September 2007
A PERSPECTIVE OF THE IRAQ WAR
9/11/07 was the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It was the second day that General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified on the conditions in Iraq before Congress. Politicians are putting their spin on this report. There are a multitude of different views of the situation in Iraq throughout the world – particularly by the American and Iraqi people including the fighters.
Here are some of the questions that I have struggled with:
· Is success in Iraq vital to our national security?
· Will President Bush’s Iraq policy and strategy go down in history as a blunder?
· Is there a military solution in Iraq?
· Will giving military commanders more time achieve positive results or will it only continue to increase loss of life and limbs of our troops?
· Is the Iraqi government capable of reconciling political differences and controlling the ethno-sectarian violence and warring factions among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds – including Sunni vs Sunni and Shiite vs Shiites conspiracies?
According to the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s leaders cannot nor want to create an effective coalition government. There is no evidence that this government can achieve the defeat of the insurgents and then govern Iraq democratically. Americans are increasingly frustrated over the ineffectiveness of the elected Iraqi government leaders. Partisan bickering in Washington aggravates solving the Iraq problems. The current Bush strategy pursues unattainable goals. The goal of creating a stable, pro-American Iraq is no longer possible. . Public opinion polls indicate that Americans have a very low opinion of the Bush Administration’s policy of staying the course. The Administration has stumbled and fabricated one bad war plan after another, exposing our troops to unacceptable danger. The current strategy consumes a significant amount of ground forces; it is adversely impacting the force structure of the Army and Marines. The United States need to rebuild its reserves of strategic forces in the event of threats elsewhere in the world.
Here is a perspective of the Iraq War from an ole soldier:
Our soldiers are targets for suicide bombers and improvised explosive devices (IED). Convoys are vulnerable to ambush. Security and stability of Iraq’s heavily populated regions cannot be controlled by our troops. We do not have an outstanding record at counterinsurgency. But we are a formidable conventional military force. To reduce our casualties, we need to remove our troops from the environment of warring factions and the anti-American adversaries – extract them from the line of fire. Iran is funding, arming, training and directing the activities and militia elements in Iraq. Arms and fighters are flowing into Shiite areas from Iran unhindered. We need to reassess the real threat and the strategic thinking on Iraq. It is time to change our mission, strategy and course of action. It is insane to do the same thing repeatedly, expecting a different outcome.
Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, is a Vietnam War veteran. He is a foreign policy expert in the US Senate. He is an independent, serious spokesman on the challenging issues we face in our national security and in the strength of our Armed Forces. As the war toll increases and the war costs soars into the billions, Senator Hagel challenges Bush’s policy. It is his opinion that this war cannot be won and had no justifiable cause. He supports legislation setting a deadline to bring the troops. In the Senate hearing of General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Senator Hagel asked: “Are we going to continue to invest blood and treasure at the same rate we’re doing now? For what?”
Dad, My comments are, of course, non-attributional as I am in uniform once again. Nonetheless, they are here at the bottom of your article. Have fun with the Rookers. Take care and God bless, Matt
I agree with all your assertions but reach a different conclusion.
My answer to Senator Hagel’s question is: In order to mitigate the consequences of what we (the American People) broke.
You probably recall that I was in the minority and argued with you in 2002. I was against this war from the beginning. I now find myself in the minority again. I believe we must stay the course because we created the conditions. I accept my share of the responsibility: In the US the citizens are sovereign and ultimately accountable for the actions of government. But I also assert that Senator Hagel (and many of his peers in the Senate, and many US Representatives) shoulders even greater culpability than do I as he (and they) had a direct vote in the decision. I will refrain from further diatribe fixing blame. I will devote the remainder of my efforts to explaining my position.
We destabilized Iraq. I believe the characterization of this war as a civil war is somewhat inaccurate. The war in Iraq is a lethal free-for-all. The danger of characterizing Iraq as a civil war is that such a characterization suggests a structure that can lead to false hope. The nature of the fighting in Iraq is more like Somalia in the early 90s than Vietnam. It isn’t Sunni vs. Shia; the Madhi Army is splintering; AQI competes with other Sunni insurgent groups; the root of the fighting is between multiple armed, violent, power-hungry, vendetta-bearing factions. Victory or defeat is more distant in such a condition than in the condition of two organized sides vying for dominance.
The widespread and anarchic nature of the violence creates the condition for massacre on a scale unknown in the lifetime of any person on this mortal coil. If the violence is left unchecked, there would be no refuge in Iraq. Every man, woman and child would be caught up in it. The “homogenous Shia” south has flared again, Shia vs. Shia, because the British presence there has lessened.