The hot button issue in the USA right now is the Democratic Party’s proposal to start withdrawing US troops from Iraq this summer and complete the withdrawal by April 2008. It’s another matter that the proposal will inevitably be vetoed by George Bush and has no hope of passing. The Democrats have made their point, it’s what the majority of Americans want and hey, elections are coming up.
In a previous article, I had commented that, in my opinion, announcing your precise date of withdrawal to the enemy sounds like a pretty dumb idea. However, I have tried to put myself in the shoes of an average mister Joe America. How would I feel about this whole troop withdrawal business? Here’s my scenario which, I hasten to add, is based on conjecture and could have no basis in fact.
‘So we reveal to the enemy that we’re pulling out. Whose enemy? Not mine, not my country’s. I don’t even know what we’re doing in Iraq. Sure, the bad guys are attacking our troops, but only because they are there. If we bring our boys home, the bad guys are not going to follow them here. Besides, the militias are killing a lot more of their own countrymen. If we pull out, the slaughter will probably get worse. So what? It’s not my country. It’s not my war. Who gives a shit?’
I would like to tell Joe America why he should give a shit. Iraq is already halfway towards becoming a client state of Iran. If the US pulls out, it won’t take all that long for the process to be complete: not that much effort either. 80% of Iraqis are Shiites. They revere the same Ayatollahs as their friends across the border. It will all be one big happy Shiite family, with Iran playing the part of big brother. Not so happy for America and its allies though. Iran is ruled by Ahmedenijad and the mad mullahs who hate America with a vengeance. When they call America ‘the Great Satan’, they aren’t talking figuratively.
Should the US care? Yes it should. Iran and Iraq combined pump out more oil than Saudi Arabia. Big oil means big bucks. Big bucks in the hands of unstable and fanatical leaders could spell big trouble for civilized nations. They can use the money to buy state of the art weapons. Don’t kid yourselves. Even America’s “allies” will look the other way, if they spot an opportunity to land a multi-billion dollar arms deal. Huge contracts mean thousands of new jobs, which translate into thousands of happy voters. That’s how ‘democracy’ works. Saddam Hussein did not really have nukes, nor was he close to acquiring them. But Iran has nuclear reactors and centrifuges and, with the right kind of money, could acquire nuclear weapons in the very near future. Oh yes, Joe, you should give a shit.
OK, fine, my detractors would say. Pulling out may not be such a great idea, but do we have any other option? We’ve been in there four years. We secure an area, get rid of the militias – and then they come back as soon as we leave. That’s just it, folks. You are not supposed to leave, until you have taken care of all the militias – disarmed them, or locked them up, killed them, whatever. Remember the first Gulf War; and the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force? It worked then, didn’t it? Why not give it another shot? Ah, but we don’t have the troops, cry the naysayers. As it is, we have to call up reservists and part-timers. We are already stretched too thin. Stretched too thin?
Now, see, that last argument really frightens me – especially as a citizen of a democracy who could, possibly, need to rely on America to protect us if, say, China – which still has a million man army - was to start hurling nukes at us. We are supposed to be talking about the world’s sole military superpower – one that is so powerful that no other country comes even close. Stretched too thin?
Let’s examine this realistically. What are we talking about here? A conflict in Iraq, which is no longer a war in the conventional sense; and a few thousand soldiers in Afghanistan. When the Soviet Empire was still around, this man’s army was presumably capable of confronting it – and we’re talking about a million man army with aircraft, tanks, missiles, the works. The United States presently has 150,000 troops, tops, in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. The current ‘enemy’ has AK-47s, PRGs and IEDs. And the United States military is stretched too thin? Like I said, I don’t get it. And it scares me.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 25
I must politely disagree with you on the concept of "winning" in Iraq. The leaders of the U.S. military have pointed out repeatedly that this is not a "winnable" war in the conventional military sense. You can only win a guerilla war against a determined foe by killing or locking up everyone of them, or by inducing them to cease hostilities. Threaten Sunni Iraq with a nuclear strike? That's an empty threat. I am not serving in the U.S. military, but I think the evidence supports their view.
