Hindsight…and maybe a way out

This article is about Iraq.

I have eaten a lot of crow with my relatives and some friends. I confidently told them back in 2003 that we, our D.C. types, were smart enough to know and implement winning the peace was key. And they listened to me. Winning the war was an intermediate step. The strategic goal evolved to be western democracy in Iraq to be the beginning of an ink blot spreading idea throughout the Arab world that would take decades, but by golly, we had to start somewhere. Winning the peace was key. That the goal had evolved set me off, some, as in nervous with a low hover.

Before I go forward, let me say I have an agenda. First, for lack of knowing what to do, I do what I know. Second I am a retired Marine, and this Marine Corps’ institution, along with the Navy, have some historical experience in winning the peace, or at least setting up the means to try win the peace. We can do what we know. Mostly that means listening to the people we are trying to subjugate for all the right reasons.

Next is hindsight. Right after we won militarily in Iraq, I listened to occupation friction on Fox News (that was all I watched and listened to back then). The friction between DOD (Department of Defense) and SD (State Department) popped up right away in the dispute about who would “win the peace”, although it was never expressed in this term. My antennas went up. General Garner was “in charge” for a short period, only to be replaced by the SD fellow, Paul Bremmer, who had previously chaired a report and committee that made him look like he was the guy. In hindsight, he had worked for Kissinger Associates, which brings in another what if dimension. But it was not long after all this that I would listen to reports on Fox News “that the window was closing” on opportunities to win the peace. Usually it was just providing jobs and security to families to live, even at the existence level. And of course it was area specific. My antennas were even higher then, because all this is so fundamental. I could see the problems coming, but then it got worse, in my hindsight opinion. First there was never a D.C. imposed person in charge, and I fault our President. So we had, and still have, a divided chain of command. This is as bad as what Hitler (SS party vs. the military) and Tojo (Army vs. Navy) did or allowed to happen in WWII. Second I read reports, to include a Newsweek cover report, of what we, our military, were doing to create a new Iraqi military. I was incredulous as this, to me, seemed at the time, to be more like a constabulary/gendarme problem that should have had priority, especially as to creation and training. Now I hear there are problems with police forces.

And if I were a normal Iraqi citizen in any zone, all I really want is the basics, and that includes local police security for my family.

Next is kinda half hindsight and my Marine and Navy education about winning the peace. It is pretty much do the basics: police, local government (mostly infrastructure like water, sewage, and electricity), schools, medical, and tax collection. That is a tall order, by way, if one is in many of the lawless areas of the world. But this tall order is just what we should have prioritized in Iraq, in hindsight. It was a freebie since Saddam Hussein failed to do it before.

Last hindsight thoughts. This is really kinda agenda oriented. I think the nation-state idea is from European colonial countries, and since they are gone as colonial empires, the idea does not work today, and even more importantly, reflect our present world. This may apply to Iraq as it seems to be a conglomeration of three tribes, Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis. I mention this because we did go in to Iraq with our strategic goals. For the naïve, homework as to Kurdistan is mandatory. From my military experience, the Kurds are just as devious as the Sunnis and Shiites in trying to involve us in their causes. For the kurds, the Turkish military draft always assigns young Kurd men far away from the Kurdish area in Turkey, and for good reason.

So much for multiculturalism in the USA. The melting plot better explains who we are, I think.

On a maybe way out

I am not a politician, nor a pundit who can write well, nor a manipulator of what ever kind these days. All I am is a citizen who can vote.

And I hear the Army fellow in charge of the military part of our present effort in Iraq has seen the light about things about winning the peace. He is a sharp fellow. But as my mother used to say, sometimes what could have happened is just hoping for something else. The window of opportunity has passed, I think.

Now here’s the good news.

I think we have recently put more of our military effort into the constabulary/gendarme part of the strategic goal. This is good for the future of us and Iraq.

Now here’s the bad news.

I think our SD (State Department) has let the President down by pursuing its own institutional goals, as compared to our electively elected President’s stated objectives. I always thought our vote counted, but maybe not in the SD.

Here’s more thoughts on strategic goals that should influence our way out.

We should always operate in our own national interest.

Promoting Iraqi freedom is a proper strategic objective. But the wise man must recognize it will be a unique Iraqi freedom and republic, not the unique American republic we enjoy here in the USA. The two may not even look similar.

Only the Iraqis can win the peace. That we could have done better in setting up their winning the peace is now water over the dam. And then, off course, there really are no Iraqis, only three main tribes of kurds, sunnis, and shiites.

It is this last strategic goal that provides us a way out that is in our national interest. The only real question is one of timing.

Here’s some thoughts on tactical and some operational details.
As I read the tea leaves, there are two main conflicts going on inside the nation-state called Iraq.

One is the foreign invasion of insurgents who do the bombing that attacks our military and Iraqi infrastructure, mostly in limited areas of the entire country. Unfortunately, one of these limited areas is the capital Baghdad. Any country must control its capital to be called in charge. So control the city, or move the capital.

The other is the increasing local sectarian violence which looks like a civil war in some ways and places, but is both more complicated than that, and also simpler than that. This is a unique Iraqi conflict, not a foreign invasion. In some parts of the world the leaders of this type conflict are called warlords, or even crime bosses, but in Iraq I would call them theocratic thugs looking out for their personal and local and tribal interests. Most importantly, they can raise the monies to finance themselves. And in a better world, these same monies could go to the government and its attempts at control and asserting itself.

A properly planned and lead USA winning the peace plan should have avoided where we are today, but again, that is water over the dam. Yet the principles remain the same, that is, winning the peace is in the end, an Iraqi problem demanding an Iraqi solution. The future tactical goals for the USA are derived from all this. And the Iraqi solution may not look like what we either hope for or expect. A federal confederation of the three tribes is one possibility, for example. But it will be an Iraqi solution because we did win the military conflict. And because we seem to be losing the peace in some areas, our ability to influence what the Iraqi solution looks like is much more limited. So be it. And never forget, all this is area specific. Some parts of Iraq make the USA look pretty good, and some areas make us look shabby. For all those military people and NGO’s who have done wonderful infrastructure improvements, thank you and good on ya.

So all the preceding leads to what to do; how to get out with a sense of mission accomplished and the politicians did not waste our time and lives and national monies; how to save our wonderful military there, and the military warriors come home to their families.

Here’s where the politicians come in to do their magic. Bottom line, our politicians must tell the present Iraqi politicians it is now their problem to sort out. How they do all this is part of their magic. Our politicians must get a time schedule from the Iraqi politicians. If they don’t produce such a schedule within months, then our politicians produce a schedule, which we then execute.

Given our strategic goal of the ink blot idea (my words, again), we will have for a long time logistical and financial support obligations that support our national interest in this part of the world. Since it is in the national interest, so be it.

For those readers who wish to do further homework and readings about the details of how we might get out, please read these links from those with more local experience than me:

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/10102006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/no_more_troops_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101301419.html

A summary follows.

While I have no idea how all this Iraq stuff will sort out, I am confident the USA and our President did the right thing in invading Iraq. I just wish there was a class for Presidents and Secretaries of Defense and State Department. I’ll bet they wish the same.