On Iraq and the War on Terror

Recently Larry C. Johnson from No Quarter published a post titled “Why we must leave Iraq.” In it he set out our current situation, as he sees it, and the options available to us based on that reality. His analysis leaves us a lot to think about regarding our current situation there. However, I disagree with his basic premise, which is that our presence in Iraq is “facilitating the creation of an Islamic state that will be a client of Iran.” It is true that the current political leaders in Iraq have a strong affinity with the Iranian state, which should not be unexpected as they lived in Iran during their exile from Iraq, and some even fought on Iran’s side during the Iran-Iraq war. However, the religious establishment, primarily in the form of Grand Ayatollah al Sistani and the quasi religious-political opposition figure al Sadr, are both fervent Iraqi nationalists and are not afraid to challenge the political establishment. This was apparent this week as both spoke out against the draft Iraqi constitution which the Shiite and Kurdish politicians tried to pass over the objections of the Sunnis. Al Sistani spoke out against the draft, stating that Shiites needed to stand with their Sunni brothers and could not ignore their opposition to the draft that had been submitted. This also prompted U.S. ambassador Khalizad to open the door to further editing of the draft constitution. Sistani and Sadr are currently the two most powerful religious leaders in the country and, in effect, serve as a check on the political establishment. While Sistani is Persian and Iranian, not Iraqi or Arab, he comes from a school of thought that opposes the Khomeini/Khameini branch of Shia Islam. Due to the fact that he is not beholden to any government, nor serves in any political capacity, he has far more standing among Shiites in both Iran and Iraq than any other religious figure and as such serves as a counter-weight to the ruling establishment in Tehran as well. I also disagree with his contention that “at a minimum we should expect a secular society where the average Iraqi can move around the country without fear of being killed or kidnapped,” but do agree with him on the fact that if we cannot make the necessary commitment to win this war, then it is senseless to continue to put our men and women in harm’s way. I would caution this recommendation, however, with the warning below. If we leave the country now, not only are we abandoning Iraqis to their fate for a second time (first at the hands of Saddam Hussein and now to a much bloodier fate), but we are also leaving the country open to its complete infiltration by al Qaeda. If we abandon the country now, we leave al Qaeda unfettered access to a lawless region that has borders with almost every country in the Persian Gulf, access to weapons, training camps and funding as they have never had before. It is true the current administration made a mistake in not going into Iraq with enough troops, as General Shinseki admonished them to (at a minimum 350, 000 troops to secure Iraq after the invasion) and that that early mistake led to much of the problems with which we are currently confronted. However, to abandon Iraq now would be an even bigger mistake than the one we committed when we abandoned Afghanistan in the early 1990s. While it is true that Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda, or 9/11, the reality is that al Qaeda is there now and while separate from the Sunni insurgency we are also fighting in Iraq, it is by far the more dangerous. In “Knights under the Prophet’s Banner,” az Zawahiri argued that if the 9/11 attacks did not lead to the creation of an Islamist state in the Middle East from which to export Jihad to the rest of the Arab world, then it would have been a failure. As such, leaving Iraq now would be tantamount to giving al Qaeda exactly what it wants. It is true that Iraq has become a training camp of sorts for al Qaeda, a place where they send green soldiers to gain experience in combat against American troops, but this will be true anywhere else we go. Additionally, leaving Iraq to al Qaeda will allow it to create camps in the most lawless regions, unfettered and in relative safety, and with access to most of the countries in the Middle East. That said, we do need to ask ourselves what it is that we are trying to do in Iraq and who the enemies we are facing actually are. Only then will we be able to answer the question of how much we are willing to sacrifice in Iraq which is something which this President has refused to do. Larry is right, we have reached an important point in this campaign, and now we must ask ourselves what our objectives are and whether they are important enough to sacrifice the lives of our men and women (our family members and friends). In Iraq, as Larry points out we are facing two enemies. The first is a native Sunni and Iraqi insurgency that is fighting for limited objectives. As such, it is an actor with whom we can negotiate. However, such negotiations will require us to make some very important concessions, among them the possible acceptance of a new Baath party, a more prominent role for Islam and even the setting a definite timetable for our withdrawal. The second enemy we are facing comes in the form of al Qaeda in Iraq led by Abu Muzab az Zarqawi. Their objectives are far broader and ambitious (the creation of an Islamist state in Iraq; the complete and total defeat of the U.S.; the exportation of Jihad to the rest of the Muslim World; the overthrow of all the despots and apostate regimes in the region and the restoration of the Caliphate). We’ve known this for some time now, the question is, what are we to do? We must reevaluate what our goals are. Expecting “at a minimum” a secular society in Iraq was never a realistic goal. If we were looking to impose a western style democracy in Iraq, that never was an option because democracy can never be imposed from the outside, it must come from within. If that is our goal, we will fail. The more we try to impose it, the more Iraqis will perceive us as attacking their religion. We must accept that Islam is part of the fabric of the lives of Muslims and that any attempt to impose secularism from without is bound to fail. So if we can’t impose democracy or secularism in Iraq, then what do we do? Is everything lost? No, we have not lost. What we have to do, rather than holding up signs at rallies for our withdrawal like the classic “Bring Our Troops Home Now,” what we should be doing is protesting the current administrations approach and demanding a real plan for completing a realistic mission in Iraq. This would entail the following: Understanding that democracy can only come from within a society and that it can never be imposed. All we can do is to establish the conditions in Iraq to allow a political process to get underway. This means we have to establish enough security so that neither Sunni, Shiite nor Kurd, whether religious or secular, need fear reprisals or death at every turn. This would of course entail our raising troop levels far beyond what we currently have, perhaps to 350,000 or more. At the same time, it means understanding that the government with which Iraq ends up is not going to be one we would have chosen for ourselves or chosen for them. The important thing to remember, however, is that this would be the first government chosen by the people, from the people and for the good of the people of Iraq. While not as liberal or democratic as we would like, it will set a precedent that the people in the region, whether Muslim or otherwise, have the right to choose their own government. Many of the problems in the Muslim world have been of two forms, first there have always been governments that impose religious regimes upon the people and give them no choice whatsoever regarding whether or not they want that type of society (like Iran). On the other end of the spectrum are those states that outlaw any type of religious activity and promote secularism with an iron fist (like Uzbekistan). Our task in Iraq and our goal is to allow the people to choose freely what type of society they want to live in. It may not be secular, or completely democratic, but if they choose it, they are more likely to want to protect it whether Sunni, Shiite or Kurd. That would set an important precedent in the Muslim world. Let Iraqis decide the amount of religion they want in their society, and in the long run they will be more likely to liberalize and adapt to changing circumstances. We cannot hope for the ideal situation, just for the best option of many bad options we have. So with all this said, while I do not believe we should withdraw from Iraq until our mission has been completed, if this administration and the population of the United States cannot muster the will to do everything we can to win this war (both the Iraqi campaign and the War on Terror), then we might as well give up now and come home. Let Osama have his Caliphate, let Iraq burn, let us loose our credibility, let us betray those who have put their faith in us and give up our supply of oil from the region. If this administration does not change course soon, and if the people do not understand the reasons for the sacrifices we have to make this is exactly the future that awaits us.

