The Fruits of Failure in Iraq

OR: Get Ready, Here Come the Casualties

Published on September 7, 2004 By CrispE In Politics

There are 2 months before the national elections and one of the two main issues is American Foreign Policy, especially as witnessed in Iraq. The Bush Administration notes that since 9/11 we have destroyed the dictatorships in Iraq and Afghanistan and tightened American security to lessen the threat in the United States. I'm not sure how we will know we are safer (regardless of how many times the President tells us to think it) until terrorists are actually caught in some stage of trying to do something. But the situation in Iraq is very visible and unfortunately becoming a very ugly situation.

A few weeks ago before we all went on vacation Moqtada Al Sadr was reportedly inside a mosque in Najaf with his militant brigade which the Defense department said we had killed a little more than 3 million of while sustaining only 3 U.S. casualties, but nevertheless, the main body was inside the mosque and surrounded. Al Sadr WAS a wanted man for being involved in a plan to kill another cleric in 2003. Many neocons on JoeUser were calling for storming the mosque and ending the threat as the ultimate sign of our intentions in dealing with those who opposed us. My own feelings were to lay siege and wait them out as the least bloody and dangerous action.

What the U.S. ended up doing was letting Al Sadr go! That's right, we said, "now taketh thy militia and skidaddle and don't be seen around these parts no more" unless you're running for political office. Now, I can't say I read every article on JU but I don't remember any neocons (and I apologise in advance if you did) ridiculing this action as both wrong and inconsistent with our policy on terrorists. Some may even have hoped that Al Sadr (never true to his word before, but why not believe him now?) would retire to a mosque somewhere, say prayers and just forget about the situation in his country.

That belief would, of course, be wrong.

We had Fallujah surrounded in almost the same manner as Najaf. Negotiations there led to a U.S. withdrawal and relative quiet for a time also. We negotiated and eventually people stopped shooting. Well, at least for a few weeks.

The problem is what "truce" means to a terrorist. Truce means "to reload, to get ready to strike again, this time more violently." Negotiation means "the Americans don't have the will to do the militarily right thing and wipe us out." Relative quiet means "wait until we have more weapons supplies because all we have now is spitballs." Oh sorry, under current U.S. policy, spitballs would be a step up from negotiations.

Many people like to draw parallels between Iraq and Viet Nam. One of the parallels that comes to mind is that we don't know who our enemy is and so, don't know who to shoot.

So, as a service to Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld and all our troops in Iraq, allow me to humbly explain the situation for you. The people who are doing the car-bombings and shooting the rockets at our headquarters and shooting our soldiers don't give a crap about civility. They will lie, kill, lie, kill, and lie some more as long as you think negotiations are the answer. Negotiations are not the answer and responding to terrorism by doing less than taking away all weapons will not work. American soldiers who cannot tell the enemy from the man on the street are not in strategically safe positions and placing troops at risk because a truce is in place is suicidal. When you find terrorists, they must be removed.

Otherwise, the fall is going to be full of reports of more dead. Unnecessary and a testament to the failure of U.S. policy.

Comments (Page 1)

Madine

on Sep 07, 2004

Since the handover of sovereignty, Iraq now has the final call on things like Al Sadr.

I think it was a mistake to not clear out Fallujah.

I don't think letting Al Sadr go was the right call, but at least we have him out of that mosque now. If he acts up again, we should be able to take him out without damaging a holy site.

kingbee

on Sep 07, 2004

it's what's known in the trade as a 'catastrophic success'.

i'll be amazed if, at the end of the day (or the next four years), all we've done is turn saddam's iraq into sistani's islamic republic of iraq. i dont mean to promote my blog (and feel free to remove this sentence and the link once youve seen where it leads...my take on the liberation of najaf link)

Catechumen

on Sep 07, 2004

I think it would be great to have a established democracy in the Middle East. I just don't think Iraq can do it yet. I think the people in power want to remain in a tryanny leadership, able to do anything. They won't have something like a senate, and as history has proven, Monarchies (no, it's a president, not a king, but still yet) always abuse their power and take out anyone who defies them.

I believe this will be the case in Iraq, but I pray for it to be different. Iraq is going to be like Bosnia, and we'll have troops there for...um...ever?

chiprj

on Sep 07, 2004

Another excellent, well-thought out and written, and Insightful post, CripE. Like I said before, you keep writing them, I'll keep reading them.

