If there's any service we here at home can perform for the troops in Iraq, it is simply, but importantly, to be aware of the issues and to follow the debate this month as it unfolds. An informed electorate is an intelligent electorate. The stakes are high, particularly for those who, every day, put their lives on the line.
The following information is intended only to provide a framework for your consideration of the subject. It indicates the intended timeline for the debate and the major positions that are likely to be expressed on both sides of the issue.
Don’t be discouraged if you're undecided. It's a complex issue with no easy answers. The information we'll hear and read may provide clarity, or it may not. There may even be less of a difference between the positions than we are now anticipating. But, at the very least, we will be doing our part for the troops by simply staying informed.
ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE:
THIS WEEK: General David H. Petraeus, commander of our forces in Iraq and Ryan Crocker, our ambassador to Baghdad are meeting with President Bush, in both Iraq and Washington, to present their assessment of the situation in Iraq.
YESTERDAY, SEP 4: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee began hearings on the Government Accountability Office assessment of progress in Iraq.
TODAY, SEP 5: The House Armed Services Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee begin hearings on the GAO report.
TOMMORROW, SEP 6: Marine General James L. Jones’ report on the Iraq security forces will be the subject of hearings by the Senate and House armed services panels. Also, last month’s National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq will be the subject of a closed hearing by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
NEXT MONDAY, SEP. 10: General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will testify before the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees.
TUESDAY, SEP. 11: Petraeus and Crocker will testify before the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees.
WEDNESDAY, SEP. 12 (TENTATIVELY): Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
BY FRIDAY, SEP. 14, OR EARLIER (ALSO TENTATIVE): President Bush will present his position on whether a change in strategy is needed.
WEEK OF SEP. 16: The Senate will resume debate on legislation to force troop withdrawals.
LIKELY ARGUMENTS FOR STAYING THE COURSE, OR AT LEAST POSTPONING TROOP WITHDRAWALS:
-It has only been three months since the troops achieved their full strength under the surge and this is not sufficient time to expect complete results.
-Nevertheless, there have been improvements as a result of the surge, and the troop strength should be maintained in order to allow these improvements to continue.
-U.S. military deaths have dropped by half over the past three months and there has been a reduction in the number of deaths from roadside bombs.
-Al Qaeda is off balance “at the very least.” Sunni groups, particularly in Anbar Province, have worked closely with U.S. army units to effectively help eradicate elements of al Qaeda of Iraq.
-Also, there has been a “75% drop in ethnic and religious killings since last year,” prompting Prime Minister Maliki to say on Sunday that the civil war is virtually over. Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr has contributed to the improvement by ordering his Mahdi army to stand down for six months. The hiatus will include a suspension of attacks on U.S. troops.
-In addition, the number of seizures of insurgent weapons caches has doubled between January and August.
-The maximum troop strength must remain in place in order to also allow the Iraqi government to continue addressing the benchmark legislative agenda previously outlined by President Bush. Of primary importance is the proposed oil law, which will dictate the distribution of the revenues from that industry between the various ethnic and religious groups in Iraq.
-A pullout by U.S. troops could lead to chaos and a new level of violence and a resumption of the civil war. This, in turn, could include the involvement of other countries in the area. An expanding conflagration in the middle of the vital Middle East oil producing region could wreak havoc on world economies and tip the U.S. into a serious recession, or worse.
-A specific concern is that such a pullout will leave the door open for Iran, a Shiite nation, to draw the Shiite run government of Iraq directly into its sphere of influence, thus presenting an immediate threat to the Sunni run kingdom of Saudi Arabia as well as to other neighboring Mideast countries.
LIKELY ARGUMENTS FOR AN IMMEDIATE AND SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN THE U.S TROOP STRENGTH.
-The war has been poorly planned from the beginning and allies, including Great Britain, are pulling out. In just the past few days, two retired British generals have criticized America’s strategy, saying it was fatally flawed and intellectually bankrupt. They specifically cited the lack of postwar planning and America’s decision to disband Hussein’s Iraqi army, which drove its members straight into the ranks of the insurgency. A new biography on President Bush that was released yesterday, titled “Dead Certain,” by Robert Draper, reveals that the president, himself, does not now recall why his administration made the fateful decision regarding the Iraqi army.
-Given the track record, there is little reason to believe that decisions being made today are appropriate. In fact, they may be more geared to salvaging the reputation of the administration than to achieving the best results in terms of our national interests.