Read More...

Snippet only...

On a positive note

The interesting part about the story below is that El Salvador was once like Iraq torn by a bloody and violent civil war. That was in the 1980s, now it is sending its soldiers to help in the rebuilding of a troubled land halfway around the globe. Let’s hope Iraq can one day come out of the shadows under which it currently finds itself and like El Salvador rise from the ashes to rejoin the world community. All in all, an uplifting story, something we don’t get much of nowadays. Just like these Salvadorians, our guys should be proud of the work they are doing. I know their experience is very different from the one our guys are facing since they are mostly based in the Shiite areas and away from the heavy fighting with Sunni insurgents. That's also why our guys need to know that we are proud of them, because not only are they fighting a raging insurgency, but also rebuilding a country left in shambles after three decades of misrule by Saddam Hussein.

Rebuilding Iraq stirs pride for returning Salvadorans Iraqis Offer Tea, Call Soldiers Friends For Reconstruction Help By Diego Mendez Associated Press SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador- It was dangerous at times, as servicemen fired their guns in the air to warn against possible attacks. But for at least one Salvadoran soldier -- whose countrymen are the only Latin American soldiers left in Iraq -- the six months he spent helping to build schools, drinking-water systems and clinics in Iraq were worth the time away from his family. In an interview with the Associated Press upon returning home, Lt. José Rivera recalled how the Iraqi people would offer the soldiers tea and call them friends. The children would greet them with hugs.``The public-works projects benefit humble Iraqis, among them children, and that was really gratifying and kept us from questioning our mission,'' he said… ``There is still so much need, so much work to do,'' Rivera said, adding he was glad a fresh batch of soldiers sent to replace him and others would continue the work on rebuilding bridges, roads and public buildings… It wasn't easy in Iraq. Rivera and other Salvadorans often couldn't communicate with the Iraqis, let alone with the other soldiers at the base from Mongolia, Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania. He said the other troops shared his belief that it was important to help rebuild Iraq, and they ignored foreign criticism that it was time for them to pull out of the country…Still, the city of Al-Hillah, where he was stationed, was calmer than other areas in the north where U.S. soldiers were based. Al-Hillah is about 60 miles south of Baghdad. Rivera said he and his colleagues had virtually no contact with their U.S. counterparts, so it was not possible to compare their experiences. In general, the Iraqis welcomed the Salvadoran soldiers with open arms, he said. Sometimes people even invited them for home-cooked meals… ``As the days wore on, you realize that the Iraqis need so much and have a strong affinity for the Salvadorans. They always greeted us with the word sadiqi Salvador,'' which he said means ``My Salvadoran friend.''Rivera said he's proud of the work he did in Iraq.``As a soldier, and as a person, I'm happy to have completed the mission I was given and glad to see in the faces of the Iraqis that they are satisfied,'' he said. ``The work was well done.''

Read More...

Snippet only...

Oiloholics-Courtesy of the Economist

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. The Economist

Read More...

Snippet only...

US strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq revisited

I came across these articles earlier this week, and found them very troubling. As I have stated before in earlier posts, one of my biggest fears has been that the tactics being used against us in Iraq would be exported to Afghanistan. As the first story details, this is exactly what seems to be happening. Al Qaeda, due to its perceived success in Iraq is turning its eye now to Afghanistan again. It is being reported that part of its strategy is to import to Afghanistan, fighters and instructors from Iraq to teach the Afghan Mujaheed the tactics they have learned in there while fighting our forces. We have less than 20, 000 forces in Afghanistan but the death toll is climbing. This past month was the deadliest for us since we invaded the country. We must refocus on Afghanistan now, and build up our forces to ensure that al Qaeda is not able to begin a country wide insurgency as it was able to do in Iraq. Our