The Mess That Is Iraq
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
The conflict in my head grows out of the sobering realization that the debate is between the lesser of two quite depressing evils - staying or leaving.
Basically, it boils down to whether or not we should accept defeat in Iraq.[[In-content Ad]]I know politicians will never admit that - they won't characterize a policy of troop withdrawal as a defeat - but that's what it is.
Politicians will spin it some other way, but what politicians say about it is irrelevant.
It doesn't matter how politicians perceive it. It doesn't matter how Americans perceive it.
What matters is how al-Qaida and its supporters perceive it. And they will - without a doubt - perceive it as a glorious victory over the Great Satan of the West (That's us.).
To me, that's what the debate is all about. Are we willing to concede defeat to al-Qaida?
Because if we set up a timetable and pull out our troops in a few months, al-Qaida will claim victory. It may well be a hollow claim, but it doesn't matter - it will be their claim nonetheless.
And if we do pull out of Iraq, it's not like the Iraq War will end. Quite the contrary. I'm afraid if we pull out of Iraq, the war will expand.
I'm afraid Iraq will become a base of operations for al-Qaida, whose numbers will grow exponentially after their "glorious victory." Success is a wonderful recruiting tool. Al-Qaida could very well wind up running Iraq.
You don't have to guess what might happen if we pull out. Al-Qaida's leaders - and Iran's radical clerics - are quite happy to tell us.
They call Iraq the "central front" in their global struggle against America and the rest of the western world.
And after they run the U.S. out of Iraq, they plan to launch a 'jihad" against Iraq's secular neighbors. I get the sense that these people will launch a jihad against pretty much anybody who doesn't see things their way.
If U.S. troops leave Iraq, a large number of Iraqis will be killed and a broad regional conflict is likely.
Here's an excerpt from a Thursday Associated Press article regarding the upcoming release of the latest National Intelligence Estimate.
Reporter Katherine Shrader spoke with anonymous government sources who saw a five-page summary of the new government threat assessment.
Counterterrorism analysts produced the document, titled "Al Qaida better positioned to strike the West." The document pays special heed to the terror group's haven in Pakistan and makes a range of observations about the threat posed to the United States and its allies, officials said.
Al Qaida is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the official said, paraphrasing the report's conclusions. "They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States."
The group also has created "the most robust training program since 2001, with an interest in using European operatives," the official quoted the report as saying.
John Kringen, who heads the CIA's analysis directorate, said, "We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications. We see that activity rising."
This seems to dovetail quite well with the recent, albeit failed, car-bomb attempts in Britain.
If al-Qaida's ranks are flourishing without a stable, unified base of operations, what might they be capable of if we hand over Iraq to them?
Now, having said all that, I'm really not thrilled about the prospect staying, either.
The thought of thousands more U.S. troop casualties and hundreds of billions of tax dollars piled up in Iraq is equally - if not more - unsettling to me.
Iraq has truly become one of the most vexing problems of a generation. And I'm sure years from now when historians weigh in, they will call it one of the worst foreign policy blunders.
I don't relish the though of losing the war in Iraq, but at the same time, I'm not sure we can really win, either.
Even so, there are some pretty compelling reasons to let it run its course for the foreseeable future.
John Keane, a retired four-star Army general, said this week that security progress, though slow, is gaining momentum.
'The thought of pulling out now or in a couple of months makes no sense militarily,' Keane said.
And Gen. David Petraeus, the guy running the show in Iraq, speaking in a report quoted by Associated Press this week, said he hopes that by September the U.S.-led counteroffensive will have reduced the level of violence enough to create an atmosphere in which political progress can be made. He also thinks Iraqi security forces could move measurably closer to the point where they can sustain the security gains made by U.S. forces by then.
Granted, the war has been mishandled from the outset. The whole world was behind us when we went after al-Qaida in Afghanistan. We should have stayed there and left Iraq alone. We've completely squandered the global good will afforded us after 9/11.
These days, hardly anyone is on our side.
I know hindsight is 20/20, but I can claim a little foresight on this mess.
Here's an excerpt from a Dec. 30, 2002, column I wrote under the headline, "W's Hawkish Policy Raises Concerns."
I fully support the "hunt-down-al-Qaida" policy. Yeah, let's do that. That's just fine. And frankly, most other nations are OK with that policy, too, including Arab nations. They're even arresting and detaining some of those al-Qaida guys.
But I have a tough time swallowing the "run-Saddam-out-of-Iraq" policy. I really don't see the two as the same thing. ...
I realize we are a big, powerful nation and can pretty much do whatever we please.
But is it really necessary to make so many enemies? To start a war?
Maybe so, but I really am surprised at the relatively low level of dissent among Democrats and the public. One would think the left, at least, not to mention the average Joe, would be hammering away. ...
Maybe people are afraid they will be labeled unpatriotic in the post-9/11 era.
I remember being surprised back then at how many members of Congress seemed so willing to go along.
But no matter. That was then, this is now. We can't put the toothpaste back into the Iraq tube because we're up to our eyeballs in it.
So do we need to give the Bush policy some more time or not?
I guess I'm going to have to say yes, although I don't say it with a great deal of conviction.
It's times like these that make me glad I only have to write about issues.
I certainly don't envy those who have to decide them.
