Given that much of the Iraqi populance views violent resistance to American forces in Iraq to be justified, our continued presence for years to come seems an unlikely way to stem the current downward spiral. On the other hand, it seems equally obvious that untrained Iraqi forces will need help to prevent a civil war from leading to even more bloodshed and offering an ideal haven for radicals.
Thus, there appears to be only one way to reconcile these two fundamental requirements - we must enlist other military help that the Iraqi people can accept. The problem is, other Arab/Islamic countries have shown very little interest in offering recruits, since it would be political poison to fight alongside American troops. Also, their forces are ill-equipped compared to our own own.
Still, if we wish to withdraw, it's hard to imagine any other replacements that would be acceptable - so any good exit strategy requires that we somehow convince them. The key question becomes, what would it take to obtain assistance from other countries in the Middle East?
Many of the governments in the region are chronically strapped for cash - it's arguably one of their two greatest problems. Under such circumstances, they would hardly wish to take on the cost of sending troops to Iraq even if their forces didn't become targets in a shooting gallery! That means that we would have to make it worth their while... They might no longer dismiss the idea out of hand if we paid the costs - but they are only apt to give it serious consideration if we paid the costs very generously: Then, instead of their militaries being a large drain on their economies, they could become a source of extra income. (Note that even though we may end up paying them tens of billions of dollars, we would still save far more - not to mention saving thousands of American lives.) Done correctly, a win-win situation is at least a possibility. Troops that are fellow Arabs and Moslems would be a less inviting target than American forces - but, due to their more limited capabilities, they still run the risk of suffering even higher losses than our troops are now suffering. Since thousands of our troops have been killed, and tens of thousands seriously wounded, why should other governments be willing to stick their necks out, knowing that their troops will be coming home in body bags? If we want to convince them, we need to find a way to make this a win-win situation too. As it happens, the second great problem that many of the governments in the region face is the danger that the populance will turn against them. Precisely because our popularity on the Arab street is now so low, aiding fellow Arabs and Moslems who have been dying in large numbers as a consequence of our actions may give at least some of those leaders a much-needed boost.
There is also a third major obstacle: The Iraqi government has shown itself to be driven by self-interest, riven by divisions, and often unable to make effective decisions. Even worse, some of its most powerful movers and shakers may be leading or beholden to the very same factional forces that any outside group would need to rein in. Nevertheless, the basic reason that we have been unable to force the Iraqi government's hand is that they can afford not to take our demands seriously; we would hardly follow through on any threat to pull out if they refuse to take steps to control the danger of militias. Other Arab governments should have far more leverage in this respect than we do - because there would be nothing to stop them from pulling back out if the Iraqi government did not take the steps needed. Without any outside support, the current Iraqi leadership could well fall - so their political power, and perhaps even their very lives, would be at stake.
Finally, there is yet a fourth obstacle: Could an ill-equipped force actually do an adequate job? There is absolutely no guarantee of that - but, with the changed situation on the ground, they may not have a worse chance than we would if we stayed for several more years. Also, it would make sense for us to loan them the advanced equipment that we would otherwise have in Iraq anyway. And, since our medical teams are some of the best in the world, they should also remain to treat the injured. (Additional training would also be needed, but that could take place on their home turf, where neither they nor our trainers would be subject to the same danger of attacks that now exists when we train Iraqi recruits).
If this argumenbt makes sense, pass it on to your Congresman and/or Senators!
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
At this point any thing is worth a shot. I do have some reservation about using money to persaude those fighting in God's name to see the light. I am also uncertain of how this would in the current media.
Exiting Iraq requires understanding the politics and business affairs of the region. The Suni's are strongly supported by the neighboring country of Iran. If Iran were to "help" Iraq, only the Suni would hold any position of power. Not because of their religious affilitation, but because of the political glue that the Suni pact represents. The religious groups you hear of are NOT religiously virtuous, they ARE political pacts.
Iran is a largely educated society, yet it is controlled by a fundementalist minority. The true people in power manipulate the clergy (the clergy who themselves are wholely uneducated and promote violence to suit their own purposes - not true clergy). So the Iranian political culture uses religion as a front to influence the uneducated masses.
Where are the uneducated masses, employed by the government. They are the clergy, the soldiers, police, and the government officials. An uneducated person can only hold their position if they STRONGLY support the Iranian Government party officials. The US Government is corrupt, but the Iranian Government is corrupt by necessity. If the Iranian Government were not corrupt, it would fall apart into an ethical war of conscience. The neighbors of Iran like Saudi Arabia despise Iran because the people are NOT Arabic. Or more precisely, the people of Iran do not recognize a King as being a profit of God.
You can't even call Iranians Islamic. The Iranian people have had to change their religious ties because of threats of death. Given an open environment, 100's of religious affiliations immediately pop up that have little to do with Islam. The greatest drawback in the Iranian culture is their vanity. The individual is so concerned about the prestige they possess, that they become parallized when the Government threatens to take what they have. Rather than fight for ideals, they choose to live with how things are.
There have been repeated attempts to overthrow the current Iranian Government, but the US manipulated those activists into failure. The US Government has been silently supporting the current Iranian Government to prevent unification of the region. The business interests of the US take precedence over the political good of the region. Remember, for as long as countries are at war, the US weapons manufacturers and their employees make a very good living.
People learn from oppression, how to survive while being oppressed. The continued presence of the US military as police without the authority to make and enforce laws is a recipe for escalating violence. However, truely train all peoples of Iraq as to develop their own idiologies, and they will take control of their own country. The problem as I see isn't that the people are oppressed, it is that they are ignorant; as largely we too are ignorant in the US.
To be able to deduce logically the consequences from a proposed action is NOT a natural instinct of humans, it is a tool that is learned. Old dogs can learn new tricks, but it is much more difficult than teaching pups; or rather their children. If all persons were taught "Ethical Reasoning" and the community governments were restructured to allow all persons to contribute to the oversight and management of their society. Then each person would feel empowerment to make the changes they see fit to improve. Destruction is waste.
How can the US Government have a Win-Win Exit Strategy, teach the people to think for themselves and cast away the ideas that the elders know what is best, that the people in power no better than the individual. All people matter, all people must control their own destiny. Give the people the power of Ethical Reasoning and inately coupling it with the political system.
Provide a political system that allows for the coexistence of capitalism, socialism, and communism. Provide business with a major hand in the government, provide social programs for the needy and to sponsor startup businesses, and establish a military system whose soldiers are educated and are tested to be able to apply the principles of Ethical Reasoning.
If you don't like what is happening, help to change it. If you have NOT learned enough to reason the consequences of your proposed actions, you better learn some more before doing anything.Just my opinion
You don't need sophisticated weapons for that kind of thing. You just need a lot of "boots on the ground." The general rule for counter-insurgency warfare is that you need to have them outnumbered by 5 to 12, depending on particulars. This has been verified many times in practice, i.e., Viet Nam, Algeria, Afghanistan, etc.
I've never been convinced that democracy is the ultimate form of government for everyone. It works reasonably well in some places that have a long history of democracy, but I see no evidence that it works at all in places with no history of democratic rule.
There are no hordes of common citizens in Iraq demanding the right to vote in free elections; I strongly suspect that order will come only after another military dictatorship (for our purposes, one friendly to the US, and US corporations) is installed.
Once the "insurgents" have been contained, experiments in limited democracy can proceed, but I really think the creation of a truly free, democratic society in Iraq will have to take decades, at least. In North America, it took centuries before 1776...