leaders, particularly President Bush need to recognize the rising threat in Afghanistan and address it accordingly. The next article also points us in the direction of the wider insurgency that al Qaeda and the Taliban are trying to initiate in Afghanistan. As despicable as recruiting children sounds, even desperate, it also shows that they are serious about challenging us this time around. They may have failed during the last election, but that does not mean they will not try again. In addition, Zarqawi seems intent on expanding his war on the US to other regions in the Middle East, in this instance I am referring to Jordan where the recent attempted attacks on our warships signaled al Qaeda’s presence in and their ability to carry out attacks against us from that country. Sure, they failed this time, but if you all remember their first attack on a US warship failed as well. The USS Sullivans narrowly missed the fate of the USS Cole had it not been for the fact that the terrorists overloaded the dingy they used with explosives and sunk before reaching their target. The enemy learns from its mistakes and will try again. We should consider ourselves warned. The larger question of course is what does this mean for our endeavor in Iraq. The president still refuses to recognize that we are facing two distinct enemies in Iraq. The first, a native Iraqi insurgency whose goals are the reestablishment of Sunni power and preventing the emergence of an Iranian dominated state; the second, a wider Sunni revivalist movement bent on destroying the US and defeating us in Iraq to establish a beachhead from where to launch a wider jihad for the restoration of the Caliphate. He continues to call them dead-enders, Baathists, or insurgents with little or no support, however as Col. Pat Lang argues in his most recent post it has been clear for some time that the “Sunni Arab revolt could not exist, grow and continue to operate without some level of popular support” from the Iraqi Sunni population. In the same manner, al Qaeda could not exist if it did not have a measure of support in the wider Muslim world, and as such to claim that we are defeating them even as they can move and operate freely throughout the Middle East, Central Asia and even Europe should alert us to the undeniable fact that we are not. In fact, the wider Sunni revivalist movement that is al Qaeda has grown and expanded beyond its original core group of followers and presents a far more potent threat now than it did four years ago. Does this mean we are losing? No, it just means we are not winning. We are closer to a stalemate than anything else. As such, the President needs to stop painting such a rosy picture of events in Iraq and Afghanistan and level with the American people. Yes, progress has been made, but the bombings and violence continue unabated. In fact, our soldiers are facing down more experienced and determined fighters than before and hence the body count is growing. Should we withdraw from Iraq? No. We cannot afford to do so. We need to continue with this project and follow it to its conclusion. We need to ensure that we leave Iraqis a better government and country than the one we replaced. Our soldiers did not die to leave al Qaeda free reign to establish a Jihadist state in Iraq, they died to give Iraqis a chance for a better life, and in so doing sending reverberations to the wider Muslim world that hopefully would spread democratic values in a place that has resisted them for so long. The Cedar revolution in Lebanon is encouraging, so is the recent decision by Hosni Mubarak to begin opening the political system of Egypt, and Syria’s pledge to reform. Is this enough? Certainly not, but we have to start somewhere. That said, the president must come out, admit his mistakes and demonstrate to us all that he has learned from them. Otherwise, we will continue with the current strategy of tough talk, big words, lofty ideals and not enough progress to back them up. This is particularly important as we are asking our young men and women to place their lives on the line far away from home and their families. As such, they need to know and trust that we are doing the best we can to finish and win this war as quickly as possible. It is the least we can do for them. They are protecting our freedom and our way of life. That is why the president should cease avoiding responsibility and instead be the leader we all thought he could be. A no nonsense guy who gets things done in the most efficient and quickest manner possible. So far, he has fallen very short of that standard.

