The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias flagged a powerful e-mail from an anonymous junior officer that is currently serving in Iraq.
In my opinion, what everyone fails to realize is that this is not a counterinsurgency. If we wanted to stay in Iraq, then it would be a counterinsurgency. But it is clear that our goal is to turn over power and pull out. So, in building our strategic endstate, it's pointless to set goals that relate to our presence in Iraq. If the "insurgency" is a function of our being there, then it is not an insurgency in terms of our endstate. For example, if one of our goals is to stop IED attacks on US forces, that is pointless. When we leave, there will be no more IED attacks on us forces. So our endstate needs to be different. We need to ask "if we left tomorrow, what would happen in Iraq?" and from there, we need to determine which of those anticipated results are unacceptable to us. Then we must aim our efforts on making sure those unacceptable results do not occur.
When I look at the problem that way, it becomes almost impossible to find a purpose in what we do.
Read the letter in its entirety HERE.
The officer touches on the single most important critique of the War looking forward: the war is self perpetuating. I will not argue that violence will not ensure upon withdrawal, but it is impossible for the war to come to an end as long as our troops are there. At this point, even the most prominent proponents for the war cannot offer a concrete definition of "success" in Iraq.
Yglesias adds:
Policymakers in Washington some time ago shifted to a crazy equilibrium where continuing the war became the war's own rationale.
Our troops had to stay in Iraq and risk their lives in order to kill the people who were trying to kill them to force them out of Iraq -- we couldn't leave until all the people who wanted us to leave were dead.
From that point, the quality of the strategic thinking involved has only declined.
It's not that peace would suddenly break out if we left, but peace is certain to never break out as long as we stay.
3 comments:
That is quite a gripping point. At one point I feel there was slight validation for our presence. However, as the dust begins to settle in Iraq, it is becoming clear that we are there for coercive political and economic command. On marches the American Empire, led by "the Decider".
We know the outcome of United States hard power in the Middle East. One cannot help but wonder if allied global soft power could have accomplished so much more.
I totally agrre with that line of reasoning but the reason we left Iraq in Saddams hands back in 88 was b/c despite our disliking of him we knew where he stood...we knew with saddam in power in Iraq it would never fall into Iranian influence...thats what surprised me about this war...I think our main goal in Iraq now is to set up a gov't that will be in our pocket not Iran's..the problem is Maliki, does not and will never have have the backing of the people...we will not never feel comfortable leaving Iraq in the hands of Maliki...thats why I think if the Rep. when it'll be more of the same but if the Democrats win I have a sneaking suspicion we'll back Sadr...he is the only leader with the backing of the people that is not completely susceptable to Iranian influence...sure he's playing both sides right now...but he has shown a willingness to work with us recently (albeit for cash)and with a fixed timetable for withdrawal I think he would probably cooperate with us and could smooth it over with the people b/c of the different leadership here in the US...thats really the only out we have...it wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened, I think Obama has a firm enough grasp on reality that its not gonna be on our terms and that Sadr is probably the only person that can unite the Iraqi people and not not be completely controlled by Iran...if McCain wins all bets are off and worse it seems as though McCain has a hard on for Iran
I am terrified of McCain. Not only is he a war pig straight from the Bush farm, but to think that 60 million american's could possibly support him has me very unsettled.
Post a Comment