What a way to wage a war — pay your foes to stop fighting for a while. You almost get a feeling reading this that the surge and everything else being done now is geared toward simply quieting down the violence prior to our elections, coating it all in caramel and nutty goodness that conceals the rotten apple underneath. 2009 could end up being a nightmare no matter who is elected President.
Will Iraq’s Great Awakening Lead to a Nightmare?
American casualties in Iraq have declined dramatically over the last 90 days to levels not seen since 2006, and the White House has attributed the decline to the surge of 35-40,000 U.S. combat troops. But a closer look suggests a different explanation. More than two years of sectarian violence have replaced one country called Iraq with three emerging states: one Kurdish, one Sunni, and one Shiite. This created what a million additional U.S. troops could not: a strategic opportunity to capitalize on the Sunni-Shiite split. So after Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr decided to restrain his Mahdi army from attacking U.S. forces, General David Petraeus and his commanders began cutting deals with Sunni Arab insurgents, agreeing to allow these Sunnis to run their own affairs and arm their own security forces in return for cooperation with U.S. forces against Al Qaeda fighters. As part of the bargain, the Sunni leaders obtained both independence from the hated Shiite-dominated government, which pays far more attention to Tehran’s interests than to Washington’s, and money—lots of money.While the arrangement reached by U.S. military commanders and dubbed the “Great Awakening” has allowed the administration and its allies to declare the surge a success, it carries long-term consequences that are worrisome, if not perilous. The reduction in U.S. casualties is good news. But transforming thousands of anti-American Sunni insurgents into U.S.-funded Sunni militias is not without cost. In fact, the much-touted progress in Iraq could lead to a situation in which American foreign-policy interests are profoundly harmed and the Middle East is plunged into even a larger crisis than currently exists.
At this point I think the only way for it to work is a “Berlin Wall”-esque structure to separate these nut cases. Either that or just hand over our checkbooks. Sure why not, It isn’t like we can bring peace. Honestly how could any country bring peace to another country other then bribing and/or separating them. Maybe I’m not the brightest with foreign policy, but that’s how I see it.
And so you want to pull out immediately and have a disaster right away?
#1
I like the wall idea only with a little twist. Put the wall around an area, say the Anbar province and put the warring factions inside. I think there are a lot of Iraqis that would just like to get on with their life.
So, this possibility is WORSE than the Democratic theory of unconditional and immediate pullout!?!? As screwed up as the situation is, we can’t turn back time, and we can’t just pull out, it’d be a humanitarian disaster. It seems to me the best possible outcome is normalize the situation, put Iraq in charge of its own affairs, then withdraw our troops. Isn’t that what we’re doing, and what we’ll continue to do, regardless of the a Democrat or a Republican in office in 2009?
It’s not like we’ve created problems in Iraq that weren’t there before. The country was considered a high spot of intellectual studies until the Baath party took over in 1968 and messed it all up. I only hope there’s a chance for a return to that state.
@#2 – Nah. Lets stick around for a couple more years, endure a few more thousand causalities, tear the country apart more, and _then_ pull out and have a disaster.
Best case scenario is that in the next twenty years, the situation in Iraq fools the USA into withdrawing its troops then a bunch of assassinations of Iraqi government heads happen. A small civil war breaks out which sends that country back into chaos.
What exactly is the sign that will let the USA government know it is time to leave?
Of course, the troops can’t be pulled out. The mysterious objectives haven’t been met yet. As long as the objectives are vague, a great number of US troops will be in Iraq for a very long time.
It is better to have US soldiers die than to suffer humiliation.
The article is written by the widely disclaimed Motherjones.
Pure 100% garbage!
I think BillM is referring to the “Thunderdome”. Two factions enter, one faction leaves!!!
Maybe they should have used this strategy before the war. Pay Saddam to switch to our side away from Al Qaeda.
Its amazing the amount of discussion in the media and from politicians arguing over leaving Iraq. The truth is, this country will occupy Iraq for the remainder of our lifetimes. Once the US has invaded a country, it is there to stay. Hawaii, Panama, Puerto Rico, Guam, Japan, Italy, Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq.
The US is spending $736 million (and counting) on the world’s largest US embassy in Baghdad, taking up the space of 80 football fields. I would say we’re not going anywhere.
Hey, I thought the surge was a failure because it was really just a cover for ethnic cleansing, you posted it a few weeks ago.
Got any more explanations for the surge’s success that doesn’t require saying you were wrong?
#12, Mental Midget Mike,
Hey, I thought the surge was a failure …
It is. Or didn’t you read the story. Unless the US allows Iraq to break into at least three parts, there will be further blood shed.
Most of the “fighters” are part time mercenaries trying to make a living. They cannot get jobs because of the violence.
Let them get a local economy going and they will deal with anyone trying to mess with their jobs.
(The US Army is screwing up by insisting the locals can only have one rifle per home, and banning hand guns all together. Give the locals a reason to want peace and the means, then GTFOOTW.)
#7, jbenson,
Actually, Mother Jones is a fine read. Most consider it widely acclaimed.
If you disagree so strenuously, just exactly what is incorrect? Or are you shooting the messenger because you don’t like the message?