G.I. Death Toll in Afghanistan Worst Since '01 By CARLOTTA GALL Published: August 22, 2005 KABUL, Afghanistan, Aug. 21 - This year is already the deadliest for American soldiers in Afghanistan since the war of 2001, and the violence is likely to intensify before the nation's legislative elections on Sept. 18… …Sixty-five Americans have been killed this year. …While some fighters want to disrupt the elections, one Afghan general said others are coming in to help the ousted Taliban or Al Qaeda with the long-term aim of dislodging American troops from Afghanistan. A senior security official said Al Qaeda was paying renewed attention to the country this year. More money is coming in, probably from Arab countries, and a unit of Qaeda fighters has returned to the region from Iraq to teach local fighters an unspecified "new tactic they learned in Iraq," …Foreign fighters from Pakistan and Central Asian states, and even from the Middle East and North Africa, have also been coming in, General Wardak said. "Dozens have been captured in the last two to three months," he said. Taliban recruiting schoolboys for rebellion, U.S. general says Taliban rebels have closed Islamic schools to recruit boys as new fighters, a U.S. general said in an interview. BY DANIEL COONEY Associated Press SHARAN BASE, Afghanistan - Taliban rebels are emptying Islamic boarding schools of students in a desperate drive to recruit new fighters, including young boys, before next month's legislative elections, the U.S. military's operational commander in Afghanistan told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview Tuesday. ATTACKS INCREASE A major upsurge in militant assaults in the past six months has left more than 1,100 people dead. The rebels have repeatedly vowed to attack the polls and have already killed three candidates and four election workers, and have rocketed election offices. Attack may signal opening of new Zarqawi front Suleiman Al-Khalidi Posted online: Monday, August 22, 2005 at 0142 hours IST AMMAN, AUGUST 21: A Rocket attack which narrowly missed two US warships in Jordan may be a signal that Iraq’s Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi has opened a new front against Washington’s closest Arab ally, security experts said on Sunday.

Read More...

Snippet only...

The Shogun, the Islamist and why Anwaar Hussain is wrong, again

I came across this post by Anwaar Hussain today. Please click the link below for the full post. I’ve only posted here the most relevant parts.

The Shogun Apologizes, Who is next? By Anwaar Hussain Today, the 15th of August 2005, a monster of the yore has finally decided to bury his demons. The demons let loose by the warriors of the Rising Sun in the fifty years prior to Second World War have finally been interred. Today, on the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, the Japanese prime minister has at last apologized for the crimes committed against humanity by his country during that war… Perhaps the single greatest underlying factor for Japan’s expansionist past was nationalism. The same nationalism that was prevalent in pre-war Germany and Italy too. In Japan, specially, nationalism needed no fanning as a deep-seated concept in the sense of duty and honor, especially to the emperor, had been prevalent for centuries… Today America has been taken over by a similar species of leaders who are taking America down an analogous course… Powerful nationalism, dehumanizing of supposed enemies, a hateful disdain for human rights, ascendancy of the military, controlled mass media, an alarming obsession with national security, the intermixing of religion and government, unbridled nepotism and corruption, blatant state sponsoring of ethos of duty, honor and comradeship and a witch hunt of voices of reason were on a roll in that Japanese society of the yore--all brought to a cataclysmic end in two huge mushrooms of fire balls rising over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sixty years later, the Shogun apologized… When and where will the next mushroom clouds be rising for the Americans one day to apologize for their crimes?

