Below is the "consensus" view on why we can't leave Iraq. It is serious and deserves a serious response. The argument for staying in Iraq for years – even decades – to come is laid out below in earnest, stark terms by expert analysts at "liberal" CNN.
This is the real nitty-gritty. I will rebut their main arguments, one by one:
1. "A rapid withdrawal of all U.S. troops would hurt America's image and hand al Qaeda and other terror groups a propaganda victory that the United States is only a 'paper tiger.'"
As Sen. Chuck Hagel recently said, U.S. intelligence shows that al Qaeda represents "maybe 10 percent" of the problem in Iraq. We should be more worried about the other 90% of the Iraq problem, which is caused by Iraqis, whom we are "at war" with now. 90% of the problem that we face in Iraq didn't exist before Bush invaded in 2003.
If we choose to withdraw now, Iraqis will know, and anyone in the Mideast with a radio or television will know, that the reason for our decision was not the "might" of al Qaeda. Only Americans still believe the U.S. is fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda is a self-aggrandizing irritant to Americans and Iraqis alike, with weapons in one hand, and cameras and laptops in the other. Only Americans – Bush & Cheney included – seem willing to believe al Qaeda's propaganda that it controls events in Iraq.
As I've argued before, we can't make U.S. foreign policy based on what will help or hurt al Qaeda's propaganda machine. If we go down that road – as I think we're doing now – we leave ourselves open to cynical manipulation.
Real strength means fighting on our own terms, at the time and place of our choosing. Weakness is letting al Qaeda choose the time and place of the battlefield.
Finally, to entertain the notion that America is a "paper tiger" ridiculously ignores the fact that we spend more on our military than every other nation on earth combined: at least $600 billion per year. Withdrawing from Iraq won't change that; indeed withdrawal will free up more of our military power for worldwide operations.
2. "Rapid withdrawal" could also make the U.S. look like "an unreliable future ally or coalition partner."
How many military coalitions came you name in the past 20 years that didn't include the United States? It's ludicrous to argue that, if the U.S. withdrew from Iraq, traditional U.S. allies like Australia, Britain, or France would refuse to participate in future military operations.
Just the opposite: Our traditional allies are even more reluctant to cooperate with the U.S. militarily, because they don't trust America's judgment, and don't want to be tied down with the U.S. in another quagmire.
U.S. allies want to know that America will make honest, realistic judgments about what military power can achieve, and when. Right now, America's allies are very worried.
3. America's "fast withdrawal" from Iraq would result in "increasing attempts by terrorists to establish a training sanctuary in Iraq" … "along the lines of what they did in Afghanistan in the late '90s."
Probably true, to some extent. However, terrorists already have a lot of breathing room in Iraq to train and re-arm for future attacks. Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq is not limited by U.S. power; rather, it is limited by how much Sunni Iraqis are willing to cooperate with the foreign terrorists, and give them sanctuary. Right now, Sunni Iraqis and al Qaeda have a common enemy: the U.S. foreign occupier, and to a lesser extent Iraqi Shias. Once America withdraws, what purpose will al Qaeda serve for Iraq's Sunnis? Why should tribal-oriented Iraqis tolerate these foreign terrorists who have no local roots and speak Arabic with funny accents? And unlike American troops, Iraqi Sunnis will be able to spot foreign fighters a mile away. They'll stick out like sore thumbs. At that point, al Qaeda's usefulness to Iraqi Sunnis will have been outlived, unless…
4. "Iraq's neighbors would be drawn into the all-out civil war likely if U.S. forces left too quickly. Iran could move in to further strengthen its influence in southern Iraq; Turkey likely would move against the Kurds in the north; and Saudi Arabia would be inclined to take action to protect Sunnis in western Iraq."
… Full-scale civil war erupts along Sunni-Shiite lines in Iraq. What would happen then? Probably yes, Iraq's neighbors like Iran and Saudi Arabia would send money and weapons to influence the civil war. My guess is that, once America leaves, most al Qaeda fighters will lose interest and move elsewhere. But let's suppose that, after a U.S. withdrawal, al Qaeda decided to fight on the side of Iraqi Sunnis, killing their Shia Muslim brethren. That would be bad for America… how?
Anyhow, Iran, Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are already sending money and weapons to Iraq. If rapid U.S. withdrawal resulted in a full-scale Iraqi civil war, the only difference in foreign interference would be in its scale, and openness.
However, a U.S. military that is not a sitting duck in Iraq is in a much different position to pressure the likes of Iran, for example. Right now, Iran can secretly arm and train Shia fighters to kill us in Iraq; and because of that, they have some leverage. But with no U.S. soldiers in Iraq, Iran has no leverage. Let's face it: we Americans don't really care if Iraqis decide to kill each other, or who helps them do it. If we cared about preventing deaths from other countries' civil wars, we'd have U.S. troops in Sudan (Darfur) right now.
If Iran insists on funneling weapons, money, and specialists into Iraq, America would at last have its dreamed of pretext to bomb Tehran. However, before it withdraws, the U.S. should make it very clear to Iran what would be the consequences of interference in a sovereign Iraq.
We have much more leverage over Saudi Arabia, and long-standing diplomatic and economic ties. The Saudis have much to lose by angering the U.S. with open interference in Iraq.
In sum, America's plan for Iraq post-withdrawal ought to be containment: If full-scale civil war erupts, contain it to Iraq's borders; and punish any neighboring country that tries to decide the outcome of that civil war. Let Iraqis fight it out if they want to, and let Iraqis determine the outcome.
Think that sounds naïve? Risky?
