Iraq and its Aftermath ...

[Oldgamer]

I have placed this thread in Vestigia Vetustatis because I hope that the debate here can be honest and academic, and not devolve into a shouting match. If the latter happens, I will understand if the Mods move the thread to the Mudpit. However, this is not my intention.

In the last several weeks, I've been informed of some things regarding the present and future, with regards to the War in Iraq. I sincerely wish that I could share this information with you. Most of you will probably hear about it on the news, in between now and September, anyway.

However based upon the information that I am privy to (and note that I am not cleared for the highest level that is available, by any stretch of the imagination), I have picked the following article from FrontpageMagazine.com as my position, for the future. An excerpt from the article follows:

First, President George W. Bush must assert strategic, political leadership and steal a page from Churchill. Bush must level with the American people concerning both the seriousness of the situation and the importance of moving positively in the aftermath of what can no longer be spun as anything but a major defeat for administration policies in Iraq.

Second, the United States must not completely forsake Iraq, abandoning it to the chaos likely to erupt after American forces pullout. The best bet is redeployment to the north into Kurd-controlled territory to prevent chaos from spreading into relatively stable Kurdistan and to deter Turkish forces from invading to keep Kurds from instigating unrest in southern Turkey. A residual American military presence in Kuwait, U.S. Naval forces in the Persian Gulf and Air Force squadrons stationed in various Gulf States can prevent sectarian violence in southern Iraq from spreading to the Arabian Peninsula and make it less likely that Iran and Saudi Arabia might intervene militarily to support warring Iraqi Shiite and Sunni factions.

Third, a continuous robust naval presence will be needed to keep the global supply of oil flowing from the Persian Gulf and to prevent Iran from taking advantage of the power vacuum in Iraq that will develop after a U.S. pullout. The Bush administration also might rebuild some lost international cache by inviting European and Asian allies to contribute additional naval forces. Access to oil is, after all, a global concern.

Fourth, dispatch some of the U.S. forces withdrawn from Iraq to Afghanistan where insurgent activity has increased sharply since January. Jihadists drawn from around the world to fight U.S. troops in Iraq, bolstered by perceptions of victory, will head to Afghanistan. Without reinforcement, U.S. failure in Iraq may be compounded by defeat on the Afghan front.

If a major foreign policy debacle looms in Iraq, facing reality and planning to limit the effects simply makes good strategic sense. In war, withdrawals are neither unusual nor always fatal. If Iraq is viewed as a theater in the global struggle against Islamist Jihadists rather than the focal point, then a successful withdrawal may be vital for continuing the war to a victorious conclusion on the international stage. Make no mistake: This is a global, total war, the results of which will determine the kind of world our grandchildren inherit.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...e.asp?ID=28698

I know. A lot of you don't like David Horowitz or Frontpage. But this is a very good article, written by Dr. Earl Tilford, the former director of research at the U.S. Army's Strategic Studies Institute. Give it a chance.

Discuss. Please don't argue ...

[Major.Stupidity]

If a major foreign policy debacle looms in Iraq, facing reality and planning to limit the effects simply makes good strategic sense.

Facing reality is something the Bush administration has failed to due since the insurgency sprung up in late 2003. I somehow doubt the administrations policy's of ignoring reality will change anytime soon.

First, President George W. Bush must assert strategic, political leadership and steal a page from Churchill. Bush must level with the American people concerning both the seriousness of the situation and the importance of moving positively in the aftermath of what can no longer be spun as anything but a major defeat for administration policies in Iraq.

Bush should have done this from the very beginning; I somehow doubt that he will do this now, for perception has become reality, as far as the American public’s view of the war in Iraq.

Third, a continuous robust naval presence will be needed to keep the global supply of oil flowing from the Persian Gulf and to prevent Iran from taking advantage of the power vacuum in Iraq that will develop after a U.S. pullout. The Bush administration also might rebuild some lost international cache by inviting European and Asian allies to contribute additional naval forces. Access to oil is, after all, a global concern.

