I never thought that going into Iraq was a wise decsion, but I did think that once we were there we had to make the best of it and do what it takes to succeed. That is, our only option was total commitment. However, a year later, it is clear that this administration is unwilling to totally commit to success in Iraq. Don’t misunderstand me. They wish to succeed, but they appear to be unwilling to do what it takes to succeed.
Prior to the invasion Gen. Eric Shinseki suggested 250,000 - 300,000 troops would be needed to secure postwar Iraq, but the administration felt that his estimate was a gross over-estimate, and proceed with approximately half as many. A year later, with the security situation worsening in Iraq, it is clear that was a mistake. Rumors have it that Powell recently authored a memo to the president urging for an increase in the American, British, and Iraqi troop levels. It is unlikely that this request will be fulfilled.
First, there are not enough well trained, well equiped Iraqi troops to fill the void. Iraqi volunteers are becoming harder and harder to come by. The majority of the troops we do train are uncommitted, ineffective, and often desert. Furthermore, as the recent suicide bombing inside the army base at Mosul revealed, the Iraqi volunteer army is penetrated with the very insurgents we’re trying to defeat.
The British people do not now, nor did they initially, support the deployment of British troops to Iraq. With the British election season looming, and Tony Blair’s political future in doubt, it is unlikely Blair will bolster the British contingent. Nor, is it likely any other member of the “coalition of the willing” will radically increase their troop commitment. If anything, we can expect that the smaller members of the coallition will reduce or even completely eliminate their commitment, as seen with the Philippines.
The United States can’t deploy that amount of forces without massive draw downs from strategic locations worldwide (i.e. Korea), or even larger and longer deployments of National Guard and Reserve units. These resource pools are already dwindeling. This leaves only one option remaining, the dreaded draft. The military is against it because the introduction of conscripts will hamper effectiveness both in the short term, and in years to come. The administration is against it, because the reintroduction of the draft would be politcal suicide. While the security situation in Iraq may at some point warrant a draft, the lack support both politically and militarily leaves its prospects dim.
The president has told us to expect things to get worse, possibly much worse, in Iraq. Almost every month. the number of American killed and injured that month, increases from the number the previous month. The military is unable secure city districts, key transportation routes, and vital infrastructure. This inability causes the insurgents to become more emboldened and brazen with their attacks.
While no WMD was found in Iraq, rendering the entire pretext for the war at best, moot, and at worst, suspect; we have achieved some goals. A brutal tyrant has been deposed and now faces trial for his crimes, and Iraq is now taking the first steps towards elections and democracy. Worthy and admirable achievements all around.
The elections in January won’t change the situation in Iraq. No more than the “return of sovereignty” or the capture of Saddam did. It will mark the completion of the last achievable milestone, though. Yes, the creation of a self-sufficent Iraqi military has been touted as the last milestone, but as I said previously, there are serious doubts about its achievability.
We can’t stay in Iraq forever. If even after the January elections, and the formation of the all Iraqi government, Iraqis still do not take affirmative steps for their own security and government stability, it will fall to us to do so. To paraphrase a previous president about another war: we can not, and should not, ask American boys to fight and die for an Iraqi government, when it’s Iraqi boys who should be doing the fighting and the dying.
If this becomes the case, what would happen to American national security if we were to completely militarily withdraw from Iraq? Forget straw man claims of “Then the terrorists would have won.” That means nothing. I’m talking in concrete terms. What’s the most probable worst case scenario, and how would this make us less secure at home? Are the stakes really as high as we would be led to believe?
Let’s say, Iraq falls into bloody civil war and splits into three ethnically dominate countries? Who cares? As long they’re killing each other, they’re not killing us. A more disturbing outcome would be al-Zarqawi, or someone like him, sets his terrorist shop in Fallujah, or Mosul, or even then Green Zone. If a genuine threat would emerge, what prevents us from simply bombing the hell out of the city, or sending in enough troops to kill or capture him, and then leave. Sure this would violate Iraqi sovereignty, and stir up a hornets’ nest of trouble in Iraq, but would this strategy make us less safe in the United States?
Someone tell me why we can’t just declare victory and go home in Iraq.