What would you have us do? You suggest that we could "disarm" our opponents. How? With leftover weapons from Saddam's administration everywhere and porous borders, disarming even the Sunni faction of Iraq is the "Whack a mole" proposition that Senator McCain mentioned in a lucid moment before returning to his hawkish roots. You decry the influence of Iran over the Shiites of Iraq- but I must note that the Shiites of Iraq are the majority, and our President feels that majority rule is the way to go. Democracy solves everything, not. We cannot put Saddam back in power to serve as a counterweight to Iran, because the Al Maliki government just hanged him.
I appears to me that you do not understand the realities of guerilla war. The Sunni faction in Iraq has many adherents for whom death means nothing- "suicide bomber" sort of explains that concept. Our soldiers, by contrast, would like to survive to return home. This causes you to doubt America's resolve. That's odd. The occupation of Iraq is not a matter of national survival that a nuclear showdown with China would be. Iraq has a great deal of sand, some oil, and some quarrelsome people who will have one less thing to argue over when we leave.
I also note that as a resident of Mumbai you are free to criticize our policies without having to pay the financial costs. At a couple hundred billion dollars per year with no end in sight, the cost is not staggering for a nation of our size, but is substantial. Your idea of flooding Iraq with soldiers- double the number to 300,000? is unlikely to end hostilities, but would likely double the costs to U.S. taxpayers. Since the war is largely being run with borrowed money, we have yet to face those costs at tax time, but the payment will come due in time.
It's a shame that the Bush Apologists will still continue to parrot his ridiculous illogic as if it were truth. Some people will believe anything as long as their "hero" says its true. I imagine that if George Bush were to tell Firoze that his feet were really cabbages, Firoze wouldn't even look down, but just take it on faith and go buy some corned beef to use for shoes.
"When they call America 'the Great Satan', they aren't talking figuratively."
You are exactly right. They look at how MY country operates billion dollar economies for pornography, television, strip clubs, whiskey joints, fancy cars and fancy houses while millions on the world's stages live without homes, without medicines, without food and die painfully and miserably from their lackings.
We won't help them as effectively as we could because there's no financial profit in it for us. So we let people die where we could save them.
Also, our great Satans do not just stand by apathetically, they capitalize on the suffering by taking jobs from workers here, who demand living wages, and offer them to the poor and suffering in lower economy countries. Moving companies to places where people will fight and kill for the chance to work for simple pennies means the saving of dollars for corporate executive's pockets.
"Remember the first Gulf War; and the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force?"
Sure, but that is an inappropriate comparison. The mission in the Gulf War was to drive Iraqi forces back out of Kuwait and reaffirm that border. An entirely different mission than trying to secure a country embroiled in a civil war.
There is no possible way to disarm ALL the militias and insurgents currently in Iraq. Iraq's peace will only be reached when they stop picking up weapons and killing each other.
The deaths of our troops has not been helping them secure their peace.
housekeeping without fearing her husband or sons or daughers may not be home for dinner because of WAR. Those ladies don't count with the political pundits or all the apologists and insurgents. Those ladies don't count with Bush. Those ladies don't count with anyone except their neighbor ladies who share their fear.
How do you defeat suicide bombers? You can't threaten them with the loss of their lives: They WANT to die! Instead, you tell them that if they carry out a suicide attack that every member of their family will be tracked down and killed. And then you do that. We are not going to do that, but that is what Saddam was executed for doing.
Will Iraq become a puppet state of Iran? Don't forget that Iraq is still an Arabic country and there has always been tension between the Arabs and the Persians. If committment to faith was a true unifying force, then there wouldn't be all the separate countries that exist in the Middle East.
The recent "crisis" between Iran and the U.K. and how it was resolved demonstrates again the power of talk. Talk is cheap and doesn't cost lives, a lesson that George W. bush has yet to truly realize. Hopefully he can learn this lesson before it is too late for our country.
It should be taken as a poignant statement that in a country filled with cowboys, warriors and brave, agressive, fearless gangsta heroes that the proclaimed rightness of this war continues to leave their battle virve lifeless and their sense of nobility and rightness feeling un-called.
We cannot stay in Iraq forever, and there is no way this or any other administration is going to commit "overwhelming force" to the conflict at this point. I fully agree it should have happened at the beginning, but it didn't.
The "enemy" is a perverted form of Islam, and it will continue to exist with or without our presence in Iraq. We're going to be "fighting" this for the next century or so, so staying or leaving in Iraq isn't going to make much difference.
