|
Is
it Time to Get Out of Iraq?
By Alan Caruba
For
some time now I have been writing that the United States needed
to get into the Middle East and "drag it into the 2lst century."
A nice turn of phrase, but rhetoric does little to change a culture
that has been around since the seventh century when Islam began
and goes back millennia to the biblical days of the nomadic tribes
conjuring up new religions.
 What
do you do, however, when the people you want to help don't want
you to help? Or are fearful of helping themselves if the price is
being killed by the enemies of their new freedom?
The
Bush Administration is making much of turning over sovereignty on
June 30th, but it needs to be a true sovereignty, the right of Iraqis
to run their own nation. The transformation will take a while and
we may well be there a long time. (We still have a military presence
in both Japan and Germany.) We will have to guarantee that effort.
It will be worth it. As I have written in the past, the road to
the end of Islamic terrorism runs through Baghdad, Damascus, Riyadh,
and ultimately, Tehran.
The
United States of America either has the guts to fight on to the
end in the very heart of the region that most threatens us or we
shall surely suffer a worse fate if we do not. It is no small irony
that we have managed to do something even the Muslims could not.
We have united the Sunnis and the Shi'ites against us. We have given
the entire Middle East an endless series of events with which to
portray us as the new infidel "crusaders" that have invaded
their sacred lands.
At
this crossroads in the Middle East wars, we know we have the firepower,
but we don't know if we have patience to see events through to a
true victory. That is one thing of which the Arabs have plenty.
Remember how Osama bin Laden waited from 1993 until 2001 to finally
bring down the Twin Towers after the first failed attempt? Consider
how long the Palestinians and all the other surrounding nations
of the Middle East have been waiting to destroy the Israelis? Over
a half century!
We
have liberated Iraq. Saddam and his brutal regime are gone. There
is much resistance from a small percentage of the population and
some who have joined the insurgents from elsewhere. Our military
is stretched thin. In addition to our regular forces, we are using
National Guard and Reserves to fight a war in a country the size
of California. We can't even drive their highways without suffering
casualties. They know it. We know it. The enemy will test our resolve
in every way possible.
Though
I personally would have already bombed them until the rubble bounced,
we have not invaded the "holy cities" of Fallujah or Najah.
These places are so "sacred" they stockpiled weapons in
their mosques! For now our generals wait on orders that may well
determine the future of the conflict in Iraq. In the Middle East,
force is understood and respected. This observer does not see a
peaceful alternative.
We
are between a rock and a hard place right now. The US dares not
be perceived, like the Spanish, as having left out of fear. I don't
think most Americans would find that acceptable. So long as we remain,
however, we will be Iraq's "occupiers." This is unsatisfying
to everyone and recent polls in Iraq indicate the Iraqis want the
US to leave. It is doubtful, if not impossible, for the Iraqis to
form a new, democratic government and to secure it without our support.
Sen.
Kerry gave a speech recently saying we have to "internationalize"
the war, bring in other nations, NATO, et cetera. Even he can't
really believe we are going to achieve this. Neither the French,
the Germans, the Russians, nor the Chinese are going to join this
effort. What bothers me even more is that just a week earlier he
was saying he was behind the White House despite his criticisms.
This guy changes his mind so much and so fast he must bump into
himself when he turns a corner.
Is
it time to leave Iraq? Our nation's safety and the great challenge
of the Islamic fanaticism bred in the Middle East argues against
this. I recall the Vietnam War and I am not comfortable with the
occasional feelings of déjà vu, but I don't think
Americans will accept the taste defeat again and leaving now would
be a defeat.
Alan
Caruba writes a weekly column, "Warning Signs", posted
on www.anxietycenter.com,
the website of The National Anxiety Center.
|
The
Strongman Solution
By Daniel Pipes
The battle of
will in Fallujah between Iraqis and Americans will, I expect, increase.
Further, I predict Iraqis will prevail, and I do so on the basis
of two presumptions: Iraqis don't want Americans to rule them;
and Iraqis care much more about the future of their country than
do Americans.
 For
the sake of argument, let's assume my reasoning is correct,
the U.S. government abandons its goal of "a free and peaceful
Iraq," and coalition forces prepare to leave Iraq on less-than-optimal
terms. What would then be the least-bad outcome?
Having the central
government control the entire country and patrol its borders, contain
radical ideologies and ethnic tensions, and not attack neighbors.
Further, it would ensure reasonable freedoms, permit the economy
and culture to develop, dispatch oil and gas to the outside world,
and move toward increased political participation.
Fine, but how
to achieve this?
I began arguing
a year ago, first on television, then in writing, that Iraq needs
"a democratically-minded Iraqi strongman," returning to
this theme again and again in subsequent months. He would combine
several features:
- No
history of criminality or atrocities during the Saddam Hussein
era;
- No
radical ideological beliefs, Islamist, Baathist or other;
- A
recognized social standing;
- Access
to the tools of power; and
- A
power base that is not restricted to the Sunni, Shi‘i, or
Kurdish populations, making him eligible to become leader of the
whole country.
Who might fit
these criteria? A high ranking military officer not incriminated
by the previous regime's butchery, someone who could establish
working relations with the coalition even as he defies it and works
to extrude it and rule Iraq.
Until recently,
this was a job description which no one appeared to fit.
Then came the
news, at first blush dismaying, that ex-Maj. Gen. Jassim Mohammed
Saleh al-Dulaimi, 49, a Fallujah native and reportedly a relative
of Saddam Hussein,was to head the Fallujah Protective Army, a brand-new
Iraqi force working with the coalition to help avoid a confrontation
between it and insurgents in Fallujah. Consisting of 1,100 volunteers,
mostly disgruntled former officers and enlisted soldiers from the
Fallujah region, it is tasked with staffing checkpoints and theoretically
reports to the U.S. Marines.
As Saleh took
command on April 30, the stocky general with a Saddam-style mustache
wore his Saddam-era uniform, complete with maroon beret. In a scene
broadcast across Iraq, he shook hands with Marine commanders and
had the old Iraqi flag raised, to the cheers of onlookers. He set
the tone immediately by declaring an intent to impose security and
stability in Fallujah "without the need for the American army,
which the people of Fallujah reject."
As his forces
took up position, they celebrated what they saw as a victory over
the withdrawing U.S. forces. "We won," exclaimed one of
them to the Washington Post. "We didn't want the Americans
to enter the city and we succeeded."
Saleh seemed
to be popular in Fallujah, where his arrival met with wide approval.
Residents flashed the V-for-victory gesture and mosque p.r. systems
gloated over the American retreat. The Associated Press quoted a
policeman saying, "We have very much respect for Gen. Saleh.
He was a real officer and is an observant Muslim. He did not harm
anyone."
Saleh has filled
many senior positions; one former general recalls him serving as
a divisional chief of staff in the Republican Guard, commanding
the army's 38th Infantry Division, the whole Iraqi army's
infantry forces, and the Al-Quds Army. One of his relatives adds
that Saleh was not political and so did not rise in the Baath party.
Indeed, Marine Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne said that Saleh had opposed
Saddam's regime and paid a "steep personal price."
However, the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers said that
Saleh "has not been vetted yet and won't be the one in
command." Later, news came that another ex-major general, Mohammed
Latif, would probably replace Salah as head of the Fallujah Protective
Army.
This confusion,
plus the abrupt appearance of Saleh and Latif, suggests that the
race to fill the position of strongman has begun. I cannot predict
who will eventually fill it but I can – sadly – say
that someone of their general description represents the realistic
best hope for Iraq.
Daniel Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org)
is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Miniatures (Transaction
Publishers).
|