-The results of the surge have not been encouraging. The Associated Press reported that civilian deaths in August exceeded 1,800, the second deadliest month since the buildup began, and roadside bomb attacks on U.S. troops reached an all time high in July. The repression of insurgent activity in some areas has only resulted in the movement of the terrorists to other areas, and there is no way to effectively control the entire country, even with the elevated troop levels.
-Civilians in Iraq not only live with continuing dangerous conditions, but there is little progress in providing even the basic services, such as electricity and drinking water. The United Nations International Organization for Migration and Iraq’s Ministry for Displacement and Migration both report that the number of Iraqis fleeing their homes has increased during the U.S. occupation.
-Escalating the migration problem into a looming humanitarian crisis, Syria announced this week that it is imposing strict visa requirements on Iraqis, thus cutting the only accessible escape route for the 3,000 to 5,000 refugees who cross the border every day.
-It is far too early to conclude that the recent military improvements will be permanent, with the possible exception of Anbar province. Muqtada Sadr has already threatened to retract his order for his Mahdi army to stand down.
-At the same time, the Iraqi government has had plenty of time to accomplish results, but its progress has been negligible. It was the administration’s original intention to measure the progress of the surge by the Iraqi government’s ability to approve the so-called benchmark legislation. In that regard, it has been totally unsuccessful. None of the benchmarks have been achieved, the parliament, which reconvened yesterday, has been in disarray and the cabinet has been crippled by defections.
-Maliki, himself, has suggested on several occasions that his ability to govern would be more effective with less involvement by the U.S. government and with a reduced presence of U.S. troops. While the Iraqi police agencies have been labeled as ineffective by the U.S. intelligence community, the Iraqi army has been given relatively decent marks, and, in Maliki’s stated opinion his army could easily take on more of the responsibilities now being handled by U.S. troops.
-The threat of Iran’s possible influence over the Shiite led government in Iraq is not going to go away. It is a direct consequence of our decision to effect a regime change in Iraq, and the threat will now always be there. Therefore, this should not be a consideration in relation to the timing of the beginning of a U.S. withdrawal.
Dave McGill, News Correspondent……………….
Dave’s column, “The Contrarian,” published every Wednesday to Gather Essentials: News will occasionally present a contrary view to various aspects of the news, or an alternate take on the conventional wisdom of the day………….
Dave has been a senior officer of a large eastern insurance company, involved in economic projections and investment strategy, president of a Midwestern mortgage banking company, and a financial consultant in Southern California, serving clients in the field of commercial real estate development…………….
You can find all of Dave’s “The Contrarian” columns at: http://gather.com/thecontrarian...... Keep up with Dave’s other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network – just click here: http://atadaskew.gather.com........ You’ll find Dave and other News Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other News experts at News.gather.com.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 22
JMO but I think the politicians in DC are going to chew and postulate on this issue as long as they can get some kind of political gain or think they can.
The reality now is that southern Iraq will be Shite/Iranian dominated. The west will be Sunni controlled and the north will be as it was in Saddams time, a de facto Kurdish state.
If you step in a cowpie don't expect to come out with a shoeshine.
As far as domination of the Middle East, do you want Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China ... or just leave it up to random chance. America may not be perfect, but one of the reasons we are strong and were the only major power left standing at the end of WWII is that we are hands on and mostly avoided being totally stupid ... even though our Presidents might like to act that way.
> If there's any service we here at home can perform for the
> troops in Iraq, it is simply, but importantly, to be aware of
> the issues and to follow the debate this month as it unfolds.
I think this is the truest statement. There is more to this than meets
the eye. The anti-war movement as far as I can see is motivated by
two real points.
One has been the anti-war left's rememberences of Viet Nam. Though
it has been very much knee-jerk in some cases the point is valid if the
comparsion is weak. The lesson to be learned is to monitor our
military involvement to make sure it is measured, and does not get
out of control.
The second valid point is that we have not seemed to be doing very
well, and the President's command has been outside the channels
of the normal military, ie. Rumsfeld, and hand picked lackies. He has
also been hands off and very slow to react or repair mistakes ... and
by slow I mean incompetent. This angers me no end. While he plays
commander in chief our men are in harms way ... but he does not
seem to take that seriously except in his speeches. Lately with the
surge this has appeared that it might change, but it seems like not
at this point. Bush needs to win some victories or re-evaluate what
he and the country are doing in Iraq.
