thedrifter
11-29-05, 07:46 AM
OUR IRAQ MISTAKES
By RALPH PETERS
WE aren't losing in Iraq — thanks to the quality and commitment of our troops. But we haven't made the progress we could have achieved had we accepted that a life-or-death struggle in the Middle East can't be handled like a zoning dispute upstate.
A tragic flaw in American strategy is that we always seek to be honest brokers, embracing the "rights" of our enemies at the expense of our allies. In Iraq, that meant pandering to the Sunni Arabs, slighting the Kurds and handing Shia demagogues a propaganda tool to use on those who had suffered under Saddam.
We refuse to face the fact that today's deepest and deadliest global divide isn't between the Islamic world and the West, but between the various factions within Islam. Sunni Arab rejectionists and Shia extremists both may want to see the last of our forces, but they're saving their sharpest blades for use on each other.
To have any hope of reaching a positive outcome in the Middle East, you must chose a side and stick to it. Wishy-washy attempts at mediation alienate everyone.
As a result of our every-child-deserves-a-prize approach to Iraq's redesign, the Sunni Arabs continue to view us as their oppressors, the Shia see us as protectors of the Sunnis — and our Kurdish allies are scrambling to make deals with Iraq's neighbors (including Iran and Syria, as well as Turkey) to ensure their survival should the country explode when our troops depart.
Our reluctance to kill Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shia gangster, turned him into a hero and a true power broker (he's not afraid to take sides). The fecklessness of our policies left the Kurds determined to become the Middle East's new Sparta — their peshmerga militias remain the most potent force in Iraq after our own. And the Sunni Arabs, who needed to be broken down before they could be built up again (think the psychology of basic training), have been allowed to create an image of heroic resistance.
None of this means that deposing Saddam was a mistake. Our error was the lack of a sensible plan for what came after his fall. Nor does it mean that we should pull out — that would hand a decisive victory to Islamist terrorists and throw not only Iraq but the Middle East into turmoil.
Despite ourselves, we're making progress, because the majority of Iraqis want a return to peace and a chance to build a state that respects their rights. But the administration's lack of an informed vision for rebuilding Iraq has left the odds for an enduring and humane Iraqi state lower than they might have been; the country's only hope is a federalism so loose that the Kurdish north and Shia south would be independent in everything but name.
By favoring one side, then the other (now-you-shoot-'em, now-you-don't), we've only deepened Iraqi factionalism. This matters, since the region's longest-running and most uncompromising struggle isn't against Western imperialism or even "Crusaders," but between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Witness the enthusiasm Zarqawi's terrorists show for killing Shia Iraqis — one taste shared by Baathist insurgents. The Shia have been kept in imperfect check only by the admonitions of one aging cleric.
What does this mean for us? If you want a positive outcome in Iraq, put aside our domestic differences, because we're going to need to keep a residual troop presence — at least a well-armed fig leaf — in Iraq for years to come.
As the Baghdad government gains more control over its own territory, we'll be able to draw down our numbers. But we'll also have to accept that the state's forces won't fight terrorists and insurgents by our babes-in-the-woods rules.
The Bush administration sought to export American values to the Middle East. The correct approach in ridding the world of Saddam would have been to exploit the values pre-existing in the region's culture. Democracy, yes, but not necessarily one that Jefferson or Hamilton would've praised. And don't expect the mullahs to take "under God" out of their pledge of allegiance.
We did the right thing by removing Saddam, but our post-war clumsiness turned Iraq into a steaming pie — with Iran, Syria and Turkey each craving a piece. Iraq's politicians (with survival skills honed far beyond any in Washington) are cutting deals, at home and abroad, that remain opaque to us.
Attempts to make nice with bitter enemies may yield brief interludes of quiet that mimic progress — but those respites are never worth the alienation of our allies. The truth is that the administration's have-a-nice-day policy hasn't been neoconservative, but neoliberal — seeking compromise with terrorists and insurgents.
We grew obsessed with tactics, and forgot strategy. We misused our military by failing to use it effectively. And we have nearly squandered the great opportunity created by Saddam's fall through our insistence that the insuperable hatreds in the Middle East can be resolved through a spirit of compromise suited to a town council in Nebraska.
Instead of issuing more crybaby calls for withdrawing our troops, couldn't anyone in the Democratic Party offer a serious plan to do things better in Iraq?