I'm not sure how we will know we are safer (regardless of how many times the President tells us to think it) until terrorists are actually caught in some stage of trying to do something

This is a problem. The thing is, the world of intelligence gathering and analysis is a very secretive world and you don't often get to hear about the successes - only the failures. Just the fact that the government agencies have refocused much of their effort to prevent terrorist acts is enough, I believe, to have stopped some plans from being hatched. And the efforts of the agencies have very likely stopped some plans we've never heard about. The downside to this, though, is growing complacent. We can not afford to fall back into the mindset that it will never happen here. It is a double edged sword, but overall, I do believe that we are safer today.

Many people like to draw parallels between Iraq and Viet Nam. One of the parallels that comes to mind is that we don't know who our enemy is and so, don't know who to shoot.

I think another parallel would be that we have to 'win the hearts and minds' of the common people. This means we have to honor our word. We have stated from the start that we would do our very best to preserve holy sites, hospitals, schools, etc. Unfortunately, this has helped the enemy to develop tactics to use against us. In the case of Najaf, if we had burst in and caused damage, we would have turned more people against us. I'm definetely not happy with the result, but if the Iraqi forces weren't willing to do the storming either, I can't think of a better solution.

I agree that we should NOT negotiate with terrorists. The problem is that we also have to be careful to not create more enemies where they weren't before. Very tough situation and it does place Soldiers in harms way.

I don't have a perfect solution on how to take out the terrorists without making new enemies, but I do know this - the Soldiers that are there are making a difference. They are promoting a positive image and a new way of life. They are helping people in ways that were never imagined before in Iraq. And while that's not the solution, it's a good start.

ShoZan

on Sep 07, 2004

Not to mention the number of Islamic people, all the ones who don't support Sadr, who would be pissed at the U.S. for doing damage to that Holy Site.
Would be like destroying the Vatican, you can piss off more people than you are after by destroying Holy Sites.

Sadr was ultimately a Catch 22, and it was good it finally got left to the Iraqis to handle, after all Sadr only wanted political power and resorted to such an action to achieve it, probably thinks Saddam's tactics are acceptable against non-Islamic people.

CrispE

on Sep 07, 2004

Madine:

Al Sadr's militia was resonsible for many of the U.S. deaths today. I don't think he will allow us to place him in a position where we can get at him again (like he was a few weeks ago). We now have 4 organized militias in Iraq, they are quite probably coordinating their attacks and the American military is going to be hard pressed to handle the problem short of using "overwhelming" force.

CrispE

on Sep 07, 2004

kingbee and chiprj:

I think the main thing we are doing by standing between what will happen and what has happened is keeping the factions working together against a common enemy. How long is it going to be before we realise as much good as we have done that the factions don't want us there? "Winning the hearts and minds of people" wasn't a meaningful thing in Viet Nam and it won't be here.

Thanks for the kind words, chiprj!

CrispE

on Sep 07, 2004

ShoZan:

The problem with diplomacy is that it assumes something not true in Iraq. Diplomacy assumes both sides have something to give and take. Compromise of a sort may be what we seek but ultimately we have seen time and time again the same pattern. We get the enemy into an untenable position, they negotiate their way out of it, then we find ourselves back in trouble.

I would not recommend we blow up churches, regardless of the faith, but we need to be aware that negotiating is just a ploy, not a solution.

chiprj

on Sep 07, 2004

How long is it going to be before we realise as much good as we have done that the factions don't want us there?

That's a good question. I think we realize that they don't want us there, but we did start this business and we are obliged to see it through. I believe that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. I also believe staying until it's stabalized is the right thing to do. I just hope that we can do it as quickly as possible.

"Winning the hearts and minds of people" wasn't a meaningful thing in Viet Nam and it won't be here.

You're also right in that it will only be so effective. But I think we learned a lot of valuable lessons from Vietnam and are acting accordingly (to an extent). The problem is, that if we were to give up the fight to win hearts and minds, we'd lose them a lot quicker. And that would cause us even more problems.

Daiwa

on Sep 07, 2004

CrispE -

On this particular subject, I couldn't agree with you more in the general sense, but I agree with Madine that since the handover of sovereignty, it has indeed been the Iraqi govenment's call. I think the Iraqi government made a mistake in letting Al Sadr's thugs disperse, but from their point of view, having the moderate clerics' support of the government may have been more important in the long haul.