First, the Bush administration counted on Europe and Asia to come to America's side after the fall of Saddam, this did not occur, and I somehow doubt that a renewed effort will draw global cooperation. One can only hope however. Secondly, the above stated policy is eerily similar to the policy pursued by Reagan during the 'Tanker War' phase during the Iran-Iraq war in the late 80's, and would only perpetuate the belief amongst Islamic Extremists that the US is out to get their oil.

Additionally, I believe that the US must continue to engage in contacts with Iraq's surrounding neighbors to bring about a more coordinated Iraqi Policy, and truly involve all the players in the region in Iraq's future post American withdrawal.

[Oldgamer]

I've defended President Bush so much, in the last several years, it will be difficult to adjust to the new reality, Major.

Facing reality is something the Bush administration has failed to due since the insurgency sprung up in late 2003. I somehow doubt the administrations policy's of ignoring reality will change anytime soon.

I don't think that the insurgency was entirely spontaneous. Also, there are foreign sources providing money, arms, and "insurgents". They will undoubtedly attempt to "prove" that the surge is a failure, this Summer. That said, however, the last two years ... especially ... have showed a serious lack of reality perception in the Administration. Also, I expected more from people like Condie Rice, and have been terribly disappointed in her performance.

Bush should have done this from the very beginning; I somehow doubt that he will do this now, for perception has become reality, as far as the American public’s view of the war in Iraq.

I agree with you entirely.

First, the Bush administration counted on Europe and Asia to come to America's side after the fall of Saddam, this did not occur, and I somehow doubt that a renewed effort will draw global cooperation. One can only hope however. Secondly, the above stated policy is eerily similar to the policy pursued by Reagan during the 'Tanker War' phase during the Iran-Iraq war in the late 80's, and would only perpetuate the belief amongst Islamic Extremists that the US is out to get their oil.

Additionally, I believe that the US must continue to engage in contacts with Iraq's surrounding neighbors to bring about a more coordinated Iraqi Policy, and truly involve all the players in the region in Iraq's future post American withdrawal.

Engaging in "contact" with Iraq's neighbors might have some positive impact, and it might not. We must be certain that a Shia superstate does not spring up from the eastern border of Iran to the Lebanese coast. Such a development would be good news only to the Islamist radicals.

Concerning the "Tanker War", I remember what started the conflict ... the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf. The result was the largest surface-combatant naval engagement since the Second World War, and one in which the Iranians lost heavily (as I recall, circa 18 April, 1988). The nations of the Middle East must be re-acquainted with the fact that they cannot resist concerted Western military power. Of course, this will mean that the most radical of them will thirst after this power. It must be denied them.

The key to keeping calm in the aftermath of the Iraq War will be controlling the flow of sophisticated arms to the Middle East from Russia and China. That's where the vaunted knowledge of Condie Rice (who is a Soviet expert, after all) would come in handy, if anyone is left to listen to her.

[Request a new user name]

Engaging in "contact" with Iraq's neighbors might have some positive impact, and it might not. We must be certain that a Shia superstate does not spring up from the eastern border of Iran to the Lebanese coast. Such a development would be good news only to the Islamist radicals.

This is bad why? I thought our goal was democracy? Oh wait, that means we have to accept that the people will overthrow their corrupt governments and install governments that tell the U.S. to stop interfering in their affairs. Silly me.

Concerning the "Tanker War", I remember what started the conflict ... the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf. The result was the largest surface-combatant naval engagement since the Second World War, and one in which the Iranians lost heavily (as I recall, circa 18 April, 1988). The nations of the Middle East must be re-acquainted with the fact that they cannot resist concerted Western military power. Of course, this will mean that the most radical of them will thirst after this power. It must be denied them.

No, the Tanker war began when Saddam started attacking ships to blockade Iran after his entire Navy was sunk in 30 minutes by Iranian F-4s. The Iranians retaliated by attacking ships carrying arms to Iraq.

