Bing West Reports Back From Iraq
Bing West is back from Iraq and has posted his trip report at the Small Wars Journal.
What, then, is the biggest problem? How the Americans can infuse into the Iraqi army and police in Baghdad a sense of mission and even-handedness such that the Americans can withdraw from neighborhoods in eight to twelve months without backsliding. ...
Trust will decide this war. We know the essence of the problem: Whether the Iraqi central government and security forces are led by deceivers who tell us they believe in a stable federation with power-sharing, while they abet sectarian division. In my most recent visit, there was the pervasive, open acknowledgement by the police, IA and the residents that they trusted the Americans, but not each other.
posted by wretchardthecat at 3/03/2007 01:11:00 PM
22 Comments:
Since I believe everything I read in the NYT, I know Baghdad is the most dangerous place in the entire Milky Way. So, how is that all the neighbors are coming for tea and biscuits next weekend?
There is a message in this folks.
"...I know Baghdad is the most dangerous place in the entire Milky Way."
Even more dangerous than Washington, D.C.?
Bing West said . . .
Whether the Iraqi central government and security forces are led by deceivers who tell us they believe in a stable federation with power-sharing, while they abet sectarian division.
There is a strange ellision in this question which can provide an answer once the lack of specificity is addressed. Instead of "central government" and "deceivers" plug in the more precise terms that we know to be true: a government dominated by Shiite Islamist parties dedicated to Shiite supremacy (i.e. SCIRI, Dawa and Sadrists). Don't we already know the answer here? Can we really be so naive at this late a date?
...the CIA and State Department are not on our side...
Whose side *are* they on?
It would be wrong to think that only the Shi'ites or the people in the Iraq government lie. Tom Holsinger I think is correct in saying that we want to keep the country from being used as a terrorist base. But I think it is more than that. One wants to keep any country in the region from entertaining the idea of attacking the United States. It must be made absolutely plain that anyone who does that will be utterly destroyed.
That Iraq is full of factions shouldn't mean we are in favor of any of them. We should be in favor of a process. The process of being civil, as democratic as possible and of not attacking the United States. If the factions adjust to that then one can ask for little else. To gain that end, we can play one side against the other. But the goal should be plain: a Middle East that will not be allowed to become a base of violence directed against the West.
To withdraw in defeat from Iraq would be an admission that yes, you can attack America with impunity. Few of the groups that have signed on to the initial strategic goal -- that of excluding terrorism from the region -- will likely trust the West again.
Say it again wretchard, all caps this time.
reocon,
Harrison has some thoughts reduced to an excellent essay on knowing one’s enemy. While not a perfect fit to your thesis, it is well worth the time of a reading. In fact, I dare say, there are some universally applicable lessons for all.
Memoirs of a Colonel
"That Iraq is full of factions shouldn't mean we are in favor of any of them. We should be in favor of a process."
Yes, that is it. The Necessity of the war was to knock Iraq out of being a problem-exporting country. The Nature of this war has been driven by a desire to change the dynamic in the middle east from dictators to Something Else. The Something Else is supposed to be something more democratic and less inclined to exporting violence. In the process we end up playing everyone against everyone while demonstrating that it would be Real Bad to P.O. the USA.
Our single biggest problem has become not the war(s) itself but how to demonstrate that the process we created is not a defeat for us. With a great many people - the Democrats, the MSM, France and Russia, assorted Leftists, assorted crazies, Iran, Syria, Al Queda, etc - all wanting that defeat to happen, we can be assured that it will indeed happen in their preceptions. It simply will.
Back in the mid-90's a group of Leftists calling themsleves "historians" held an "anti-trumphilism" conference in New York City with the theme "Quit bragging about how you won the cold war because you didn't." Meanwhile, there are millions of sad cases around the world that think that 9/11 was a BusHitler plot. Probably pretty much the same people think the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax.