Ralph Peters' latest book is "New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy."
By RALPH PETERS
WE aren't losing in Iraq — thanks to the quality and commitment of our troops. But we haven't made the progress we could have achieved had we accepted that a life-or-death struggle in the Middle East can't be handled like a zoning dispute upstate.
A tragic flaw in American strategy is that we always seek to be honest brokers, embracing the "rights" of our enemies at the expense of our allies. In Iraq, that meant pandering to the Sunni Arabs, slighting the Kurds and handing Shia demagogues a propaganda tool to use on those who had suffered under Saddam.
We refuse to face the fact that today's deepest and deadliest global divide isn't between the Islamic world and the West, but between the various factions within Islam. Sunni Arab rejectionists and Shia extremists both may want to see the last of our forces, but they're saving their sharpest blades for use on each other.
To have any hope of reaching a positive outcome in the Middle East, you must chose a side and stick to it. Wishy-washy attempts at mediation alienate everyone.
As a result of our every-child-deserves-a-prize approach to Iraq's redesign, the Sunni Arabs continue to view us as their oppressors, the Shia see us as protectors of the Sunnis — and our Kurdish allies are scrambling to make deals with Iraq's neighbors (including Iran and Syria, as well as Turkey) to ensure their survival should the country explode when our troops depart.
Our reluctance to kill Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shia gangster, turned him into a hero and a true power broker (he's not afraid to take sides). The fecklessness of our policies left the Kurds determined to become the Middle East's new Sparta — their peshmerga militias remain the most potent force in Iraq after our own. And the Sunni Arabs, who needed to be broken down before they could be built up again (think the psychology of basic training), have been allowed to create an image of heroic resistance.
None of this means that deposing Saddam was a mistake. Our error was the lack of a sensible plan for what came after his fall. Nor does it mean that we should pull out — that would hand a decisive victory to Islamist terrorists and throw not only Iraq but the Middle East into turmoil.
Despite ourselves, we're making progress, because the majority of Iraqis want a return to peace and a chance to build a state that respects their rights. But the administration's lack of an informed vision for rebuilding Iraq has left the odds for an enduring and humane Iraqi state lower than they might have been; the country's only hope is a federalism so loose that the Kurdish north and Shia south would be independent in everything but name.
By favoring one side, then the other (now-you-shoot-'em, now-you-don't), we've only deepened Iraqi factionalism. This matters, since the region's longest-running and most uncompromising struggle isn't against Western imperialism or even "Crusaders," but between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Witness the enthusiasm Zarqawi's terrorists show for killing Shia Iraqis — one taste shared by Baathist insurgents. The Shia have been kept in imperfect check only by the admonitions of one aging cleric.
What does this mean for us? If you want a positive outcome in Iraq, put aside our domestic differences, because we're going to need to keep a residual troop presence — at least a well-armed fig leaf — in Iraq for years to come.
As the Baghdad government gains more control over its own territory, we'll be able to draw down our numbers. But we'll also have to accept that the state's forces won't fight terrorists and insurgents by our babes-in-the-woods rules.
The Bush administration sought to export American values to the Middle East. The correct approach in ridding the world of Saddam would have been to exploit the values pre-existing in the region's culture. Democracy, yes, but not necessarily one that Jefferson or Hamilton would've praised. And don't expect the mullahs to take "under God" out of their pledge of allegiance.
We did the right thing by removing Saddam, but our post-war clumsiness turned Iraq into a steaming pie — with Iran, Syria and Turkey each craving a piece. Iraq's politicians (with survival skills honed far beyond any in Washington) are cutting deals, at home and abroad, that remain opaque to us.
Attempts to make nice with bitter enemies may yield brief interludes of quiet that mimic progress — but those respites are never worth the alienation of our allies. The truth is that the administration's have-a-nice-day policy hasn't been neoconservative, but neoliberal — seeking compromise with terrorists and insurgents.
We grew obsessed with tactics, and forgot strategy. We misused our military by failing to use it effectively. And we have nearly squandered the great opportunity created by Saddam's fall through our insistence that the insuperable hatreds in the Middle East can be resolved through a spirit of compromise suited to a town council in Nebraska.
Instead of issuing more crybaby calls for withdrawing our troops, couldn't anyone in the Democratic Party offer a serious plan to do things better in Iraq?
Ralph Peters' latest book is "New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy."