“Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” Prov 16:18
The beginning of a New Year is a natural time for reflection, planning, and perhaps new direction if things didn’t work out so well last year. Unfortunately, we don’t seem to see much of that going on in the White House.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq has now lasted longer the WWII and will quickly cost more American lives than were lost in the 9/11 attacks. The level of violence in Iraq is at an all time high and the economy and infrastructure there remains in a shambles.
Mr. Bush’s answer to these problems is more of the same. The strategy that he appears to be considering is adding more troops. Here’s the theory behind that strategy. If there are sufficient troops on the ground to quell the warring factions in any particular geography and then hold that area by leaving troops there, we can expand the parts of the country that are able to live in relative peace. The hope then is that those Iraqis who support moderation will be able to act on their beliefs without fear of reprisal. If the fighting factions can be squeezed down into smaller and smaller enclaves, the rest of the country can return to some state of normalcy and the Iraqi police can take over.
The problem is that it won’t work.
The reason that it won’t work is because the Iraqi government forces are unreliable. The tribal bonds that motivate the current fighting are much stronger than loyalty to the central government. Finally, if the US switches from “search and destroy” tactics to “secure and hold” tactics, the opposing fighters will also adapt their tactics to much smaller sniper and assassination engagements. The door to door fighting that will result will drive up US and civilian casualties and further weaken our position with the Iraqi population as well as here at home.
Perhaps Mr. Bush is motivated by pride, or maybe a genuine fear of the consequences of our failure. The reality, however, is that we have put ourselves in a position where this is not winnable under the current definition of victory. We have to change our expectations of what is possible and recognize that until the Iraqis sort out their own internal differences, there is precious little we can do to bring peace to that region.
The best that we can do is prevent Iraq’s neighbors from taking advantage of the instability in Iraq and perhaps foster a transition so some federated state where the sectarian fighting can be contained and those areas that are currently peaceful can make some progress toward self-government.
I don’t think Bush is motivated by pride any longer based on his drinking and getting really gray. We’re only there so this administration can win. I watched that little slogan “Do you want to win?” echoed by Cheney, Mrs. Cheney, and Bill O’Reilly during the past elections. I thought it was a slick try on their part to get the general public rolling on their winner/loser track. Nobody wants to be a loser. But it didn’t work.
What do you think? Would Iraq be better divided into territories? Sunni’s can gather in the south near their cohorts in the United Arab Emirates. The Shiites can have central Iraq. The Kurds can have northern Iraq. Splitting Iraq would make them easier to deal with from our standpoint. Of course this won’t work if there isn’t even distribution of oil wells among them. Oddly, religious beliefs and oil are the main considerations for territory.
Ria,
Thanks for your thoughts.
I don’t think that we are going to be able to leave the country in any sort of stable state even if it ends up being divided along the lines that you suggest. There are just too many groups intent on revenge at the moment.
The administration hope, I believe, is to establish some semblence of stability through brute force, and then leave. But I don’t think that they will even be able to do that.
I pray about it regularly because this looks like one of those situations where the divine is going to have to lead us through.
Jeff
Your statements and those of Ria’s are equally correct. Iraq is a no win situation. It’s much like Vietnam – the only difference is the lack of demonstrations. I lost several friends in Viet Nam and so far in Iraq, I know 2 of the young men who have lost their lives. I’m a military brat and Ria has been around the military long enough to know that the US doesn’t go into a country without there being something in it that lines someones pockets. Viet Nam gave us rubber – Iraq gives us oil. Africa doesn’t have anything we want so we let the muslim militia slaughter the Africians – thousands and thousands. As arrogant Americans and the leading super power of the world, we certainly are able to “justify” our fight against communism (Viet Nam) and oppression or should I say WMDs – at least as long as there is a motivation and underlying reason (rubber & oil). I just wonder what our rationale is for not stopping the oppression and murder in Africa?
MLK,
Thanks for your thoughts.
I agree that what we say about our foreign policy and what we do don’t always seem in sync.
I had an earlier post regarding funding changes to family planning clinics in Africa. By replacing public policy professionals with conservative religious zealots, AIDS casualties and death from botched back street abortions have skyrocketed. All this in the name of promoting an abstinance/anti-abortion agenda.
Hopefully the Iraq disaster will discredit the whole neo-con foreign policy philsophy that might makes right.
Jeff
Religious zealots about abortion and saving every single life and blinder than bats about the earth that sustains all life. I think it’s more like this though. The religious pro lifers can’t recognize environmental issues. Pollution is relative to population. Heaven forbid, population control is in the future. The environment and the zealots are in direct conflict. They avoid the issue like the plague. Their selective in their passion that’s for sure.
Ria,
Nice to hear from you again.
There certainly does seem to be a bias for saving the lives of the unborn and a blind eye to the plight of those already living on this earth. There also seems to be a sort of self-righteousness associated with unwanted pregnancy. Though I haven’t heard a conservative politician actually say so, the sense is that unwanted pregnancy is appropriate punishment for sexual promiscuity. So the logic goes, why should society worry about children conceived out of wedlock by immoral women. This allows pro-life folks to simplify the issue to a personal morality choice and blissfully ignore the much more complex issue of poverty, under education, and over population.
Now that makes sense doesn’t it.
Jeff