U.S. operations succeeded largely because Iran had few planes in the area and the planes there knew not to tangle with F-14s, they seen far to many times what their own F-14s did to Iraqi planes to tangle with USN's VF-21 'Freelancers'.

The key to keeping calm in the aftermath of the Iraq War will be controlling the flow of sophisticated arms to the Middle East from Russia and China. That's where the vaunted knowledge of Condie Rice (who is a Soviet expert, after all) would come in handy, if anyone is left to listen to her.

The key is to leave the region and never look back and instead throw all efforts into our space program and alternative fuels.

[Farnan]

I've talked to a retired Major General (Infantry Officer then Army Aviator and then Transportation Officer) and a retired Lieutenant Colonel (Branch qualified Infantry, Armor, and Special Forces also a lifelong Republican) and both agree that the biggest mistake was the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and the outlawing of the militia. I believe the first step we must make is to unban militias as long as they agree to certain conditions (cooperation with MNF-I and Iraqi government forces and a rejection of sectarian violence). These militias can defend their constituents far better than we can. The US military is starting to use this tactic and its showing its effects in Al-Anbar where the Sunni Sheiks have aligned themself with the Iraqi government.

A second step is to start dialog with Al'Sadr. Al'Sadr is a nationalist, not a sectarianist. If we can convince him to work with us instead of against us it will be a great boon. He is also anti-Iran and anti-sectarian violence which is useful. The carrot we wave is legalisation of his militia and a promise to pull out once the situation calms down.

Legalisations of the militias has another positive effect beyond adding numbers to the forces on our side. As of now the militia have nothing to lose by opposing the Iraqi government they are illegal already. Legalisation gives them something to lose, so they will be more willing to support government efforts and crack down sectarian violence.

One must remember Iraqi and American culture is different. While militias are a bad thing in American culture made up of nutjobs, in Iraq the militia are a sheiks bodyguard and the police service of a region.

[Oldgamer]

I've talked to a retired Major General (Infantry Officer then Army Aviator and then Transportation Officer) and a retired Lieutenant Colonel (Branch qualified Infantry, Armor, and Special Forces also a lifelong Republican) and both agree that the biggest mistake was the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and the outlawing of the militia. I believe the first step we must make is to unban militias as long as they agree to certain conditions (cooperation with MNF-I and Iraqi government forces and a rejection of sectarian violence). These militias can defend their constituents far better than we can. The US military is starting to use this tactic and its showing its effects in Al-Anbar where the Sunni Sheiks have aligned themself with the Iraqi government.

No one was more against this, a couple of years ago, than me. From my experience in country, I was convinced that allowing militias to exist would result in a complete disaster. However, I can state with finality that I was wrong, and woefully so. Had the current method employed in Anbar Province been used at the time I was so against it, Iraq would today be a much more secure place for all the people of the country.

A second step is to start dialog with Al'Sadr. Al'Sadr is a nationalist, not a sectarianist. If we can convince him to work with us instead of against us it will be a great boon. He is also anti-Iran and anti-sectarian violence which is useful. The carrot we wave is legalisation of his militia and a promise to pull out once the situation calms down.

I'm not sure about al'Sadr, yet. But I'm certainly glad that he wasn't killed, a few months ago. I believe that his death would have provoked a tremendous violent reaction from his supporters, that would have been the death-knell of any chance the surge has.

One must remember Iraqi and American culture is different. While militias are a bad thing in American culture made up of nutjobs, in Iraq the militia are a sheiks bodyguard and the police service of a region.

While I disagree that all militias in America are a bad thing (I'd love to have about half a million of them on the southern border, armed to the teeth), there is a difference between the militias of the United States (and what they were intended to be), and those of other countries. Good call, Farnan ...

EVERYONE ELSE: I will react to what you've said tomorrow. I've spent a day with a four-year old granddaughter, and I've had it! The only thing I'll say tonight to the Major is that I'm not worried about a pan-Islamic movement. I'm worried about a pan-Shia movement.