Having said that, I still think the handover was absolutely necessary to the ultimate success of the entire operation - we had to follow through with that promise - but it has put our troops in the most awkward and difficult of circumstances. All the more reason to offer them all the support and encouragement we can. What we are asking of them is almost without precedent and we should be proud of the way they are accepting that mission.

It troubles me that some on the left want to have it both ways - we can't be "occupiers" but we get criticized for not dealing more effectively with the resistance. Well we can do one or the other but not both. Whatever happens, the left just waits around and chooses to favor the opposite.

A little off topic, but that's what Kerry's campaign has been in its entirety - no matter what the subject, he's against whatever position Bush takes for the simple sake of being against it, not because he has a particular set of beliefs or principles that dictate it. Bush being for something is sufficient reason to be against it, simple as that. Anytime anything happens or Bush says something, he attacks it - maybe just to be sure he gets his mug on TV that same day, too, for all I know. And then he weeps all those crocodile tears about what a negative campaign Bush is waging. I guess if Bush had taken no positions on anything, we'd still be waiting to hear what Kerry's against - he wouldn't want to accidentally come out against something he might later need to be for, now would he?

Cheers,
Daiwa

CrispE

on Sep 08, 2004

Daiwa:

I'm for consistency with the following provisos:

If we aren't going to "go strong" and take command we have to pull the troops and come home. (This half way stuff we are doing now only gets us shot up and shot down.)

If we are going to "go strong" we need to stop hiding behind an Iraqi government we put in place and whom, without our help collapses with the next desert wind that blows.

The in-between where we are now gets people killed, Bush beaten and new management.

Now, on Kerry. He agreed with Bush that invading Iraq was the right idea (although he would have done it differently). He agrees with Bush on the "no child left behind" but would fund it differently. I think on terrorism the approach is more international, but no one is closing down homeland security or pulling our troops out of Europe, the Middle East or Afghanistan on either side.

I think the 2 differ more on economic and social policies. Kerry is more oriented to labor and the over 50 crowd (social security). Bush thinks that as long as we are fighting a war, everything else is a back burner issue. I am not favoring either at this point. I want to hear the debates and hear how strongly each man projects their ideas.

Daiwa

on Sep 08, 2004

CrispE -

I definitely hear ya on the troops issue; it's a valid point.

I don't particularly like it, but there's no getting "there" from "here" without this phase, however. At some point, we'd be in this situation no matter what - only a matter of when, not if - so we've got to figure out how to get the job done and doing it sooner than later is OK by me. We can't risk being viewed by the Iraqis as just another thug subbing for Saddam, and we can't abandon the overwhelming majority of Iraqis who want to get a sovereign goverment on its feet. Tough as it is, patience and vigilance seem the only options.

Cheers,
Daiwa

kingbee

on Sep 08, 2004

overwhelming majority of Iraqis who want to get a sovereign goverment on its feet

the majority of iraqis--if permitted to do so--will support and put in place an shi'ite islamic government. that's the reason bush's father didnt take saddam out at the end of the gulf war.

ShoZan

on Sep 08, 2004

the majority of iraqis--if permitted to do so--will support and put in place an shi'ite islamic government. that's the reason bush's father didnt take saddam out at the end of the gulf war.

No it was because Congress said pull out, and ceasefire was accepted, don't forget the Kurd Revolt the US supported than backed out of and left the Kurd populations to suffer Saddam's wrath. There are more than Shi'ites in Iraq, and if they were truly allowed you would have at least four Iraqs, one for Shi'ite, one for the Kurds, one for the Sunni, and one for the rest.

Chemicalkinetics

on Sep 08, 2004

Kingbee is correct this time. Yes, it is true that the ceasefire was accepted through UN and that the Congress wanted to end the war soon. Nevertheless, one of the major reason both President G. H. W. Bush and Congress made that decision is that if Saddam were to fall, Iraq can turn into a Islamic republic like Iran, or Iran will simply invade Iraq. Don't forget, in the firsr guld war, we didn't have the intention to secure Iraq. Thus it is better to have Saddam to rule Iraq then have Iraq becoming Iran , or worse... Iraq and Iran becomes one country.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!