Sunday, February 11, 2007

Iraq Myths

Gen. William Odom, in the Post:
...Too many lawmakers have fallen for the myths that are invoked to try to sell the president's new war aims. Let us consider the most pernicious of them.

1) We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon. Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable! Undoubtedly we will leave a mess -- the mess we created, which has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath, a civil war, a terrorist haven, a "failed state," or some other horror. But this "aftermath" is already upon us; a prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists.

2) We must continue the war to prevent Iran's influence from growing in Iraq. This is another absurd notion. One of the president's initial war aims, the creation of a democracy in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian influence, both in Iraq and the region. Electoral democracy, predictably, would put Shiite groups in power -- groups supported by Iran since Saddam Hussein repressed them in 1991. Why are so many members of Congress swallowing the claim that prolonging the war is now supposed to prevent precisely what starting the war inexorably and predictably caused? Fear that Congress will confront this contradiction helps explain the administration and neocon drumbeat we now hear for expanding the war to Iran.

Here we see shades of the Nixon-Kissinger strategy in Vietnam: widen the war into Cambodia and Laos. Only this time, the adverse consequences would be far greater. Iran's ability to hurt U.S. forces in Iraq are not trivial. And the anti-American backlash in the region would be larger, and have more lasting consequences.

3) We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al-Qaeda in Iraq. But it was the U.S. invasion that opened Iraq's doors to al-Qaeda. The longer U.S. forces have remained there, the stronger al-Qaeda has become. Yet its strength within the Kurdish and Shiite areas is trivial. After a U.S. withdrawal, it will probably play a continuing role in helping the Sunni groups against the Shiites and the Kurds. Whether such foreign elements could remain or thrive in Iraq after the resolution of civil war is open to question. Meanwhile, continuing the war will not push al-Qaeda outside Iraq. On the contrary, the American presence is the glue that holds al-Qaeda there now.

4) We must continue to fight in order to "support the troops." This argument effectively paralyzes almost all members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in grave tones a litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has anybody asked the troops?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

FYI -- more on "Support the Troops" over at David Byrne's blog

http://journal.davidbyrne.com/2007/02/2707_free_will_.html

geesh we're so wrapped the axle with language...
"support the troops" -- means whatever you want it to mean. I guess.

Anonymous said...

WE HAVE LOST THIS WAR. Lost. L-o-s-t. It is a word is the dictionary. Calling an dog a "donkey" don't get you a ride home.

Jack Lacton said...

Well, Gen. William Oden indulges in his own double standard by stating that the invasion made the blood-curdling atrocities inevitable in Iraq but quietly avoids the fact that Afghanistan was much more prone to the same violence. It was the presence of US troops on the 38th parallel that prevented the North Koreans surging south and slaughtering/enslaving their now much more prosperous brethren not to mention the debacle of Vietnam when the US left (and then voted not to arm the SV Army - what a disgrace that was and nobody seems to want to remember the lesson).

Iran's influence in the region is growing, as shown by its support of Hezbollah and Hamas and interference in Lebanon via its proxy state, Syria. The man on the street of Iran, while being a patriot, also has a great respect for the US and still remember the greater freedom they had under the Shah before Jimmy Carter threw him under the bus. The administration knows that if Iraq can become self-governing then it will have an effect on the street in Iran. It definitely did not do enough to minimise Iranian influence and misjudged the new government's ties to Tehran.

We certainly must prevent Iraq becoming a new Afghanistan. Opening up a front against Al Qaeda that could be fought more effectively than in the wild of rugged Afghanistan was a brilliant idea, just poorly executed. It would be useful if the administration published exactly how many insurgents are being killed because it exceeds five thousand every month. And good riddance.

The support the troops comment shows just how out of touch Odom is. There are many milbloggers and embeds including the NYT's great John Burns that will tell you the troops simply want to have rules of engagement where they can actually take care of the enemy rather than fight with one hand behind their back.

http://ker-plunk.blogspot.com