I'll respond to the good points Mathius and Pannonian raised, also.

[Mathius]

First, President George W. Bush must assert strategic, political leadership and steal a page from Churchill.

I am not a dyed in the wool anti-Bush European, but I just cannot see that there is a sufficient statesman within Bush to pull this off. Clear opportunities for bush to lead the international community such as at G8 just haven’t been taken. I’m sure Bush is a mean operator behind closed doors but a Finest Hour-like performance – I just don’t believe he would carry the authority or gravitas to do it. And as for spin, as we endure Tony Blair’s Build A Legacy world tour I’d say on this side of the pond its only gotten worse.

Second, the United States must not completely forsake Iraq, abandoning it to the chaos likely to erupt after American forces pullout.

I don’t think we can abandon Iraq now, too many interests are involved. I do not believe the majority of people want complete abandonment, however much the Bring The Boys Home banner gets waved.

A residual American military presence in Kuwait, U.S. Naval forces in the Persian Gulf and Air Force squadrons stationed in various Gulf States can prevent sectarian violence in southern Iraq from spreading to the Arabian Peninsula and make it less likely that Iran and Saudi Arabia might intervene militarily to support warring Iraqi Shiite and Sunni factions.

An active British military presence has yet to stop Iran supporting elements of the insurgency with thought and with materiel. Iran simply doesn’t need to cross the border with tanks when IEDs are doing the job quite effectively. And has US influence in Riyadh waned so much that you fear them pouring across the border? Sorry, I don’t believe this assertion.

Third, a continuous robust naval presence will be needed to keep the global supply of oil flowing from the Persian Gulf and to prevent Iran from taking advantage of the power vacuum in Iraq that will develop after a U.S. pullout.

Again, how will a naval asset (even with air support) prevent the covert influence Iran has across a very porous border? You can bomb a man but you cannot bomb an idea. The verb ‘prevent’ – is this active or reliant on sabre rattling? Would you intervene militarily against Iran in the south, and if so on what basis (and Irans nuclear programme must be a distinct issue here)? I fear you would find even the UK baulking at the prospect.

The Bush administration also might rebuild some lost international cache by inviting European and Asian allies to contribute additional naval forces.
Nice idea. Not a cat in hells chance. Bush’s administration has precious little cache to rebuild in many European eyes, and inviting the French to pull their finger out would be an odd way of trying to do it.

Fourth, dispatch some of the U.S. forces withdrawn from Iraq to Afghanistan where insurgent activity has increased sharply since January.

Completely agree here. My concern lies not with Afghanistan but with Pakistan. The implications of Musharraf being assassinated or deposed are enormous, and Afghanistan needs to be shored up before we need to actively consider this problem. I am not in agreement with those who think the war is being lost in Afghanistan, but there have been wasted opportunities and things could degenerate very, very quickly.


If a major foreign policy debacle looms in Iraq, facing reality and planning to limit the effects simply makes good strategic sense. In war, withdrawals are neither unusual nor always fatal. If Iraq is viewed as a theater in the global struggle against Islamist Jihadists rather than the focal point, then a successful withdrawal may be vital for continuing the war to a victorious conclusion on the international stage. Make no mistake: This is a global, total war, the results of which will determine the kind of world our grandchildren inherit.

All statesmanlike stuff. But total war is a phrase with long painful resonance in Europe, and sorry to pull the Old World card but the US has only infrequently found war in its heartlands. Don’t say it if you don’t mean it - if you are aimed at concensus building this may play well to the States but may receive a gallic/prussian/whatever shrug here.

[pannonian]

Oldgamer, are you talking about the arming of Sunni militias? If so, they have the right idea, though the emphasis should be on another group.

