdrop of what they were doing.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
The amazing thing to me is that people still support this action as the right thing. I wasn't pro the war at the time but I certainly wasn't anti it either. On paper the idea of getting rid of a terrible dictator seemed a sound plan. Had I known anything of the history of how Iraq came to be or how Saddam held together the factions of people who mostly hate each other I would have been against it. I don't understand how the president of the US and the prime minister of the UK both utterly failed to understand the historical backdrop of what they were doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with you, but do you really think they failed because of lack of knowledge? my asz, going into war is not a one day decision, with best analitics, everything was predicted in a way things are going on now. of course, they couldn't publicly release nowadays picture at that time. surprised? google to find more.

[morphball]

There is plenty the US and Iraqi government can do to stop this:

1. Kill Al-Sadr, and and defeat his militia;

2. When another Shiite city erupts in violence over this, go in and bomb the [censored] out of the city and kill the militias unmercifully;

3. Instruct Iran and Syria that they are not to support the insurgency or they will be bombed unmercifully;

4. Write the Iraqi's constitution for them with a separation of church of state;

5. Whenever an insurgency arises, respond back one-hundred fold and burn the offending cities. Preferably you have the Iraqi troops do this.

Sounds bloody huh? Well it is, but its the only way to win against an insurgency. This will never happen, so yeah we can write it up as a loss. But really, maybe we should have our intelligent leaders read "The Prince", because this is where I came up with this winning strategy. Then they should decide if they are willing to do this? If not, they should have never started.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Kill Al-Sadr, and and defeat his militia;

2. When another Shiite city erupts in violence over this, go in and bomb the [censored] out of the city and kill the militias unmercifully;

3. Instruct Iran and Syria that they are not to support the insurgency or they will be bombed unmercifully;

4. Write the Iraqi's constitution for them with a separation of church of state;

5. Whenever an insurgency arises, respond back one-hundred fold and burn the offending cities. Preferably you have the Iraqi troops do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words:

1. Use more terrorism to force the Iraqi people into a government that we want.

2. Write on a piece of paper that they can't allow one certain arbitrary human motivation to influence another motivation, even though the first is overwhelmingly influential on every motivation they have.

3. Cross your fingers and hope they don't democratically elect another religiously conservative terrorist organization into their government...again.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Write on a piece of paper that they can't allow one certain arbitrary human motivation to influence another motivation, even though the first is overwhelmingly influential on every motivation they have.

[/ QUOTE ]

This will go a long way, hmkpoker. Sunni's hate Shi'ites, and Shi'ites hate Sunni's. So a Sunni is not going to be happy going to a court implementing Sharia if its administered by a Shi'ites. They say they want islam in their government, but each side wants their islam. The only solution is that neither side can have their islam in the government.

[ QUOTE ]
1. Use more terrorism to force the Iraqi people into a government that we want.


[/ QUOTE ]

"terror" is a catchy word, and it's funny how people use it these days. Anyways, whether you call it "terror," or "military operations", or "liberation" its all just killing people. Now, I have submitted that it is killing people, but please review your history books and find me examples of insurgencies being repressed without killing people.

Also, see my repsonse to bisonbison

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

This will go a long way, hmkpoker. Sunni's hate Shi'ites, and Shi'ites hate Sunni's. So a Sunni is not going to be happy going to a court implementing Sharia if its administered by a Shi'ites. They say they want islam in their government, but each side wants their islam. The only solution is that neither side can have their islam in the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. Sit down and think about this. A wants X. B wants Y. A government that amalgamates A and B cannot provide X and Y at the same time. So instead, you're just going to deny BOTH of them what they want.

This is exactly the same logic as solving the evolution v. creationism problem in public schools by passing a law that denies the teaching of either. It can not work.

Why not just admit Iraq is a failure, let the Sunnis have their part, the Shia have their part, the Kurds have their part, and get on with life?

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This will go a long way, hmkpoker. Sunni's hate Shi'ites, and Shi'ites hate Sunni's. So a Sunni is not going to be happy going to a court implementing Sharia if its administered by a Shi'ites. They say they want islam in their government, but each side wants their islam. The only solution is that neither side can have their islam in the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. Sit down and think about this. A wants X. B wants Y. A government that amalgamates A and B cannot provide X and Y at the same time. So instead, you're just going to deny BOTH of them what they want.

This is exactly the same logic as solving the evolution v. creationism problem in public schools by passing a law that denies the teaching of either. It can not work.

Why not just admit Iraq is a failure, let the Sunnis have their part, the Shia have their part, the Kurds have their part, and get on with life?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem admitting that iraq is a failure. The problem with letting each group have its own country is it won't accomplish anything. In fact, it will make the situation much much worse.

If Sunni's get their own state, they won't have any oil, but they will believe that the oil is theirs. If the Kurds get their own state, then Kurds in Iran and Turkey will revolt.

If the Shiites get their own state, then the Shiite Arabs in Iran will revolt.

The Middle East was chopped up and traded around, and if you want to undo it, then you have to undo it all, there's not going to be a lot of people in favor of that.

So if we can't unravel the mess from colonialism, what can we do to make them live together?

For starters, people need to think of themselves as an Iraqi and then a Shiite. Having a secular government is the only way you will accomplish that (combined with a willingness to actually suppress insurgencies).

I don't see your analogy of the the creationist v. evolutionist as being relevant or apt to this issue. What does taking evolution out do? It's not a separation of church and state, because the church is getting its way by having information it views as heretical censored by the state.