Uh-ohhh...Pooty shootin' up people over here who disagree with him now!
3case,
Gee whiz, man, I took your point on the dangers of DC. You didn't have to go postal.
Just for the record:
I am all in favor of EVERY policy put in place by Vlad Pootie, from Chechnya to Romania, from natural gas to jailing oilmen.
Just want to make that clear that these are, and always have been MY Feelings, ok?
Honest.
The more dead Iraqis the better, and shedding American blood and treasure for those assholes is not something I support.
If Sunnis from other nations are dragged in and then Iran joins in the slaughter on behalf of the Shiite Death squads, the more the merrier.
Would you be willing to say that on al-Jazeera? Is this the message you want sent far and wide to the entire Islamic world?
Once Muslims hear voices of delight from their enemies upon news of their fratricide, they would turn their attentions toward those who seek to turn them against one another. One principal reason why al-Qaeda seeks Muslim fratricide is to give Muslims an opportunity to sharpen their swords for killing the rest of us.
I don't think a nuclear war in the Middle East would benefit the United States.
Americans are not SAFE to dream or monster mash or backgammon because we have forgotten that luxury and opulence are gifts given to us at the end of the 20th century so that we can make the 21st century a luscious and soft one.
It is as if the Vladimir Putins of our consciences have gotten the better of us, killing the Yankee Doodle Peter Pans before we had a chance to fly out the window to Never Never Land discovered by Francis Fukuyama.
And so Americans are not even safe within our own skulls because of rampant guilt, shame and embarassment sweeping the nation. Chinese couples at checkout and Mexican families and dashing Korean Stemcellintologists and beautiful scientologists are forging a future that america is too skiddish to embark upon. We cannot hide behind our football burger anchor because it masts us to our vulgar 20th century harbor! Who wants to cast off their shackles? I DO!
The departure of corporal punishment from the American public space left a vacuum that has yet to be filled. Instead, its members are but transient suitors for the mantle of authority that is forever logically and morally beyond their grasp.
Spare the rod, spoil the public mind.
You never see a Roman-nosed Saudi hanging his head in shame, for he knows a public space that defends itself from scoundrels calls him a member. He will look to the Arabian night with his head held high and know that golden arches and i-pods are not needed when man has natural beauty and natural virtue.
Iraqi public space needs corporal punishment desperately but cars and VBIEDs cannot be practically considered as they are difficult to control.
If Iraq's surplus of cars could be used, perhaps Maliki could order bad people tied to poles and cars backed up into them. Or a person would be confined in a PANOPTICON FILLED WITH CARS that all laid on their horns until the punished person understands what he/she did wrong.
We have options. We need to use them.
Iraqi pride and trust are low because bathroom facilities force the worldly Iraqi to squat in the gutter of a street in plainview of his countryman and push his business out his backside behind no privacy and with his inhibitions literally parted.
Do you expect civil society to flourish in a place where men are weeping as they strain, amidst the dissonant relief and humiliation?
They've no national monuments to ponder and nothing to flush. They've only the earth to sully and try to walk away from, and try to avert their eyes as one of their peers, their brothers, fathers, uncles squat to do their own public deed.
Its a national geographic cover photo you'll never see: the tear stained cheeks of the constipated arab post-nationalist, as confused about his identity as he is about his poverty.
A shame we could not build latrines worthy of the hanging gardens
Forgive me if this article has already been linked, but it expresses the obvious view of history that any honest, clear-thinking person has of our surrender in Vietnam:
Remember: for Cambodia, read Iraq by William Shawcross, author of Sideshow
Even if the original plan of creating a beachhead in the heart of our enemies' territory was "A Bridge To Far" - we had to attempt a breakout strategy to get more quickly to the end of this war, which has endured for six decades already. History seems to forget that the bold airborne attack behind Nazi lines, and the ensuing disaster at Arnhem, cost more Allied lives than D-Day. Many tragic mistakes were made, perhaps the greatest of all the boldness of the attempt. But we won the war.
