Iraq, Iran, Al Qaeda, and why withdrawal is prudent
Firstly here is a panel of 9 experts discussing why the war is lost (I suggest you read the whole thing here),
The war in Iraq isn't over yet, but -- surge or no surge -- the United States has already lost. That's the grim consensus of a panel of experts assembled by Rolling Stone to assess the future of Iraq. "Even if we had a million men to go in, it's too late now," says retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. "Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again."
Those on the panel -- including diplomats, counterterror analysts and a former top military commander -- agree that President Bush's attempt to secure Baghdad will only succeed in dragging out the conflict, creating something far beyond any Vietnam-style "quagmire." The surge won't bring an end to the sectarian cleansing that has ravaged Iraq, as the newly empowered Shiite majority seeks to settle scores built up during centuries of oppressive rule by the Sunni minority. It will do nothing to defuse the powder keg that an independence-minded Kurdistan, in Iraq's northern provinces, poses to the governments of Turkey, Syria and Iran, which have long brutalized their own Kurdish separatists. And it will only worsen the global war on terror.
"Our invasion and occupation has created a cauldron that will continue to draw in the players in the Middle East for the foreseeable future," says Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama bin Laden. "By taking out Saddam, we have allowed the jihad to move 1,000 kilometers west, where it can project its power, its organizers, its theology into Turkey -- and from Turkey into Europe."
How bad will things get in Iraq -- and what price will the world ultimately pay for the president's decision to prolong the war? To answer those questions, we asked our panel to sketch out three distinct scenarios for Iraq: the best we can hope for, the most likely outcome and the worst that could happen.
The Foreign Affairs artiicle re: al Qaeda, Iran, and Iraq. here is a snippet:
The biggest danger is that al Qaeda will deliberately provoke a war with a "false-flag" operation, say, a terrorist attack carried out in a way that would make it appear as though it were Iran's doing. The United States should be extremely wary of such deception.
...
Al Qaeda would especially like a full-scale U.S. invasion and occupation of Iran, which would presumably oust the Shiite regime in Tehran, further antagonize Muslims worldwide, and expand al Qaeda's battlefield against the United States so that it extends from Anbar Province in the west to the Khyber Pass in the east. It understands that the U.S. military is already too overstretched to invade Iran, but it expects Washington to use nuclear weapons. Baghdadi has told Sunnis in Iran to evacuate towns close to nuclear installations.
...Iraq is, of course, another critical battlefield in the fight against al Qaeda. But it is time to recognize that engagement there is more of a trap than an opportunity for the United States. Al Qaeda and Iran both want Washington to remain bogged down in the quagmire. Al Qaeda has openly welcomed the chance to fight the United States in Iraq. U.S. diplomacy has certainly been clumsy and counterproductive, but there is little point in reviewing the litany of U.S. mistakes that led to this disaster. The objective now should be to let Iraqis settle their conflicts themselves. Rather than reinforce its failures, the United States should disengage from the civil war in Iraq, with a complete, orderly, and phased troop withdrawal that allows the Iraqi government to take the credit for the pullout and so enhance its legitimacy.
No doubt al Qaeda will claim a victory when the United States leaves Iraq. (It already does so at the sheer mention of withdrawal.) But it is unlikely that the Islamic State of Iraq will fare well after the occupation ends... (Al Qaeda's own propaganda indicates that it fears the Shiites' wrath after the United States' departure more than it fears what would happen if the Americans stayed.)
With that in mind we shoulkd ask, Is Israel about to attack Iran?
Then, the latest case for withdrawal here,
Next, a British General , commander of the SAS saying Americians are the British enpire and the iraqi's are fighting their own revolutionary war and,
And feel free to browse more of my archived articles here on Iran and Iraq, and the "war on terra."
UPDATE: The Post has a good article on the predicted effects of withdrawal here.
If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three developments would be likely to unfold. Majority Shiites would drive Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province. Southern Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups. And the Kurdish north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there. In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations.
That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly."
...
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), also a White House hopeful, finds a different message in the Vietnam retreat. Saying that Baghdad would become "Saigon revisited," he warned that "we will be lifting American personnel off the roofs of buildings in the Green Zone if we do not change policy, and pretty drastically."
