Changing Horses In Iraq
Written by Major Tom
Filed under: Global Politics
February 23, 2007
I am really against war, any form of armed conflict for that matter but when Republican Senator John McCain analyzed that if the American forces pulls out of Iraq today—or even systematically reduce in size—a full blown civil war would erupt there one hundred percent. Despite that I was against the U.S. unilateral move on Iraq even from the beginning, I am afraid that Senator McCain may be dead right on his conclusions. The political sphere in Iraq now is so much different when Saddam Hussein was still in power. Back then the Sunnis hold the nation together despite them being only second in terms of number to the Shiite populace, even though it is clear now that such control were mostly wielded by the despotic hand of the deceased Iraqi ruler. Now, most of militant activities there are being propelled by Sunni Baathists and they hold such fierce firepower that everyday, American soldiers, as well as Iraqi forces, die alongside innocent civilians on the smoldering streets of Baghdad. Despite sizable presence of American troops in Iraq (about 220,000 strong), the killings do not stop at all and shows no signs of abating. They even become more and more gruesome as each day passes, the attacks more and more deadly and the manner more and more sophisticated.
If the U.S. Military leaves Iraq at this time, Shiites and Sunni factions would go at each other’s throat, to compete on control over the oil rich country, to gain supremacy over every other tribe as a matter of arrogance and conceit. And of course, the smaller Kurds sector would also get embroiled in the heat and could suffer tremendously from that. This civil war, as Senator McCain predicted, may or may not happen but the possibility is just huge at this point in time that a complete American pullout now would lay that nation into shreds.
But the newly-controlling Democratic Party is now inching to initiate a binding legislation that would in effect take away the broad authority of President George Bush on the Iraq War, and would most probably lead to the eventual pullout of U.S. forces there—earlier than the Bush plan, maintaining skeleton forces only to train and assist Iraqi military units.
It seems to me that the Democrats are not anymore waiting for the next election to make a decision on Iraq. They are making the decision now while they have control over U.S. Congress. To me this looks like changing horses in midstream in the gravest form. It would appear haphazard and could open up a lot of Pandora’s boxes—like as I said, the predicted civil war among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
Another thing, it may give President George Bush a convenient escape route and be generally relieved from main responsibility if the situation in Iraq becomes worst than what it is right now. He could say, “Hey, I told you so”.
If this move from the Democrats churns out uglier results—far uglier than what Bush had made on his Iraq War Strategy—it would surely hurt their chances on next years U.S. Presidential Elections and in essence, they would just be kicking themselves in the butt.
I think the best move here is a compromise between Bush long-term plan on Iraq and complete pullout. That would mean a slow and gradual pullout of American troops there starting this year while at the same time injecting radical economic and social measures such as increased infrastructure spending there and swift infusion of aids, in order to neutralize the vacuum left by the forces pullout. A good and running Iraqi economy is one thing that could avert general uprising and discontent in the population there.
The U.S. already into deep in Iraq and to suddenly withdraw leaving a weak central govt. would be a catastrophic foreign policy failure. And that is just what Iran waiting for. Right now the battle within Iraq is between the Sunni and the Shiite and Iran would like to see her influence in an Arab country by proxy and like their strong support for the Hezbollah in Lebanon, they will surely give an all out military and economic support to the Shiite majority as soon as there is a vacuum created by the U.S. troops withdrawal and the Democrats know it, and all they are doing now is just to test the re-action and evaluate the issue for next Presidential campaign, but they will not compromise the security of the U.S. if facts are before them.
The U.S. already into deep in Iraq and to suddenly withdraw leaving a weak central govt. would be a catastrophic foreign policy failure. And that is just what Iran waiting for. Right now the battle within Iraq is between the Sunni and the Shiite and Iran would like to see her influence in an Arab country by proxy and like their strong support for the Hezbollah in Lebanon, they will surely give an all out military and economic support to the Shiite majority as soon as there is a vacuum created by the U.S. troops withdrawal and the Democrats know it, and all they are doing now is just to test the re-action and evaluate the issue for next Presidential campaign, but they will not compromise the security of the U.S. if facts are before them.
Comment by vic — February 24, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
Sad isn’t it that the only thing Bush and his men were successful about in Iran was removing Sadam from power?
Comment by eric — February 24, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
To vic: I hope that’s the case with this new move from the Democrats in US Congress but its scary sometimes to see them act and speak like they have no hint at all about the grave consequences of a sudden or major pullout at this time in Iraq. Their leading presidential nominees—Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton—state as battlecry to bring home the troops now, and not tomorrow or next week or next year, but now. This is of course very one-sided and narrow–almost childish I say. Do I have the feeling that they want to win the presidential elections using Iraq as a sacrifice. I sometimes doubt that they want to bring home the soldiers just because they care for their lives and not winning the votes of a US populace that continually becomes disgruntled by a slow and highly destructive iraq campaign.
Comment by Major Tom — February 24, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
To eric: In the weeks leading to the initial American military move in Iraq—the so-called Operation Shock and Awe—there was some discusions among high US officials to opt for a less complicated method and that is tio send miniscule forces into Bagdhad and assassinate Saddam Hussein, thereby saving many US soldiers lives as well as Iraqis. But of course, that didn’t happen. If they did that, they might have save a lot of resources—manpower and money—and see Iraq governed by another set of leaders.
Perhaps, it is clear that such option was so risky as it may lead to ultimate chaos in the entire nation once Saddam gets assassinated and may even propell more hatred against America and inspire more attacks against American interest all over the world.
Comment by Major Tom — February 24, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
Out of topic comment. Nice new look you have for your blog. =)
Comment by reiji — February 25, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
To reijji: Thanks for the good note although I am still thinking of some designs I want to play on…
Comment by Major Tom — February 25, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
And now the Americans are finally seeing the result of their President’s hasty and stupid decision…
Comment by snglguy — February 25, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
To sngl: It seems that way bro that in the last midterm elections there, the Democrats virtually clobbered the Republicans to bits…
Comment by Major Tom — February 25, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
The fact that Blair had announced pulling most of his troops from southern Iraq speaks of the kind of pressure he is getting from his government back home. As usual U.S. officials call the pull out a success claiming that the Brits had done a good job stabilizing the south. In my opinion, Blair just had enough of Iraq and he’s calling it quits
Comment by bw — February 26, 2007 @ 8:47 am
Like BW, I think PM Tony Blair is already sick and tired of all the fighting in Iraq.
Oh..when will this war end? A lot of people, innocent people, already died…how much more?
By the way…is it just me or may brownout dito sa comment box mo Major Tom? hehe patay sindi ang ilaw…minsan di ko makita tinatype ko
Comment by verns — February 27, 2007 @ 10:13 am
To BW: The British campaign in Iraq was so done in the most apt of manner I supposed so inspite the widely perceived inappropriateness of UK’s role in Iraq; mostly discret operations they had and if some say that they had stabilize the south, I may believe it although it doesn’t escape us the fact that the south really has no burning conflict as much as Bagdhad has or up north. By all means, PM Blair has made the right decision for now.
To verns: Pasyenya na sometimes my comment box is just going nuts…I’ll try to do what I can do.
Now about Balir, as I said, I think he just made one wise move—parang one last escape before his term ends soon, and clean up whatever mess he had made in supporting the Iraq war.
Comment by Major Tom — February 27, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
I think that’s very unwise if Dems are going for the change now.With all religous factions, it’s like giving them a free-reign on domestic policy which at the moment is hardly even thinkable.
Comment by ipanema — February 28, 2007 @ 3:56 am
no, not even the US can stop the killings
Comment by tutubi — February 28, 2007 @ 2:50 pm