I've said before, and have done so for a long time, that there were 3 main goals to the American occupation of Iraq: stability, democracy, and a pro-American government. I then said that, as things were, achieving all 3 was impossible, but it might be possible to drop one of the objectives and satisfactorily come away with the other 2 - my personal choice being to drop democracy and install another Saddam-type who would be satisfactorily obedient on pain of deposition. I also warned that, if things got any worse, or indeed carried on as they were, it might not even be possible to achieve 2 out of 3, but things would career out of control entirely. That was last year, and things have indeed got worse, with the decisive cut-off point being the execution of Saddam, whom I thoght should have been kept alive under US control as a warning to any future government not to get too uppety.

The worst case scenario is an Iraq that fulfills none of the 3 mentioned objectives, with a civil war guaranteeing no democracy is practicable, and none of the sides having any liking for America and the west. Unlike Afghanistan, which we can safely leave as a backwater without affecting too much else, Iraq is possibly the most important strategic crossroads in the world, with different conflicting and strategically powerful political cultures surrounding it and forming groups within it, guaranteeing that any conflict will spark off a chain reaction of conflicts in neghbouring lands. For this reason, stability is the single most important objective for Iraq, whatever else may happen.

I picked out al-Sadr as the most likely figure who could bring about this stability. Riffing on my earlier theme of 2 out of 3, any Iraqi leader who would hope to command the respect of the disparate Iraqi factions could not be tainted with the accusation of collaboration. Sadr has kept himself scrupulously clean of that, to our annoyance (though to my delight). While a religious figure, his main concern is with Iraqi nationalism, rather than any form of trans-national Islamism. He would not be a friend of al-Qaeda, for the same reason that Saddam, that other great Iraqi nationalist, was not a friend of al-Qaeda - outsiders, whatever their religion have no business meddling in the affairs of Iraq (or at least not when he can enforce this political self-sufficiency).

The aim now should be to strengthen al-Sadr by whatever means one can stomach. If one wants to be Macchiavellian, and if one doesn't mind being brought to task for it later, a good strategy might be to unite the Iraqis against the Coalition, perhaps by making ourselves obnoxious and overbearing, perhaps by committing a few headline atrocities. Level a town, perhaps Sadr City, after making sure the inhabitants are all out, if one is trying for that atrocity but doesn't want to kill anyone. Flatten Fallujah again. Whatever it takes to get al-Sadr yapping, and give him credibility as the leader of the Iraqi people against the American occupiers. Once the uproar is loud enough, manufacture some military defeats followed by some political defeats. Mount a very public offensive into a Mahdi stronghold, only to be driven back, then have an American demand embarassingly turned down by a Sadrite minister. As soon as is plausible, negotiate a truce with the Sadrites, and beat a retreat from Iraq, as humiliating as possible.

The aim is to build up al-Sadr as a leader with the overwhelming support of the Iraqis, and Iraq as a nation that believes in itself. Even if that means Iraq defining itself as the country that beat the mighty Americans in war, that would still be better for America than letting Iraq disintegrate into chaos. It might hurt the American psyche just as Vietnam hurt the American psyche, but like Vietnam, declaring a loss will not significantly materially damage America. What will hurt America is letting this drag on, and spread. A stable Iraq, however much it despises us, is the best we can hope for now. The real loss would be if we reach for more, and end up with nothing at all. All or nothing usually ends up with nothing.

[Major.Stupidity]

Engaging in "contact" with Iraq's neighbors might have some positive impact, and it might not. We must be certain that a Shia superstate does not spring up from the eastern border of Iran to the Lebanese coast. Such a development would be good news only to the Islamist radicals.

This fear harkens back to the Iranian revolution days, when the west feared the spread of radical Shia Islam across the Middle East. However, this fear proved largely to be a fiction, due to the victory of regional nationalism - IE Iraqi Shiites siding with Iraq, coupled with the historic animosities between Arabs and Persians. I somehow doubt that a renewed pan-Islamist threat will succeed.