Is it any more naïve than to think that Iraq's neighbors aren't interfering there right now, knowing there is virtually nothing we can do about it? Is it any more risky than to plan on a decades-long occupation of Iraq, which would bankrupt the U.S. treasury and prevent our armed forces from doing anything besides babysitting Iraqis for the next 10 years at least (if our all-volunteer army doesn't fall apart first)?
"Victory" in Iraq is possible, perhaps – but at what cost, and at what date in the distant future? Realistically, you have to ask yourself: Would I live long enough to see that day?
Are Americans really ready to forfeit U.S. leadership, prestige, and military dominance voluntarily, all to save Iraq from a civil war that is already happening?
There is uncertainty and risk involved in withdrawing from Iraq, no doubt about it. But there is certain danger in staying. And as even the experts who support continued occupation admit below, the only realistic hope for a good outcome for the U.S. occupation is decades away.
No safe way for U.S. to leave Iraq, experts warn
May 3, 2007
CNN.com
Pulling U.S. forces from Iraq could trigger catastrophe, CNN analysts and other observers warn, affecting not just Iraq but its neighbors in the Middle East, with far-reaching global implications.
Sectarian violence could erupt on a scale never seen before in Iraq if coalition troops leave before Iraq's security forces are ready. Supporters of al Qaeda could develop an international hub of terror from which to threaten the West. And the likely civil war could draw countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran into a broader conflict.
President Bush vetoed a war spending bill Tuesday precisely because the Democrat-led Congress required the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn by October 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.
Bush said such a deadline would be irresponsible and both sides are now working on new proposals -- which may have no pullout dates.
A rapid withdrawal of all U.S. troops would hurt America's image and hand al Qaeda and other terror groups a propaganda victory that the United States is only a "paper tiger," CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen said.
"It would also play into their strategy, which is to create a mini-state somewhere in the Middle East where they can reorganize along the lines of what they did in Afghanistan in the late '90s," Bergen told CNN.com.
It was in Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda allied with the Taliban, and were allowed to run terror bases and plan the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States.
Bergen says it is imperative that the United States not let that happen in Iraq.
"What we must prevent is central/western Iraq [from] becoming a Sunni militant state that threatens our interests directly as an international terror hub," he said.
Don Shepperd, a retired Air Force major-general and military analyst for CNN, agreed that Sunni Muslim fighters who support al Qaeda would seek an enclave inside a lawless Iraq likely riven along sectarian lines into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions.
There would be "increasing attempts by terrorists to establish a training sanctuary in Iraq," Shepperd said.
That's one of the reasons why a fast withdrawal will not happen, whatever the politicians say, the analysts predict.
"Everyone wants the troops home -- the Iraqis, the U.S., the world -- but no one wants a precipitous withdrawal that produces a civil war, a bloodbath, nor a wider war in an unstable Mideast," Shepperd said, adding that the image of the United States was important too.
"And we do not want a U.S that is perceived as having been badly defeated in the global war on terror or as an unreliable future ally or coalition partner."
Shepperd, a veteran fighter pilot of the Vietnam War, has served as a CNN analyst of the Iraq war since it began. Bergen was one of the first Western journalists to ever meet with bin Laden, and is considered a leading authority on al Qaeda.
Shepperd said Iraq's neighbors would be drawn into the all-out civil war likely if U.S. forces left too quickly. Iran could move in to further strengthen its influence in southern Iraq; Turkey likely would move against the Kurds in the north; and Saudi Arabia would be inclined to take action to protect Sunnis in western Iraq, he said.
The oil sector could also get hit hard, with Iran potentially mining the Persian Gulf and attempting to close the Straits of Hormuz, putting a stranglehold on oil flow, Shepperd says.
"Oil prices would skyrocket," he said -- perhaps soaring from current prices of about $60 a barrel to more than $100 a barrel, with consequent rises at the gas pump.
And that could bring further trouble, Shepperd added. "Saudi Arabia will not allow increasing Iranian dominance to endanger its regime and oil economy."
On top of that, Iran could speed up its nuclear ambitions, causing a "daunting and depressing scenario" of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and Turkey trying to get a nuclear bomb, Shepperd says.
Observers such as Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, say a wider Mideast conflict could be avoided.
But Alterman also fears that an Iraq left without U.S. support could turn into a center for international terrorism and a proxy battlefield for regional powers like Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
"All the surrounding countries would think their interests are much better maintained not by directly sending troops but by continuing to send money and weapons to the people fighting that war," he said.
"In my judgment, it would take decades for such an insurgency to quiet down."
There are 120,000 Iraq soldiers now classified as trained by the U.S. military in Iraq, along with 135,000 police force members. But the head of the Iraqi ground forces, Gen. Ali Ghiran-Majeed, recently told CNN that some of his soldiers don't even get paid, and that on any given day one quarter of the force is on vacation.
For U.S. troops on the ground, the idea of withdrawal is vexing.
"I think it would cause a huge vacuum that the enemies of Iraq -- enemies of the government -- would take advantage of," said U.S. Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard, the commander of the Iraq Assistance Group.
Staff Sgt. Matthew St. Pierre is one U.S. soldier who's come to the conclusion the United States cannot win the war, but he says he also fears the consequences of withdrawal.
"We are the buffer right now and when we pull out, the people who support us are going to feel the wrath, and the people who are against us ... they're going to ultimately win. And I think that's unfortunate," he said.
That is a prognosis that concerns many, though Shepperd sees a viable solution for Iraq, albeit one with a U.S. presence there for years to come.
"Done properly we should be in Iraq for years, not in a combat [role], but an embedded advisory role," he said.
CNN Correspondent Hugh Riminton in Baghdad and CNN.com Producer Wayne Drash in Atlanta contributed to this story.
No comments:
Post a Comment