Commentary

Sports jargon to cure Iraq

According to a report in the Washington Post, “Go Big”, “Go Long”,
“Go Short”, are the options initially put forward by the US military
with regard to halting the collapse of Iraq into all-out civil war.
These phrases are usually uttered by sports announcers during football
season, it is nice to know that they can be applied to military affairs
as well.

The new study, charged by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Peter Pace, has been examining military options just as some high profile
members of the new Congressional majority are pushing for a withdrawal
to commence within four to six months. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group
is also on the case, and they are a month away from releasing their
guidance that will, it is hoped, steer Iraq away from the edge of the abyss.

The first suggestion, to “Go Big”, is not an option at all, because the US
cannot significantly increase troop levels, and the Iraqi army falls far
short in the number of trained and reliable soldiers available for service.
Even if this were a viable option, it would end up discouraging Iraqis
from taking responsibility for their own security, and would further
erode political authority.

The “Go Long” option means reducing the number of US troops in Iraq,
but extending the length of their stay in a capacity that emphasizes
training and advisory roles, as opposed to combat operations. This
would run counter to the goals of many in the Democratic majority,
and a the voters who put them there. The Pentagon’s training concept
means another five years, at least, on the ground in Iraq, and Democratic
Senators, such as Carl Levin, advocate withdrawing troops within
four to six months- a policy proposal with widespread public support.

The “Go Short” plan means packing it up and watching the country
explode into all-out civil war, and the likelihood of a larger-scale
conflagration involving the entire region.

Due to the unpalatable nature of the choices listed above, a blend of the
first and third options bubbled to the surface. By adding about 20,000 to
30,000 US troops, for a short period of time, to the 140,000 already on
the ground, sectarian violence would be reduced by a significant amount.
This would also ease fears that an immediate troop reduction would just be
withdrawal in disguise.

There are problems with this idea as well. It would be a stretch to increase
force levels even on a temporary basis, and their efforts may end up being
too little, too late. This option may also further weaken the Iraq’s divided
government by highlighting their lack of control over the sectarian violence.

Even the most logical of the military solutions does not seem to take into
account Iraq’s neighbors. A strategy that does not involve discussions with
the countries bordering Iraq, especially Iran, regardless the troop levels and
tactics employed, will fail. This will also be the case with an outright
withdrawal. Leaving Iraq without dealing with its neighbors will only
widen the Sunni-Shiite conflict, and may cause Turkey to put an end to
Kurdish autonomy.

I am not in support of the current incoherent policy that has featured an
alarming lack of vision and staggering levels of incompetence. Adding
more troops or redeploying them will not work without the cooperation
of Iraq’s neighbors. A complete troop withdrawal before a political
process involving the regions key nations will lead to a regional meltdown.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair advocates an opening of talks with both
Syria and Iran, it is also believed that the Iraq Study Group supports this
approach as well. Sunni insurgents stream across the Syrian border, and
Iran backs two of the largest Shiite political parties and their militias.

The insurgents are behind the mounting US death toll, and the suicide
bombings that have targeted Shiite civilians. The militias back death squads,
which are largely responsible for the thousands Sunni civilian deaths.
Although there is a large and growing element of randomness in the violence
that engulfs Iraq, reining in these two factions would be the best way to
reduce the chaos. This can only be achieved with the cooperation of their
sponsors, Syria and Iran.

A serious effort to restart economic development must also be included in
any plan to restore order to Iraq. Even if the violence is reduced, political
credibility will only be restored when Iraqis are offered jobs outside of
the army, police and militias. The US owes Iraq a nation. Our actions,
as a country, have lead to the deaths of tens of thousands, Iraq’s middle
class has been fleeing the anarchy in droves, and the region could tumble
into a much wider conflict. We are all responsible for this, and it is our
obligation to repair what we have so recklessly destroyed. It would be
extremely selfish and short sighted to hold this decision hostage to a
domestic political quarrel.

Greg Strid

© 2006 Splendid Marbles.