Charles,
- I agree we're not producing new insights here. I'll respond to Sgeeee with a "short note" though.
Sgeeee,
- "Keeping the war out of the US" could be read to mean "our actions in Iraq are preventing the Jihadists from attacking us in the US, even if that is what they would prefer to do." My rewording makes it more clear that the present Iraqi conflct is one the jihadists are now drawn to participate in, perhaps in preference to coming to the US. The limited defense operations we have in place (everything from the TSA people to police efforts at all levels) are the only things "keeping them from coming to the US" and I think most folks agree that this is likely to be only marginally effective unless we create a police state.
- Occupation: I don't think the US can/should be the first line publc security entity in Iraq in the long term (we can't afford to have a US soldier on every corner, and even if we could, it would only breed resentment). Indigenous Iraqi police forces, under the control of an Iraqi government, needs to do that. Right now, the situation is so chaotic and the US support so tenuous (listen to the words of some legislators. Listen to the words of some leading presidential candidates) that it is an entirely rational response for the majority of Iraqis to throw their lot in with whatever militia thugs offer to protect their families and their homes (small price--"we'll need your son to come join us for a few weeks for a job killing/driving out the Sunnis/Shia in the next neighborhood"). Right now, many Iraqis know that these militias are the "big dogs", the Iraqi govt and the US have repeatedly cleared areas, then let the thugs return. Clearing an area and then establishing an effective permanent legitimate Iraqi govt presence in these neighborhoods (together with the goodies that come with that--relaible water and electricity, enforcemnt of laws, etc) will make a HUGE difference, if we can do it. Can anybodyargue that driving out militias and letting them come back is working? That's the only strategy available with the troop levels we have (if we also want to keep training the Iraqis, something that is just as important to long-term success). How long will it take? Years. If this works, the level of violence will escalate at first (as we take the fight to the militias/remaining Al Qaeda) and as they fight back. Then, violence will be reduced, but probably not much below the present levels.
The turning point will come when the average Iraqi comes to believe his long-tern security interests are best served by the Iraq government, not by the militias. He'll come to this conclusion slowly, based on what happens on his street, and likley also on what he comes to believe about the US committment. In this regard, every statement from a congressman/presidential candidate calling for a US pullout lengthens the time we'll need to stay. (I am NOT arguing that these folks should be told to shut up--we need to have this open national discussion. But we also need to realize that the true cost of dissent often is
not borne by the dissenter). When Abdul realizes the future of his family can best be secured by the Iraqi govt, that's when we'll get good information on who/where the bad guys are. These IEDS aren't planting themselves, and the man-in-the -street Iraqi is very aware of who is doing what in his neighborhod, which cars don't belong there, etc. When the tips start rolling in, the extremists will be on their way out. Hopefully, as progress is made, the US press will report it accurately and the US public will see reason to increasingly support the operation. Unfortunately, we now have just 2 years to reach this point before the next election, and I don't know if the US public will come to believe that they should elect a candidate who wants to win in Iraq given what they will hear in the next 18-24 months. With "failure in Iraq" seen as a road to electoral success by some candidates/organizations, I'm sure we can count on tons of negativity in the next two years--not a formula for gaining the confidence of the Iraqi populace or the US voter.
What is the goal of the terrorists conducting the attacks in Iraq? Foment ethnic hatred, discredit the Iraqi govt security services, and break the domestic will of the US to stay in the fight. Ask US troops whether
they want to throw in the towel--my discussions with many indicate they do not. Some in the US who deep down want to quit te fight and cede Iraq to the thugs now couch their argument as "concern for the troops"-- I don't think they are being honest. The guys/gals in Iraq are in the military because they want to be, and they deserve to be respected as adults who have done something great for us all. If they want to see this fight through to a conclusion, that should carry some weight.
"Oil-yes, WMD-no: Despite the unfortuate shorthand of the present debate, there is absolutely no doubt that Iraq has had WMDs in the past. Saddam dumped hundreds of tons of chemical weapons (nerve agents, blood agents, blister agents) on the Iranians and his own people (the Kurds). Open press reports have repeatedly indicated the Iraqis developed biological weapons. Saddam had an ambitious program to develop nuclear weapons and delivery systems
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/program.htm. It is clear that much of this WMD-related work was dismantled/put into mothball status prior to 2003, but there is no doubt Iraq has, in the past, had the technical and financial resources needed to build these weapons. The US needs to work with the Iraqi government to ensure the programs don't re-emerge. This becomes much more difficult as Iran goes nuclear--a US security gaurantee for Iraq may be the only practical way to prevent the Iraqis from renewing their WMD program. This secuity gaurantee may require US troop presence (as it did for NATO during the Cold War). That's not an occupaton.
