thedrifter
01-07-06, 10:34 AM
Posted on Fri, Jan. 06, 2006
Partisan divide: Catch-22 for Iraq
By ANDREW BORENE
Philly.com
THE FIGHT in Iraq has not been going as smoothly as originally advertised by the White House. An expanding insurgency has been noted for two years by military leaders on the ground, was predicted by the CIA, and even the president has now acknowledged an organized resistance.
Turning past stories about federal indictments, appointments and espionage on the front pages in the last few weeks, you might have seen continued partisan rhetoric promoting an immediate withdrawal from Iraq while the president wants to keep the status quo.
Neither course works.
Immediately withdrawing would boost Muslim extremism and leave a vast terrorist training ground for both Sunni and Shiite extremists. But the status quo is also woefully inadequate. Leaving about 150,000 Americans to hold the peace between 25 million people who are bolstered by opposing ideological regimes across Iraq's western and eastern borders is an exercise in futility.
The people of Iraq do not want to live under a theocracy any more than they want to see the current violence continue indefinitely. It's a Catch-22: Work with the Americans and face violent retribution or stand idly by and see the insurgents gain ground. Meanwhile, our troops are so overextended in their current numbers that they can do little more than protect themselves.
Recruiting and retention is dropping as our troops face third combat tours with an aging helicopter fleet, overused vehicles and weapons systems beyond their service lives. The current war plan was flawed and mismanaged, and crippled our ability to threaten enemies or to support allies.
A national security crisis has been worsened by the prolonged conventional military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
While more civil affairs and humanitarian capacity is needed for stability, a credible threat to Iran and North Korea must be preserved, which mandates a larger standing military. Force projection will require larger numbers of skilled infantry and combat support units. Fighting regional proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, while hunting terror cells globally, means a larger intelligence community, more special forces and redoubled international law enforcement efforts.
The president must admit the dilemma, addressing the American people and asking for sacrifice, not merely support. What America needs is a national call to service. We need a diverse group of Americans to voluntarily join our intelligence community, our aid agencies and, most important, our uniformed land forces.
It is a time to ask for patriotism over partisanship. Americans have historically shown the capacity to undertake the massive effort proposed by the president, but he must ask.
And ground troops need a real investment in defense that takes advantage of advances in personal protection, light-armored vehicles, vertical lift, short-range surveillance and reconnaissance technology and non-lethal systems. Congress must also adequately budget for expected veterans' claims associated with the increased size and tempo of operations. It won't be cheap.
Plans for security through "shock and awe" have been overcome by events. It is time for a completely different point of view regarding the prosecution of the war on terrorism. We need to get away from conventional body-count warfare and embrace the notion of securing the peace by helping oppressed people bring themselves to freedom and prosperity.
The Army and Marines have developed promising new strategies through the observation of more than 200 years of small wars. We mustn't ignore those valuable lessons in the face of partisan ideology.
While the Republicans got us into this national-security mess - and the Democrats have yet to show us a viable way out - a discussion is finally opening on what do next in Iraq. It is encouraging to see people on both sides of the aisle beginning to look at Iraq objectively and making assessments about whether we are ready to commit to actually winning the peace, or if a strategic withdrawal is needed to sustain the broader fight against international terrorism and tyranny.
True, there's plenty to distract us, but there is cause for hope.
A political awakening is coming. Americans seem ready to embrace a departure from spin and sound bites - to seek instead objective leadership, sustainable policy and commitment to victory.
Andrew Borene served as an intelligence officer in the Marine Corps in Iraq.
Ellie
Partisan divide: Catch-22 for Iraq
By ANDREW BORENE
Philly.com
THE FIGHT in Iraq has not been going as smoothly as originally advertised by the White House. An expanding insurgency has been noted for two years by military leaders on the ground, was predicted by the CIA, and even the president has now acknowledged an organized resistance.
Turning past stories about federal indictments, appointments and espionage on the front pages in the last few weeks, you might have seen continued partisan rhetoric promoting an immediate withdrawal from Iraq while the president wants to keep the status quo.
Neither course works.
Immediately withdrawing would boost Muslim extremism and leave a vast terrorist training ground for both Sunni and Shiite extremists. But the status quo is also woefully inadequate. Leaving about 150,000 Americans to hold the peace between 25 million people who are bolstered by opposing ideological regimes across Iraq's western and eastern borders is an exercise in futility.
The people of Iraq do not want to live under a theocracy any more than they want to see the current violence continue indefinitely. It's a Catch-22: Work with the Americans and face violent retribution or stand idly by and see the insurgents gain ground. Meanwhile, our troops are so overextended in their current numbers that they can do little more than protect themselves.
Recruiting and retention is dropping as our troops face third combat tours with an aging helicopter fleet, overused vehicles and weapons systems beyond their service lives. The current war plan was flawed and mismanaged, and crippled our ability to threaten enemies or to support allies.
A national security crisis has been worsened by the prolonged conventional military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
While more civil affairs and humanitarian capacity is needed for stability, a credible threat to Iran and North Korea must be preserved, which mandates a larger standing military. Force projection will require larger numbers of skilled infantry and combat support units. Fighting regional proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, while hunting terror cells globally, means a larger intelligence community, more special forces and redoubled international law enforcement efforts.
The president must admit the dilemma, addressing the American people and asking for sacrifice, not merely support. What America needs is a national call to service. We need a diverse group of Americans to voluntarily join our intelligence community, our aid agencies and, most important, our uniformed land forces.
It is a time to ask for patriotism over partisanship. Americans have historically shown the capacity to undertake the massive effort proposed by the president, but he must ask.
And ground troops need a real investment in defense that takes advantage of advances in personal protection, light-armored vehicles, vertical lift, short-range surveillance and reconnaissance technology and non-lethal systems. Congress must also adequately budget for expected veterans' claims associated with the increased size and tempo of operations. It won't be cheap.
Plans for security through "shock and awe" have been overcome by events. It is time for a completely different point of view regarding the prosecution of the war on terrorism. We need to get away from conventional body-count warfare and embrace the notion of securing the peace by helping oppressed people bring themselves to freedom and prosperity.
The Army and Marines have developed promising new strategies through the observation of more than 200 years of small wars. We mustn't ignore those valuable lessons in the face of partisan ideology.
While the Republicans got us into this national-security mess - and the Democrats have yet to show us a viable way out - a discussion is finally opening on what do next in Iraq. It is encouraging to see people on both sides of the aisle beginning to look at Iraq objectively and making assessments about whether we are ready to commit to actually winning the peace, or if a strategic withdrawal is needed to sustain the broader fight against international terrorism and tyranny.
True, there's plenty to distract us, but there is cause for hope.
A political awakening is coming. Americans seem ready to embrace a departure from spin and sound bites - to seek instead objective leadership, sustainable policy and commitment to victory.
Andrew Borene served as an intelligence officer in the Marine Corps in Iraq.
Ellie