...White is among many Middle East experts who think that the United States should leave Iraq sooner rather than later, but differ on when, how and what would happen next. Most agree that either an al-Qaeda or Iranian takeover would be unlikely, and say that Washington should step up its regional diplomacy, putting more pressure on regional actors such as Saudi Arabia to take responsibility for what is happening in their back yards.
Many regional experts within and outside the administration note that while there is a range of truly awful possibilities, it is impossible to predict what will happen in Iraq -- with or without U.S. troops.
UPDATE II: Senator Levin asked why he thinks withdrawal is the right answer, via NO QUARTER
JUDY WOODRUFF: And what about the fate, Senator, of those Iraqis who have been supportive -- of Iraqi civilians in general, and particularly those who have been supportive of the U.S. mission?
SEN. CARL LEVIN: The current course is endangering the people of Iraq continually. It's the current course which isn't working; it's the current course which has led to huge slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. It's that course which has to change.
...
JUDY WOODRUFF: And just to broaden that out, Senator, the notion that there is maybe some moral responsibility on the part of the United States, because it was the United States who came in over four years ago, who has led this war in Iraq, participated in this war, and now to pull out, what responsibility does the U.S. have to the people of that country?
SEN. CARL LEVIN: I think we've got a huge responsibility. The way this government went in, the way the Bush administration went in unilaterally, arrogantly, the way in which we didn't wait for the U.N. to give its support to what we were doing, the way we did in the first Gulf War, there's a huge moral responsibility.
And we have a huge responsibility to the Iraqi refugees. There are now four million Iraqi refugees, half in the country who've been moved out of their homes, the other half outside of the Iraq. And you bet we have a moral responsibility.
And the bigger responsibility here rests with the Iraqi political leaders. And since, by their own words, by everybody's agreement there is no military solution, there's only a political solution, we shouldn't wait any longer to force the Iraqi leaders to undertake that political solution.
...
JUDY WOODRUFF: And just finally, Senator, when you are as convinced as you sound you are, what makes you know you have the right answer on Iraq?
SEN. CARL LEVIN: I don't know I have the right answer. There's been too much arrogance, as far as I'm concerned, floating around this town for anybody to say they "know" the right answer in Iraq. All we can do is use our best judgment as to what will change the direction in Iraq.
But do I know that what I'm saying is true? No, I believe it after a huge amount of thought, and concern, and discussion, and debate. I'm absolutely convinced what our military leaders are convinced, that there is no military solution. If you accept that, and there's a consensus there's no military solution in Iraq, once you accept that, if there's only a political solution, then the question is: Why wait? Why wait until someone makes another report in September to us about a military situation, which is what we're expecting in September? Why wait for more American lives to be lost?
UPDATE III: Senator Joe Biden offers what seems to be the most knowledgeable assessment and "solution" for the civil war in Iraq.
...well, look, here's my problem, Judy. When you listen to a lot of Democrats, they say, "Let's leave and hope for the best, because maybe that will get the Iraqis to come to their senses." And you hear the president say, "Just do more of the same and hand it off to the next guy." None of them offer a political solution.
What is the political solution? As General Hayden said -- and I want to quote him, the head of the CIA -- he said, "The inability of the central government to govern is irreversible." I've been saying that for three years. The fatal fundamental strategic flaw everybody is making is to think that there's any combination of actions we could take to generate a strong central government, representing all of the factions in Baghdad that was trusted by the Iraqi people. It will not happen in your lifetime or mine.
...JUDY WOODRUFF: And what responsibility do you think the United States has to the people of Iraq after it leaves, whether there's a U.S. troop force left or not?
SEN. JOE BIDEN: It has a serious responsibility it will not be able to meet. It will not be able to meet. Let's be honest with one another, Judy. When the American forces leave, absent a political accommodation among the parties, with the international community signing onto it, which is the reason why it could be enforced, just like it was in Bosnia, without that, what's going to happen?
You're going to see the fraction -- you're going to see four or five major Sunni militias killing each other. You're going to see -- I mean, Shia. You're going to see a couple in Anbar province. God only knows what happens between Barzani and Talabani in the north with the Kurds. So you're going to see chaos, and there's going to be a lot of people that will die.
But the flip of it is, there's not enough American forces, absent a political settlement, to prevent that from happening. And one thing the American people won't tolerate, Judy, they will not tolerate losing their sons and daughters just to keep things from getting worse. They'll tolerate losing their sons and daughters if you're making things considerably better and safer for America and the region in the long run.