He did a good analysis of what went wrong with Japan during the early half of last century but then he finishes with his usual anti-American tirade. Above Hussain states that the “single greatest underlying factor for Japan’s expansionism was nationalism and from this draws the conclusion that the US has also been taken over by a similar breed of leadership. As this blog will attest, I have my share of arguments with the current administration and I respect them about as far as I can throw them. That said, I cannot understand how Hussain’s analysis of Japan applies to the United States. First, the Japan of that era expanded to protect itself from the established powers in the world, which it along with Italy and Germany sought to overthrow. It was a revisionist power whose main objective was to overthrow the world system of the time to replace it with one were it was in a superior position vis a vis other major powers (i.e. having sole control of Asia). Secondly, Japan was the aggressor in every instance, it attacked not only China, but Korea, the rest of South East Asia and the Pacific, including the United States. Almost without fail, it occupied each country it attacked and ransacked it of resources and used it for its own devices. Thirdly, it perpetrated flagrant injustices on the peoples it colonized without ever trying to remedy any excesses. This is part of the reason that after the war we set up tribunals to try those accused of horrendous and despicable acts against the people Japan colonized. Finally, the Japanese used suicide plane operations against our troops in the Pacific out of a sense of duty and honor for Emperor and country not found anywhere else on such a grand scale until September 11, 2001. If anything, Hussain’s conclusion should be focused on those who more closely resemble the soldiers and decision makers of Imperial Japan. To begin, the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001 by men under the direction of al Qaeda and its leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman az Zawahiri. This group has fused religion and nationalism into an ideology, which as Michael Scheuer reminds us, is perhaps the most powerful and dangerous mix of elements in our world. They dehumanize us by calling us “the infidel West,” “Zionist Jews and Crusaders,” and other such epithets that only serve to remove our humanity. They claim to be waging Jihad and as such, as az Zarawi recently commented, even the killing of Muslim women and children is permitted, because nothing can be allowed to interfere with Jihad. They control their media outlets, using scripted and choreographed videos and audio tape recordings through al Jazeera thereby preventing any actual questioning of their motivations and actions by anyone, putting themselves above scrutiny even from God. They continue to assert that the Ummah and Islam are under attack, but always fail to mention than in places like Iraq, it is they who daily claim the lives of innocent Muslims (up to 300 a day), far more than the US during its campaign to remove Saddam Hussein (a ruthless dictator that oppressed his people while the rest of the Arab and Muslim world cheered him on). They also blame the US for anything that has ever gone wrong in Islam, even when as in Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia and Kuwait it was the US who came to provide Muslims aid. America put its own men and women on the line to prevent further ethnic cleansing in Kosovo; cajoled the Europeans into pressuring the Serbs to stop their atrocities against Bosnian Muslims; sent troops to Somalia to prevent the starvation and suffering of thousands of Somali Muslims, and sent troops to the Persian Gulf to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein’s grip. Even so, and ignoring what the US has done, though admittedly we have made mistakes elsewhere, al Qaeda calls Muslims to Jihad against us, the infidels and crusaders, even when that means the deaths of innocent women and children. They even target moderate Muslims and brand them apostates just for disagreeing with their views. As if that were not enough, they even claim that it is the religious duty of Muslim states to acquire nuclear weapons to destroy the infidels in their midst. This is apparently what Hussain refers to when he asks about the “next mushroom cloud” for America to apologize, echoing almost word for word, Osama bin Laden and Ayman az Zawahiri. Finally, Hussain talks about the ascendancy of the military in the US, but fails to even note the fact that bin Laden, Zawahiri and their cohorts have done far more to brew a radical, violent militant Islam bent on the destruction of the world to create it anew, and in their image. Now tell me, who does the description above “Powerful nationalism, dehumanizing of supposed enemies, a hateful disdain for human rights, ascendancy of the military, controlled mass media… the intermixing of religion and government… blatant state sponsoring of ethos of duty, honor and comradeship and a witch hunt of voices of reason,” sound more like? If you said al Qaeda, you are right! Now my question is, when will Muslims apologize to the world for the destruction, killing, maiming of so many innocent lives? When will they apologize for their silence and inaction when bin Laden roamed the earth? When will they even acknowledge that nothing can ever justify terrorism? As a final word to all, these men are not “freedom fighters,” they do not deserve the name. They are insurgents, terrorists and their movement is a quasi-revisionist power much like Germany, Japan and Italy before them, who in their pursuit of power abandoned everything, even their humanity. As such, it is incumbent on us to defeat this evil from this earth. We can do it with Muslim help, which we would much prefer, but we will do it alone if need be.

Read More...

Snippet only...