causeandeffectworld.com Blog

Fish or cut bait

Republicans are fond of accusing Democrats of cowardice, saying they want to ‘cut and run.’  Americans are extremely concerned with the situation on the ground in Iraq, and a good deal of the concern stems from the belief that the situation could have been avoided if the war had been conducted differently, that the war in Iraq was not directly linked to the so-called ‘war on terror,’ and that we find ourselves with no good alternatives. 

In the fall of 2005, the US generals running the war in Iraq told the Senate Armed Services Committee that a gradual withdrawal from Iraq was imperative.  NYTimes Nov 18, “A Shifting Enemy: U.S. Generals Say Civil War, Not Insurgency, Is Greatest Threat”

These generals have now changed their position:

“This week, General Abizaid, chief of the United States Central Command, told the same committee that American forces may be all that is preventing full-scale civil war in Iraq, so a phased troop withdrawal would be a mistake. What has changed, military experts and intelligence officials say, is that the insurgency of Baathists and foreign jihadists is no longer the greatest enemy the United States faces in Iraq. The biggest danger now, they say, is that violence between Shiites and Sunnis could destroy Iraq’s government and spill across the Middle East. 

What has changed, military experts and intelligence officials say, is that the insurgency of Baathists and foreign jihadists is no longer the greatest enemy the United States faces in Iraq. The biggest danger now, they say, is that violence between Shiites and Sunnis could destroy Iraq’s government and spill across the Middle East.”

The generals are now saying that while they worry that the long-term impact of American troops in Iraq may be the catalyst that creates more radicals committed to jihad, the greater threat is all-out civil war which could spill over into other countries in the region.

How did we end up here?  Did no one in charge in Washington imagine this as a possibility?

In the spring of 2003, during the build-up to the Iraq War, I was at a conference in Paris.  I met a young man who was Lebanese, went to school at Tufts University in the Boston area, and was living in Paris, working for an oil services company.  In other words, he knows the middle east, the United States, Europe, and the oil industry.  He, like me, had grown up in a religious family, but no longer believed in the supernatral.

He and I spoke about the impending war, and I asked him what he thought about Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, Afghanistan, Bush, and whether he thought the war in Iraq would be successful.

He seemed to understood why the United States conducted military action in Afghanistan, though he was very concerned about the civilians.  While he not like Hussein, he did not think that it was possible to remove him from power in Iraq without a terrible consequence because of the long-standing hatred between the factions in the country.  He predicted genocide.  When I asked if he thought it was similar to Yugoslavia, where Tito had ruled with an iron fist, and genocide ensued after Tito was gone, he replied,

“It will be 10 times worse.”

Those words have stuck with me all these years. 

When I hear Americans saying we need to withdraw, I wonder, then what?  If the result is genocide, can we live with that?  Are we in a situation where we have to sacrifice our young to prevent genocide that could have been avoided?

It seems that our choices are either:

• get many more troops in the region to stabilize the situation and hope to partition the country (some experts think 1 troop for every 20 nationals, about 500,000 are necessary for counterinsurgencies) or,
• pull out and keep our fingers crossed that the region doesn’t blow up.

In other words, it’s time to fish or cut bait.  Neither option is appealing. 

If we choose to stay, where will we get the troops?  What are the chances of any success in partitioning the country into entities that will be friendly to the US or at least not hostile?  Can we/should we internationalize the effort so the world has a stake in the investment? 

If we choose to leave, will there be genocide?  Will we leave such chaos that the fascists will have an open playing field with greater proximity to our allies in the Middle East and Europe?

The Bush administration shows no signs of changing, stubbornly sticking with their ‘stay the course’ mantra.  I am keeping my fingers crossed that with the message from the people in the election, pressure from Democrats in the House and Senate, and the counsel he gets from his father via Jim Baker, that Bush will listen to his military, develop relationships with allies, talk to all the important players in the region, and find a way out of this mess.