The conflict in my head grows out of the sobering realization that the debate is between the lesser of two quite depressing evils - staying or leaving.
Basically, it boils down to whether or not we should accept defeat in Iraq.[[In-content Ad]]I know politicians will never admit that - they won't characterize a policy of troop withdrawal as a defeat - but that's what it is.
Politicians will spin it some other way, but what politicians say about it is irrelevant.
It doesn't matter how politicians perceive it. It doesn't matter how Americans perceive it.
What matters is how al-Qaida and its supporters perceive it. And they will - without a doubt - perceive it as a glorious victory over the Great Satan of the West (That's us.).
To me, that's what the debate is all about. Are we willing to concede defeat to al-Qaida?
Because if we set up a timetable and pull out our troops in a few months, al-Qaida will claim victory. It may well be a hollow claim, but it doesn't matter - it will be their claim nonetheless.
And if we do pull out of Iraq, it's not like the Iraq War will end. Quite the contrary. I'm afraid if we pull out of Iraq, the war will expand.
I'm afraid Iraq will become a base of operations for al-Qaida, whose numbers will grow exponentially after their "glorious victory." Success is a wonderful recruiting tool. Al-Qaida could very well wind up running Iraq.
You don't have to guess what might happen if we pull out. Al-Qaida's leaders - and Iran's radical clerics - are quite happy to tell us.
They call Iraq the "central front" in their global struggle against America and the rest of the western world.
And after they run the U.S. out of Iraq, they plan to launch a 'jihad" against Iraq's secular neighbors. I get the sense that these people will launch a jihad against pretty much anybody who doesn't see things their way.
If U.S. troops leave Iraq, a large number of Iraqis will be killed and a broad regional conflict is likely.
Here's an excerpt from a Thursday Associated Press article regarding the upcoming release of the latest National Intelligence Estimate.
Reporter Katherine Shrader spoke with anonymous government sources who saw a five-page summary of the new government threat assessment.
Counterterrorism analysts produced the document, titled "Al Qaida better positioned to strike the West." The document pays special heed to the terror group's haven in Pakistan and makes a range of observations about the threat posed to the United States and its allies, officials said.
Al Qaida is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the official said, paraphrasing the report's conclusions. "They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States."
The group also has created "the most robust training program since 2001, with an interest in using European operatives," the official quoted the report as saying.
John Kringen, who heads the CIA's analysis directorate, said, "We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications. We see that activity rising."
This seems to dovetail quite well with the recent, albeit failed, car-bomb attempts in Britain.
If al-Qaida's ranks are flourishing without a stable, unified base of operations, what might they be capable of if we hand over Iraq to them?
Now, having said all that, I'm really not thrilled about the prospect staying, either.
The thought of thousands more U.S. troop casualties and hundreds of billions of tax dollars piled up in Iraq is equally - if not more - unsettling to me.
Iraq has truly become one of the most vexing problems of a generation. And I'm sure years from now when historians weigh in, they will call it one of the worst foreign policy blunders.
I don't relish the though of losing the war in Iraq, but at the same time, I'm not sure we can really win, either.
Even so, there are some pretty compelling reasons to let it run its course for the foreseeable future.
John Keane, a retired four-star Army general, said this week that security progress, though slow, is gaining momentum.
'The thought of pulling out now or in a couple of months makes no sense militarily,' Keane said.
And Gen. David Petraeus, the guy running the show in Iraq, speaking in a report quoted by Associated Press this week, said he hopes that by September the U.S.-led counteroffensive will have reduced the level of violence enough to create an atmosphere in which political progress can be made. He also thinks Iraqi security forces could move measurably closer to the point where they can sustain the security gains made by U.S. forces by then.
Granted, the war has been mishandled from the outset. The whole world was behind us when we went after al-Qaida in Afghanistan. We should have stayed there and left Iraq alone. We've completely squandered the global good will afforded us after 9/11.
These days, hardly anyone is on our side.
I know hindsight is 20/20, but I can claim a little foresight on this mess.
Here's an excerpt from a Dec. 30, 2002, column I wrote under the headline, "W's Hawkish Policy Raises Concerns."
I fully support the "hunt-down-al-Qaida" policy. Yeah, let's do that. That's just fine. And frankly, most other nations are OK with that policy, too, including Arab nations. They're even arresting and detaining some of those al-Qaida guys.
But I have a tough time swallowing the "run-Saddam-out-of-Iraq" policy. I really don't see the two as the same thing. ...
I realize we are a big, powerful nation and can pretty much do whatever we please.
But is it really necessary to make so many enemies? To start a war?
Maybe so, but I really am surprised at the relatively low level of dissent among Democrats and the public. One would think the left, at least, not to mention the average Joe, would be hammering away. ...
Maybe people are afraid they will be labeled unpatriotic in the post-9/11 era.
I remember being surprised back then at how many members of Congress seemed so willing to go along.
But no matter. That was then, this is now. We can't put the toothpaste back into the Iraq tube because we're up to our eyeballs in it.
So do we need to give the Bush policy some more time or not?
I guess I'm going to have to say yes, although I don't say it with a great deal of conviction.
It's times like these that make me glad I only have to write about issues.
I certainly don't envy those who have to decide them.
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092