And yes, we are indeed stretched too thin; we made decisions in the 80s and 90s to downsize the military as part of the "peace dividend" we supposedly realized when the Soviets dissolved their empire. The theory was that we were likely to face small regional conflicts (a la Grenada) but nothing large enough to require a large, standing army. Lesson from this: never challenge the gods of history.
I'm referring to those in our country who ACTUALLY take up firearms and put their lives in harms way for noble causes.
I'm registered as non-partisan, all because of idots like Kerry, Harry Reid, Palosi, Rodham Cxxxxx, and the un-nameable flip side of the coin morons.
Of course, I understand where those hip the f**k hop morons are in America, since they're too busy running and hiding under some stupid movie star's -- one who can't hold a job nor find a job unless they hire someone to find the job for them -- skirt, or under some gangsta jocks jock -- I bet you like the smell, too.
By the way, those of you who don't support the Brave Fighting Volunteers of the United States, be aware, for the Muslim Brotherhood will find you, because the Brave Fighting Volunteers will be gone, thanks to your cut and run like Chicken-Sh*t diarrhea.
When was the last time you talked your way out of a fight with a bully? or someone more dominate than you? Wanna talk?? Talk to the hand, stupid.
Sorry, for the rant, but your Dr Spock rearing crap made me say it.
It seems clear that the Army is in trouble and to pretend that it can withstand an indefinite stay in Iraq without some other significant policy changes seems foolish. I personally feel we are like a bull in a china shop. Now that we have wrecked the place, I think we are obligated to do what we can for as long as it takes to fix things for the Iraqi people. BUT we can't do it with the military we have without the rest of the American population making some serious concessions or sacrifices. Asking the American people to sacrifice is the responsibility of the current administration and I hope he gets to it.
It is true that four years ago a great many Iraqis looked upon the arrival of the American military with optimism and hope. But American indifference to the needs as well as the offered support of the average Iraqi citizen steadily eroded that optimism. The average Iraqi citizen had to stand by and watch the looting of their businesses, museums, mosques, and ministries while the Americans, because of their severely limited numbers as an occupying force, could do nothing about it. Now, they just want the Americans to go.
Most of you do not see the broader picture of this story, Sooner or later, we have to face the facts, these terrorists should of been wiped out decades ago but was left alone. There was numerous occasions on which to take Bin Laden out of the picture but it was never done. THey have attacked numerous American interests and killed many,many innocent people.The first time that we went into Iraq(Desert Storm) there were no terrorists. We went in and did our thing and left. Saddam and Bin Laden were enemies, Bin Laden got mad because he offered the Saudi government his help to take out Saddam, he was refused, He said, if the Americans or infidels come they will not leave.It took several years for him to plot the 9/11 attacks on us but this was his revenge. I dont think Bush invaded Iraq for oil, you libs have your conspiracy theories and I have mine. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, this was all a trap (the intelligence being faulty) to lure the US into Iraq, to give Bin Laden another shot at the the USA. He figured if Bush Jr, is like his daddy , he will come. Saddam, refused the US inspectors in and throw them out. The UN tried peacefully to appease Saddam, by giving him more time, Saddam brought about his own fate by being so defiant by not allowing them into his country, he looked guilty.The terrorists do not want change, they will loose control if we succeed in Iraq, they are afraid of our life style(as mentioned above) they view our ways as being evil. Democracy is a threat to their religion. They have lived this way for centuries. If the terrorists are allowed to go on and breed, it will only get worse for us back here. If they can pull off a 9/11 they can do it again. My opinion is we have to try and rid the world(not just Iraq) of these terrorists, pulling out of Iraq is not the answer, we may be safer here in the US but for how long until they sit around and plot and will find away to kill more innocent people. They use our very own freedoms against us.
There are and will continue to be many more "opportunities" to take them on, and usually it will be sub rosa. A standing army rarely defeats a guerilla strategy; it takes "ninjas" to do that; you have to fight them using the same tactics.
But, even that is dicey. Innocents will die, more people's passions will be inflamed.
Really, I don't understand why they don't divide Iraq geographically in half; Northern Iraq and Southern Iraq. Half for the Sunnis and half for the Shiites.
Let's build them a wall between them.
Bill..your well-meant partition plan is not that simple..There may be local concentrations, but Shiites and Sunnis are intermingled througout the country. And they don't all hate each other, btw, despite being severely provoked to do so by the militias.