The sort answer is that 4000 US soldiers and as many as 1.2 Million Iraqi’s have died in this conflict over the past five years. We are currently spending somewhere around $12B per month and there is no end in sight.
A quick summary of the most recent conflict is that the British pulled out of Basra in December turning the area over to local militia. The current fight was predicted by many (including me). It is between Shiite groups for control of a very valuable distribution point for Iraqi goods (read oil). Many of those Shiite groups make up the current government coalition.
The Iraqi government has made an effort, with the help of American and British air power, to bring order back to the area, but so far the militia are winning.
This again begs the question of American presence in the area. The troop surge and associated “incentives” (guns and money) encouraged rival groups to focus their efforts on al Qaeda in Iraq rather than each other. It also worked to the degree that major political figures like Moktada al-Sadr were willing to stand down in return for making some money. The hope was that during this short period of political calm, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, could begin dividing up enough of the political pie in Iraq so that folks like al-Sadr would decide that there was more money to be made by being in the government rather than out of it.
Well that didn’t happen. In fact al-Sadr pulled his group out of the government and the most recent violence started with a call by al-Sadr for a general strike to demonstrate to the rest of the country that he is someone with political power. The government responded by sending in troops and the rest will shortly be history.
Here’s what the history will look like, “British pull-out from Basra delayed after rise in rocket attacks” and “U.S. forces drawn deeper into faceoff with militias”. Faced with a challenge, the Iraqi government has asked both the British and Americans for more troops. As long as we respond, we prop up a government that has not been able to demonstrate that it has the ability to keep peace even between it’s own elements.
President Bush has said that he sees this as a defining moment for the al-Maliki government. Yup just like the Tet offensive was the defining moment for the government of South Viet Nam.
This is not a struggle that is going to be won militarily, yet our government continues to define this conflict in those terms.
The solution in this area is going to be a political one where all sides determine that there is more to be gained by compromise than by bloodshed. Unfortunately, the deep seated differences between rival factions may require conflict before compromise can be won. As long as we are there, we perpetuate the status quo and inhibit the progress that has to come if there is ever going to be a government that doesn’t require US force in order to govern.
I happened to catch this article and just want to say we will probably be in Iraq for quite some time into the future. Halliburton has contracts to build a dozen military bases. Halliburtion is also moving out of the U.S. My guess would be Panama. There is a lot of interest in contracts to expand the Panama Canal. The Bush administration is encouraging American companies to be involved. And how convenient. Panamanian law doesn’t allow any snooping into companies earnings, commissions, holdings… In other words a company does not have to disclose anything to the public.
Ria,
Thanks for the information on Panama. I’ll have to look into it.
There was an interesting development in Iraq since I wrote this. al-Sadr did call for his militia to stand down and generally they complied. We don’t know what he got in return, other than a promise of general amnesty for his troops. What he demonstrated, however, was far more valuable. He has the ability to control events in Iraq and he has the backing of Iran.
At the moment, it appears clear that Iran is going to play an key role in the government of Iraq whether the US likes it or not. It also appears clear that, as a result, we are likely to have some military presence in Iraq for a long time.
Jeff
We will never leave Iraq. That’s in my mind is a fact. I’m neither for or against that statement. We’re still in Germeny, Japan etc. We won’t leave here unless they ask us too.
I was in favor of the war but we did botch it after we took them down, badly. I would have left the military in place but that’s arm chair quarterbacking. It’s a mess with, at this point, no solution that a majority would support….
the last reply was from me.
Keith,
Masquerading as me I see.
I have no problem with a long term presence in Iraq if it is under the same terms as Germany, Japan, or South Korea.
1. They have invited us.
2. Nobody is getting killed (us or them).
3. It is something that we can afford.
Right now our massive occupation of this country is a convenient excuse for all factions not to negotiate. The only way that we are going to force change is to change our force. (My copyright)
Jeff
didn’t know you had such humor…….and dare i say our current opinion looking forward on iraq may be some what similar.
Keith,
Thanks.
I’m actually a pretty easy going guy in “real” life. This blog gives me the opportunity to vent when I get upset.
Jeff
Iran is our big excuse to stay in Iraq. I watched a PBS special about Iran before Ahmadinejob took power. It was under cleric rule whose popularity was slipping rapidly. They had one way of staying in power and sent a letter to the new Bush white house that they were willing to comply and work with the U.S. to avoid problems in the future. The letter was never acknowledged in any way. Bush announced Iran to be part of the axis of evil not one week later. Shortly thereafter, Ahmadinejob came into power in Iran.
The sources this administration is using against Iran right now were also part of a PBS special. These sources are former Iranians who fought with the Sunni’s and Sadam against their own country. They have a definite conflict of interest being our only source placing Iran on some sort of axis of evil. It’s made up. Just like “curveball” was our only source to go to war in Iraq. This administration digs up sources that comply with what they want to accomplish for their own agenda.
The majority of Iranians are under 30 years of age, want to be westernized, and don’t like cleric rule. If we would practice some diplomacy and common sense, that country would take care of itself. For Pete’s sake I watched an ABC special filmed over there. The kids look like our kids in baseball hats, athletic sneakers, t-shirts, blue jeans, etc. The girls wear tight jeans and a scarf on their head, as minimal muslim as possible. Iran being a big enemy or threat is a bunch of hokey, just like everything else this administration puts forth.
Ria,
Thanks for post. I didn’t see the special, but I agree that culture is great leveler. Western culture is really what this “war” is about and not Christianity. It is also our most potent weapon. It brought down the Berlin Wall and it will ultimately defeat bin Ladist Islam too.
Unfortunately, we also have to be careful what we wish for because a materialistic youth obsessed world may not be the best outcome either.
Jeff