In today's Inky, Mark Bowden goes to confession, sez he was wrong not only about the WMD's but also the noble ideal of birthing an alternative to dictatorism in the Mideast. He even admits the UN sanctions would be over by now and Saddam would still be in power. He's only denouncing his own former convictions, ignoring the global threat of Islamofascism and our need to respond with at least an attempt at long-term victory.
To Bowden and all his learned brethren I would ask: Okay, what would you do in this world war?
If Arnhem was a bridge too far, did those troops die in vain? Did Eisenhower, Montgomery, FDR, Churchill and all the rest - did they fail us by trying to defeat Nazism in one bold stroke?
Tom_Holsinger said...
Wretchard,
"Ethnic cleansing of most of Iraq's Sunni Arabs - reducing their proportion of the Iraqi population from about 22% in 2002 to 7-8% (we're more than halfway to that goal) would most definitely:"
85% of the Muslim world is Sunni.
Killing 10 million Iraqi Sunni Muslims sends a great message to 800 Million non-Iraqi Sunni muslims.
Being in favor of a Holy War with 800 Million people is about the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. By definition it would have to go nuclear. There aren't enough bullet and bomb factories to kill even 8 million people without nukes.
Nuking the oil fields that China and India depend on pretty much means China, India and Pakistan would have to go nuclear to defend them. Oops...kiss Japan,Taiwan and South Korea goodbye tomorrow morning at 9. Might as well kiss Europe good bye as well. Our man Putin will just drive West gobbling it up while our Army is tied up fighting the Chinese.
When it is all said and done, only 2 or 3 billion people will be dead..but hey...someone thought it would be a good idea to be killing 10 million Sunni's because maybe 10,000 Sunni's needed killing.
Soldier's dad wrote, 85% of the Muslim world is Sunni. Killing 10 million Iraqi Sunni Muslims sends a great message to 800 Million non-Iraqi Sunni muslims.
Ethnic cleansing does not mean 100% genocide, a lot of Sunnis are voting with their feet, and their Sunni "brothers" in Egypt, Jordan, and Syria aren't exactly welcoming them with open arms. But then the Palestinians already blazed that trail.
Oops...kiss Japan,Taiwan and South Korea goodbye tomorrow morning at 9.
America is their nuclear umbrella, and we kiss back.
Our man Putin will just drive West gobbling it up while our Army is tied up fighting the Chinese.
Normally I would object that NATO stands in the way of his tanks, but NATO is off in Afghanistan handing out soccer balls and stuff.
Wretchard, I don't follow this
..."One wants to keep any country in the region from entertaining the idea of attacking the United States. It must be made absolutely plain that anyone who does that will be utterly destroyed...To withdraw in defeat from Iraq would be an admission that yes, you can attack America with impunity. Few of the groups that have signed on to the initial strategic goal -- that of excluding terrorism from the region -- will likely trust the West again."
Who is the target of total destruction of the enemy? C-4 is correct reminding us about the Administration's past focus on the purple finger fetish.
The big winner in Iraq seems to be Iran. That was a present handed to them by GWB and the genius of his strategy.
The US has won by insuring no WMD's. Killing Saddam and establishing a new shining democracy. There is no victory. There is no defeat.
The US military hands out korans with white gloved hands. Islamism has not been diminished. Radical clerics are spared and mosques are off limits.
The US was attacked by 16 Saudis who killed three thousand Americans. Saudis spend lavish amounts of money for madrassas and the spread of their bizzare insane cult of Wahabbiism. Should they be the candidates to be utterly destroyed?
"The US military hands out korans with white gloved hands. Islamism has not been diminished. Radical clerics are spared and mosques are off limits."
It has long fascinated me that the PC crowd that will fight a Nativity scene on a public lawn tooth and nail will labor endlessly for the establishment of Sharia.
