Iraq War Exit Strategies, (Part 2)

Points of view:

From my previous post, I attempted to frame the discussion, of our need to get out of Iraq, in terms of what are our intentions are from a strategic, tactical, and logistic point of view. Whether you are a hawk or dove, red or blue, whether you have an interest because a loved one is serving, or are an uninvolved concerned citizen, in order to try to determine what we should do next, you need to determine for yourself, what your expectations are.

Should we, the American people, be the baby-sitters of the world, the caring mentor of common sense, or the provocateur of revolution and civil war?

Can we buy-off the world's countries from making decisions that we feel are self-defeating? Can we save the world from disease and pestilence? Can we protect all those that choose a religion that is based on cultural beliefs that are based in tribal and nomadic perseverance in hostile economic and geographical existences?

In 1823 we, the United States, ascribed to what was called the Monroe Doctrine (a policy in which we declared that we would only involve ourselves in the world's affairs if the world's countries injected their arguments on us or our lands). This doctrine has been superseded many times, for what has been perceived as 'in the best interest of our common good'. Examples such as the Mexican-American war, World War I and II (due to our allegiance with Britain and France), in the furtherance of global peace and protection of our allies. But when did we 'start' inserting ourselves in other's battles and civil disputes. From my perspective, the first instance was Korea, the second Viet Nam, and on, and on, and on, since then.

So what did we learn? We learned that we can amass the most significant war machine the world has ever known. We have the most technologically advanced weapons, the best trained soldiers, and more money than god, to throw at any country we want to change the status quo of. But for all of those attributes, how has it all worked out? North and South Korea are still in the midst of a civil war, only separated by a US/UN supervised DMZ with no resolution anticipated in our lifetime. The Viet Nam debacle will live in infamy as our first and only complete defeat.

We have inserted ourselves in numerous other small skirmishes, some of which were successes due to our overwhelming size and power, but in most cases the outcome is only assured by our long term occupation and support of the government we inserted.

The case I make here, is that a 'much more faithful' adherence to the Monroe Doctrine would have been much more beneficial to our Country's security and economic development.

Now that I have digressed to our country's earliest views on how we should conduct ourselves, I will attempt to apply some of those thoughts to the current conflagration.

Adages:

Break/Buy: Our country was defined by, and created in a struggle to not be controlled by an imperial power, that had as it's major goal to utilize the resources of our country without due process, and the acknowledgement of the rights of those that provided the service that developed those resources. The analogy has merit in that we have interjected ourselves into the sovereignty of Iraq. We did this to protect our interests in an economic product, and that act has caused us to buy-in to the protection of the resource, or deal with the consequences, as Britain was forced to do, at the time of our independence.

Vacuum: The reasoning behind James Monroe's Doctrine was an understanding that by extending oneself into other's conflicts, it detracts from our ability to develop the most beneficial state of existence for the people for which our federation was created. And, with the realization that (even in the 1820's) we do not live in a vacuum. If someone was to attack us, then we are duty-bound to protect ourselves. That would be the equal reaction. Conversely, of course, if we attack another sovereign nation, we must assume they will also employ a defense equal to the threat.

Horse to Water: What is our responsibility to re-create other governments in a likeness of our own? It is with the original design of our own ruling document, The Constitution and it's amendments, that we acknowledge that our form of government was not perfect upon it's original publication. Further, in this period of turmoil, while trying to deal with warring forces that no longer take the shape of country vs. country, we find that there is great debate about some of our constitutional protections regarding privacy and security of our homes and personal privacy. As the wars become religious jihads, the method of securing peace against our attackers requires methods and tactics that were not envisioned by our Constitutional authors. At the time of our establishment as a country, tribal war as in Europe, in the middle ages, had long since passed, And, our personal war against the tribal, indigenous Indian natives of our country, was easily dismissed by force and deceit. So the question remains, if we don't have a static form of government, that has a history of being able to bend and meld itself, even to threats from within, from indigenous people or from immigrants and guests, how can we make an assumption that our form of government is more appropriate for another country than what existed before our presence?

The only long-term, centralized, forms of government, in the middle east, have been in the form of Sheikdoms or monarchies. Even they are based on a dominant tribal position that was inclusive of, but larger than, a sect of Islam, such that dissenting sects chose to settle in other more accepting locations. This has been the history and culture of a constantly warring, nomadic, and missionary existence of the Islamic people. What has worked, for millennia, are benevolent or tyrannical dictatorships. How can we make the leap of faith of hoping to install our form of government that is both inappropriate and in direct sectarian conflict with the tenants of their religion (even the peaceful Muslims).

What conclusions can I draw from my, perhaps, uneducated or naive assumptions? The main conclusion is that we can apply our typical, heavy-handed methods to achieve results that, both historically and currently, we have no understanding of. What worked in the past has no parallels to the situation we have found ourselves in. The one experiment, on this scale, that we attempted to engineer a new political, cultural, and economic model, was Viet Nam, The only lesson we can take from that, is that if we had just left them alone, they would have figured it out themselves, just as our 'forefathers did'. That we interjected ourselves into a cultural and political abyss that we (read Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield) had no understanding of, is an understatement. Our goals were indecisive, poorly conceived, wholly misguided and megalomaniacal, on the part of our President. The only options we have are to realize that we have no answer in terms of how they should rule themselves. The country, as a whole, was abused, tortured, and terrorized by the threat of genocide. This was a secular fear, without regard to Sunni vs. Shii, or Kurdish, northern or southern allegiances. Just fear. Most of the countries surrounding Iraq have found a way to govern themselves in a manor that incorporates the many factions of Islamic sects, tribalism, and geographical history (not necessarily to our liking, but who cares). We need to let them decide how to govern. Prevent ethnic cleansing, yes. Protect them from outside influences and importation of weapons of war, yes. Train them to redevelop the infrastructure, including security and services necessary to rebuild a cohesive peaceful country, yes.

In the view of our leaders, all of the countries of the Middle East pose a threat to us in the form of acquisition of WMD, fomentation of terror, or a threat to our ally Israel. We need to stop trying to engineer the political, cultural and religious aspects of a part of the world we have no understanding of. Our only real friend is Israel and we should treat them as we do our children. Teach them to get along, don't pick fights, protect yourself if challenged, and don't bite off more than you can chew. If they can ascribe to that, then they deserve our the help we provide of technology and political support, that our renewed diplomatic credibility can lend.

In Part 3, I hope to provide some direct references to support some of my opinions and conclusions.

Dennis Hunt