|

Victory in Iraq?
By Andy Ross, November 23, 2008
Declaring victory and moving on is a good tactic
when you've done what you set out to do. US forces have removed any serious
military danger to the outside world from Iraq for the foreseeable future, hazy
possibilities of terrorism aside, and given the Iraqis the opportunity to
reshape their own future along more democratic lines. More was never likely or
reasonably possible. Now is the time to go.
In face of that truth, the new administration in
Washington has no good justification for continuing the US investment in shoring
up Iraqi internal security arrangements. Let the Iraqis sort themselves out.
They have enjoyed all the support for the last five years that they could wish
for, and prolonging the US presence much longer will only fuel the sort of
resentment that creates more insurgents later.
The Iraq war was always Bush's war, and now that
he is departing there is no need to prolong it. Any business interests the
United States may have in Iraq are better conducted independently of a military
presence, and are likely if anything to be damaged by such a presence. American
multinationals have learned to dominate markets within plenty of nation states
that never hosted US military forces.
Since the main business opportunities in Iraq
revolve around oil and the current recession suggests that demand for oil will
be muted for a while, perhaps until alternative energy sources have a larger
market share, the United States has only geopolitical reasons to maintain its
military stake in Iraq. And there may be better ways to build a bulwark against
the threat of a militantly Islamist Iran.

Helicopter pilot, name unknown
The legacy of the Iraq war for the US military is
one they can be proud of. Scandals involving the improper treatment of prisoners
or detainees excepted, political confusion in the command chain over objectives
and rules of engagement well noted, and shortcomings in the supply of equipment
aside, the military tasks were accomplished successfully and convincingly. This
was no shameful defeat.
 |
 |
Job done: Saddam was removed from power and Iraq
was inspected for weapons of mass destruction
The feat of arms was considerable and
overwhelming. A massive force of ground-based and sea-based attack aircraft was
deployed efficiently and practically without losses to paralyze and disrupt the
Iraqi forces sufficiently to set the stage for the ground campaign. The armored
ground assault then took Baghdad fast and dug in. Just one problem: they had no
plans for an occupation and no exit strategy.

Maya Alleruzzo/Associated Press
American soldiers in Mosul, 2007
Result: the cost of the war was excessive. The
United States has suffered well over 4,000 military deaths. Iraq suffered very many more
casualties. The full and final dollar cost may never be known
exactly, but it certainly exceeds a trillion dollars. Given the return, both so
far and into the future, and in view of the present US financial crisis, this
outlay is an obscene, atrocious waste.

The Jamestown Foundation
A reminder of the deeper reason for the war
In terms of world history, a clash between the
historically Christian modernizing forces of the West, spearheaded by the United
States, and the traditional cultures of the Islamic world, with their center in
the region of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, may have been inevitable. After this
symbolic clash of arms, perhaps the modernization of the Islamic world can now
proceed more peacefully. But not quite yet.
Two big problems remain: Iran and Israel. The
emerging Iranian challenge to Western hegemony in the region requires a response
backed by military force, including the will to go nuclear if necessary. And the
challenges from Hamas and Hisbollah to Israel could explode and engulf the whole
region in war. A failed Iranian attack on Israel, followed by forced pacification of Iran,
might clear the air.


|