"Saudis spend lavish amounts of money for madrassas and the spread of their bizzare insane cult of Wahabbiism. Should they be the candidates to be utterly destroyed?"
In a word, yes...been sayin' that since 9/11.
cedarford,
re: No, of course not. Even Muslims that wish to eradicate the Jews, then all infidels worldwide are [not]so stupid.
You need to get out more, because they certainly do. Try reading MEMRI.
t"And if Islam started a Civil War, with Muslim against Muslim, what exactly is the harm to other region's interests?"
"Better they kill one another, than us."
Previously -
...If the goal is Iranian Shia nukes acutely and Saudi-sponsored Sunni Wahhabism chronically, the strategic tactic is to turn the enemy one against the other, such that they deplete their resources fighting one another, lessening each side's ability to attack the West.
...for the jihadi, his death is the only thing that matters to him: take that away and nothing is left. Make his death a lonely, useless, ignored death. Unextraordinary, unromantic, trivial deaths shatter the glory of the jihadi’s death.
...................................
Islam's Sunni-Shiite split
A look at the historic divide within the Muslim world - Dan Murphy
February 02, 2007 edition
Shiite-Sunni conflict rises in Pakistan Attacks on Pakistan's Shiites echo rising sectarian strife in the Mideast.
February 16, 2007 -
(MEMRI) London-Based Syrian-Born Historian Mahmoud Al-Sayyed Al-Dugheim on Al-Jazeera: Iran Established Global Shiite Government, Operating in Accordance with the Protocols of the Mullahs of Qom, to Annihilate the Sunnis
Today - 3/4/07
Iran poised to strike in wealthy Gulf states
By Colin Freeman, Chief Foreign Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
...Were America or Israel to attack Iran, such cells would be instructed to foment long-dormant sectarian grievances and attack the ex-tensive American and European business interests in wealthy states such as Dubai and Saudi Arabia. Such a scenario would bring...chaos to the Gulf, one of the few areas of the Middle East that remains prosperous and has largely pro-Western governments (Wahhabism is so Pro-Western you know).
The claims have been made by Adel Assadinia, a former career diplomat who was Iran's consul-general in Dubai and an adviser to the Iranian foreign ministry. They came as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, made a formal visit to Saudi Arabia yesterday in what was widely seen as an attempt to defuse growing Sunni-Shia tensions in the Middle East.
Tomorrow - March 5 - The Christian Science Monitor
...Saudi Arabia, Iran target Mideast's sectarian discord -
At a meeting in Riyadh, leaders of the two nations discussed Iraq's tensions and regional Shiite-Sunni mistrust.
Mr. Ahmadinejad said the pair discussed..."the plots carried out by the enemies in order to divide the world of Islam."
"What good is our [Islamic world's] common cause if we waste our energies and resources on self-destruction rather than self-preservation?" asked an editorial in the Saudi Gazette newspaper. "Mr. President, your visit signals your best intentions." But Sunni-Shiite reconciliation will not be easy.
As Iran is seen to back its fellow Shiites – as well as Sunni Palestinian groups like Hamas – aspects of Wahhabism, the extremist salafi ideology embraced in Saudi Arabia, lead to conflict. "Wahhabis regard Shiites as heretics," says Bavand in Tehran. "Political necessity requires containment of this behavior. But the rise of militant Wahhabism is a sore point for Shiites." Indeed, visceral anti-Shiite preaching hasn't vanished from Saudi Arabia, where two clerics in January called Shiites "the most vicious enemy of Muslims."
By contrast, Iran's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei, delivered a warning in mid-January to a group of Sunni and Shiite clerics. He warned that "the colonial front" (meaning the US and Israel) was seeking to play up sectarian differences.
"The issue is not that Shiites and Sunnis should accept one another's beliefs, [but] they should not listen to the enemy's enticements," Ayatollah Khamenei said. "They should not be enemies."
Post a Comment
<< Home