The point is that we are probably not going to leave, so the least
he can do is make progress. Iran is going to be the next challenge
and we are not leaving Iraq while there is any chance that we are
going to have to tangle with Iran I estimate.
I read recently that one reason that the violence and death toll is down in Baghdad is because the Shiite death squads and militias are systematically clearing out Sunni neighborhoods, forcing the residents to flee for their lives. Obviously there will be less violence still when the ethnic cleansing is completed. I'm not sure that's what Mr. Bush has in mind when he points to "progress", however.
Before Bush alienated the world by blowing off the U.N. and the international community on Iraq, the plan had been to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for a very limited time. They were to be replaced by U.N. led peacekeepers from neutral, preferably Middle Eastern countries. Instead the U.S. has had to deal with Iraq without much international support - the result of the arrogance of our president and his advisors.
The U.S. needs to begin building support for an international peacekeeping force now. Our country is great at fighting wars - it is inept when it comes to building or rebuilding countries (South Vietnam, Somalia for example). The vast majority of our spending on has gone towards military operations, when what the Iraqis need is help rebuilding their country. No stability will come to Iraq until the country's infrastructure is repaired and economy stabilized. These are not tasks the U.S. has shown any proficiency at in the past three to four decades.
I will be voting for Dennis Kucinich for president because he has a great plan for Iraq. It involves replacing U.S. troops with an international, U.N. backed peacekeeping force. The U.S. would continue to help pay for Iraq's reconstruction but the burden on the American budget would be far less.
I would respond to your first response to me, but it's so incoherent I don't have a clue as to what you're babbling on about. Add your second comment to that as well. What the heck are you talking about? You run all sorts of comments together in one long stream of consciousness that sounds like you read too many talking points, didn't understand any of them, and sort of just regurgitated them out in one big mess.
Your final comment is simply juvenile ranting and not worth commenting. Are you over 15?
As for having a problem as to "which side" I can see why you're confused. A lot of people assume that if you believe A then B, C, and D also follow. For those of us who consider ourselves independent thinkers we take each issue separately and formulate our positions based on a lot of different factors. So for me it is entirely possible for me to hold a position you would regard as extreme left wing, one that is extremely right wing, and any number that are somewhere in the middle. I absolutely refuse to allow an ideology to dictate my stance on the issue.
A lot of people who insist on all or nothing approaches to politics and social matters find this confusing. Personally I would find having my opinions fed to me insulting. So I'm all over the board depending on the issue. I am a strong advocate of equality of women for instance, but equally strong in my aversion to illegal immigration. I believe in universal health care in some form or another, and am against exporting our jobs overseas. On the other hand I support fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and believe our entire tax system needs to be overhauled.
I realize it's extremely difficult to deal with someone you can't put a label on then stuff into a convenient little box, but it makes my life so much more interesting.
Keep on commenting though and I will try to factor in what you have just told us. I promise to treat you just as I have already though ... according to what you say. :-)
I would suggest that you fill that out and maybe even mention in there somewhere what your handicap is and how you feel about it ... nothing to be ashamed of, we all have some kind of handicap of one sort or another I would imagine.
There should be no shame in truth.
I'll give you an example. You accuse people of being "on both sides of the issue" rather than simply accepting that some people see things dramatically different than you do. I admit that blind Bush adulation confuses the heck out of me.
I was being entirely honest btw when I said I couldn't understand what you were asking me. The 15 year old comment was out of line, and for that I apologize.
I am the ex wife, daughter, and sister of career military so I know what that's all about. This discussion isn't about the military being allowed to do its job. They've never once failed us. The issue is whether they can actually succeed as hamstrung as they are by all the bad decisions and stupid behavior of those at the very top. I would find it discouraging that our commanders and the Commander in Chief has no definition of victory and no path to get there, and more discouraged that my buddies and I were in harms way and dying every day while a bunch of politicians in Iraq are off popping bon bons and sipping drinks by the pool.
This isn't Normandy. This isn't Vietnam, though there are a lot of parallels there. The problem in Iraq is not and never has been our military. Mr. Bush was advised about all that has happened long before he ever invaded and chose to ignore those who actually knew something about the political, historical, and ethnic problems there. Why do you continue to support him and his failed policies? Don't you think, even for an instance, of what we are losing over there because of these failed policies? How much more could these people contribute if they were not laying in a ditch somewhere dead from an insurgent's bomb? How many kids would have mothers and fathers while they were growing up?