[Major.Stupidity]

EVERYONE ELSE: I will react to what you've said tomorrow. I've spent a day with a four-year old granddaughter, and I've had it! The only thing I'll say tonight to the Major is that I'm not worried about a pan-Islamic movement. I'm worried about a pan-Shia movement.

The same historical concept applies however with the failure of the Iranian regime to export its radical view of Islam except in Southern Lebanon. The Iranian-Iraqi war marked the death of any sort of pan-Shia movement due to the victory of local nationalism over any sort of trans-nationalism as espoused by the Mullahs in Iran during the Iranian revolution.

He is also anti-Iran and anti-sectarian violence which is useful.

I believe el-Sadr spent a few months in Tehran....

[Farnan]

I believe el-Sadr spent a few months in Tehran....

The Sadr family is famous for its anti-Iranian stance. That is how they gained their power. He is also reaching out to Sunnis. He is not a good guy, but he is better than most.

[Legio XX]

He is not a good guy, but he is better than most.

Hmmm... I have heard that type of argumentation before... What was that guys name?... Oh, now I remember: Usama Bin Laden. Supporting him turned out really well, didn't it?

[Il-Principe]

Iraq is a whole mess. There are many possible solutions, but it's not clear, which will work and which will not. My guess is that the next US administration will completely pull out of Iraq. Maybe then they'll have enough military forces left to deter the Iran....

[Tiwaz]

Part about getting buddies with Europe is flawed.
This idea would expect europeans to come to PAY for mistakes made by USA. Bad idea. Of course USA would see it as fix for rift, since EU would not support USA at least little, but in EU eyes it would be same as having been in the same boat from beginning. No chance in hell in current political climate unless some government is overanxious to commit political suicide.

In effect, only way to start repairing those broken relations would require USA to do something for EU, not opposite. (yes, that on other hand would not go well with americans. so we are in position where rift is alive and well since both sides consider themselves to have been wronged)


As for idea to put al-Sadr on top. Nice. Except it would have to happen like mentioned here. Sadr has to gain power as anti-coalition force if he is to have any hope to become tolerable to at least two of the ethnic groups. Coalition simply has wasted too much of any goodwill it might have possessed with locals through bad decisions and even worse publicity. In effect you replace Saddam with Sadr, he will most likely make good deals with EU/Russian/Chinese oil corporations for iraqi oil (like Saddam was going to) and word american would be used as a curse in Iraq. In effect you get all the things you would have had with Saddam but with extra cost in blood and money lost.

Current US aligned government would crap their pants if they had to leave Green zone without heavy escort. Tells a lot about respect they know they have from their electors.

[Darsh]

USA should perhaps admit that the Iraq war was a terrible defeat and leave this country definitively?
It's like the Vietnam war you should turn the page.

[The Super Pope]

My conclusion post-withdrawl

1) Iraq will splinter into 3, Kurdistan in the North, Basrah in the South and the center.
2)Basrah enclave is annexed by Iran (Shia sticking together)
3)Kurdistan is opposed by Turks and Syrians
4)Central Iraq becomes even worse than it is now

[Tiwaz]

Post withdrawal?

Civil war.
Shia vs sunni and kurds trying to strengthen their grip on their territories and declare independence.

Turkey invades independent Kurdistan, Iran comes to aid their religious shia brothers, accidentally annexing them, and sunnis flock to save sunni iraqi.

Result? Civil war spreading in oilbarrel of the world, creating supply problems as terror strikes cripple industries of competing nations. Global economy takes a dip.

[Mathius]

Post withdrawal?

I normally like to cuddle and just relax for a bit.

[Principe Alessandro]

The firs cause of the failure of the mission in Iraq is the lack of soldier, the USA army need more men to control the territory, the only way is to give something to EU partners because this war the Americans has initiated without the approval of France and Germany, the most important nations in Europe, and to normalize the relations with Russia and China, with this can create a big multinational UN army that can help to control better the territory.

Also there are Siria and Iran that have a role not very clear.