Ican, sometime back, had challenged us all with the prospect of putting forward ideas and concepts that might actually help the Iraqi people in their quest for autonomy and democratic rule. This set me to wondering as to more specific measures that might actually work towards this goal of Iraqi self determination. The following are my thoughts, suggestions, and criticisms. Please feel free, as always, to comment and criticize.
The President of The United State's (POTUS) remarks spoken at the Army War College in Carlisle, PA on 24 May 2004 is probably a good outline to follow in this endeavor, but this invites the first criticism in that these remarks were merely an outline of this administration's intended actions in the immediate future to secure Iraq's nationhood. The entire speech was notable in its paucity of detail. But let's state the outline that POTUS has given:
1). Hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government
2). Help establish security
3). Continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure.
4). Encourage more international support
5). Move toward a national election that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people.
Sounds good but the order, as presented by the President, is wrong. None of the above will happen until the second in the list becomes a reality on the ground in Iraq. Security in the form of Law and Order is first and foremost. It really is all "about the security, stupid". Newly elected Iraqi leaders are, of course, important and the ultimate goal but are we to expect any Iraqi to be stupid enough to stick his head up in the current environment and present such an extremely high profile as to invite the same fate of Izzadine Saleem? Why was the chairman of the Iraqi Governing Council waiting in a line of traffic to get to his HQ inside the "Green Zone"? Is this the security promised such leaders?
There is a "tipping point" that must be reached where Iraqis must feel somewhat safe enough to risk their lives for their country, they must feel they have a chance to, at least, serve out their elected term and achieve some of their goals. It would seem the area needs more security, but I was not heartened by the POTUS's "remarks". President Bush admitted:
Quote:"These elements of Saddam's repressive regime and secret police have reorganized, rearmed and adopted sophisticated terrorist tactics. They've linked up with foreign fighters and terrorists. In a few cities, extremists have tried to sow chaos and seize regional power for themselves
These groups
share a goal. They hope to wear out the patience of Americans, our coalition and Iraqis before the arrival of effective self-government and before Iraqis have the capability to defend their freedom
As the Iraqi people move closer to governing themselves, the terrorists are likely to become more active and more brutal."
Notable in the last part of that quote is the word "more" (describing the level of violence) which implies an "increase thereof". But further along in his speech the President intimates one of the few specifics contained therein:
Quote:"Our commanders had estimated that a troop level below 115,000 would be sufficient at this point in the conflict. Given the recent increase in violence, we will maintain our troop level at the current 138,000 as long as necessary."
What? Look, its right there; the word increase describing the level of hostile activity not only expected in the future but presently visible. So, how is the U.S. to respond? Well, we will "maintain" present levels of security which have, up to now, resulted in
what? We need more troops, sure, but it's more than that. Needed are administrators, engineers, advisors, and people to train the Iraqi security forces and the proposed Iraqi Army of 35K members (experts assign this effort a realistic timeline of 3 years).
Oh, if we could just get to July 1st when full sovereignty is given to the Iraqis! Then all will be fine. But what will Iraqi citizens see when they wake up on that fateful Thursday? Just a guess, but probably the same number of TMMs and U.S. troops will still be in place, unless some magic is involved.
What to do? Well let's skip to step 4 and invite more international support (it would be hard to get less). The irony of this administration's effort towards multilateral participation is not lost on anyone that has participated in this thread, but its value must be admitted. UN participation is important in Iraq but as Sen. Biden of DE has noted: "UN participation is mandatory but not sufficient." We must get a U.S. "face" off this situation.
As Senior Advisor to Paul Bremer, Dan Senor has noted: The main benefit of Iraqi Sovereignty is that they (Iraqis) will be responsible for security. Consequently, any terrorist, Baathist, or al Qaeda action will be perceived as against the Iraqi government and therefore the Iraqi people themselves. However, there is a weakness in this argument. That weakness stems from the critical fact of how and from whom does the Iraqi government, currently in power, obtain the necessary security? If the answer is the American military the entire concept fails. Further, if a sovereign Iraq demands the exodus of the American military
but wouldn't that be suicide? How to get free of this conundrum?
Many have suggested the answer lies with NATO participation, perhaps it might work; The UN as temporary advisor for administrative and political issues and NATO for security. But who comprises NATO? Uh oh, how are we to convince those peaceniks in Europe after their shabby treatment by the present U.S. administration? Good question, perhaps Retired General Anthony Zinni gives us a hint in his answer to what the administration's course of action before the beginning of the present conflict should have been:
Quote:"Well, it's been evident from the beginning what the course is. We should have gotten this U.N. resolution from the beginning. What does it take to sit down with the members of the Security Council, the permanent members, and find out what it takes
"What is it they want to get this resolution? Do they want a say in political reconstruction? Do they want a piece of the pie economically? If that's the cost, fine. What they're gonna pay for up front is boots on the ground and involvement in sharing the burden"
The preceding questions, asked of NATO members, combined with the notable fact the ME and such spawned groups as al Qaeda is the "soft underbelly" of Europe might give incentive working towards their participation in a GMEI
they will benefit also. Additionally, the heads of many Arab states may want to reconsider how much longer they will want to ride the tiger of Middle Eastern extremism that spawns such terrorists. The era of supporting such groups with the temporary goal of appeasement may be coming to an abrupt end.
But how is it possible to start this UN / NATO ball rolling? Sen. Biden, again, offers his two cents. "The president must lead. His must pick up the phone and call European leaders, set up a Summit Meeting to resolve this problem. Those leaders will answer the phone and the President must use his political capital to invest in the cause towards Iraqi Democracy" (my paraphrase: JM).
I was going to further expound on a vision of a future Iraqi Republic with a strong well trained army of about 35K but, at this point, any further speculation along such lines is merely wishful thinking. Elections before the end of January '05 (step 5) possess the same attribute.
Respectfully,
JM
