never thought i'd say this, but here's good advice on the war from, *gasp!*, Berkeley! http://dailycal.org/article.php?id=19642 -- Staying the Course BY Darryl Stein Daily Cal Columnist Monday, September 26, 2005 It was the spring of 2003 when Berkeley was swept up in the initial fervor of the anti-war movement. Sproul Plaza was sat-in, black armbands were distributed, professors ranted and the really motivated folks took BART to San Francisco to join "die-ins," whatever those were. Cut to today-it's fall 2005. I saw a guy wearing a "No blood for oil shirt" on Bancroft the other day and Cindy Sheehan has gotten the left-wing base in a huff again, spurring a camp out in Texas, dueling vigils across the country and a nationwide bus tour. While her mantra of "Bring them home now!" sounds appealing to those who have opposed the war in Iraq for more than two years, it might not be the best strategic suggestion. As one friend of mine put it, just because George W. Bush was wrong doesn't mean that Sheehan is right. In fact, the biggest problem that the "anti-war" movement has right now is the illusion that somehow the war they protested starting in 2003 is the same war that they're protesting today. The 2003 movement was asking for multilateral responses to Saddam Hussein like U.N. resolutions and weapons inspectors. Not only were the demands legitimate, but the truth exposed after the invasion-that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein had little or no connection to international terrorism-vindicated their claims. But the 2005 case for withdrawal has almost nothing in common with this legacy. More than anything, it is an expression of grief carried forward with the momentum of anger and discontent bred by the deceptions of two years earlier. Besides geography, are these movements even protesting the same thing? Yes, it's still about American troops in Iraq, but in very different ways. For one thing, Saddam Hussein has been out of power for some time, and we have long ago given up hope of finding weapons of mass destruction. For another, there now actually are foreign insurgents in the country, working with Sunni Arabs in the resistance, finally making Iraq part of Bush's "War on Terror," albeit after the fact. While it would be convenient (not to mention flattering) to think of ourselves as the insurgency's only concern, it is not only an expression of anti-Americanism but also an attempt by the Sunni community to assert power in an internal conflict. Absent America's help in the coalition, it is unlikely that Poland alone will be able to keep even the currently secured zones stable amidst this fighting. The only forces that could fill the void left by the American troops would be the still-not-disbanded sectarian militias. Unfortunately, such a resurgence in armed tensions after coalition security guarantees disappear would hurt the chances of more Sunnis voting "yes" in the upcoming constitutional referendum. That draft constitution, warts and all, is the best hope for a unified Iraq, which is to say the best hope for a stable future, and helping along its passage is reason enough to stay, difficult and expensive though it may be. One risk that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed was as a provider of safe harbor and support to those who would harm Americans. While this never happened, an Iraq that descends into open civil war, leaving an anarchical or state-less area for terrorists to train and organize might render the nightmare a reality. Not that the counterinsurgency is going well by any means, but the way to fix things in Iraq isn't to pack up and go home. Just because we went in for the wrong reasons and are going about the rebuilding process rather badly doesn't mean we should up and leave completely. On the contrary, having made these mistakes, we have an obligation to set things right as best we can. Things have changed in the two years since the invasion, and so should the rebuilding process. For example, if the new German government is seeking closer ties to the United States, they could be valuable allies in a stronger, more global coalition. Whichever side one took in 2003, it is time to put aside the hurt and momentum of the initial anti-war protests and think rationally about what will be best for the Iraqi people and the world at large. Appealing though it may be to leave others to clean up our mess, perhaps we can look beyond the pain of a grief-stricken mother to find a plan for the future of Iraq.
Stay the course, watch more US troops get killed, and delay the inevitable civil war in Iraq. Sounds great to me!
I believe Sishir is part of the same think tank. Oh, William Safir offers advices from ... The New York Times! George Will writes columns in ... The Washington Post!
Of course even back when I was at Cal in the dark days of the early 90's the largest Campus club was the Young Republicans. Also the Daily Cal has always had a conservative columnist, most usually are hacks that make Ann Coulter sound like HL Mencken (not saying this guy is) so I wouldn't put much stock in this one column as a sign of a political change at Cal. GO BEARS!
I have said it before and I will say it again. Anyone who wants to stay the course is advocating failure for the U.S. Our options in order of my preference 1. Don't stay the course, get more allies involved, train our troops differently, get more Iraqi troops trained. I already mentioned a number of other nations who are offering to help train Iraqi troops, but Bush as rejected them because they won't train in Iraq. The bottom line is get the job done correctly. 2. Bring the troops home now. It isn't the best option but it is better than keeping them there with insufficient equipment, training for this job, and having them continue to be targed while not gaining any ground towards stability. 3. Stay the course. Let's just leave our troops in there, in insufficient numbers without sufficient leadership to see the job through. They can just stay there and continue to be targets, causing resentment, and getting folks killed.
Didn't work out so well for the Soviet Union either. That was pretty much the start of the end for them.
Afghanistan has stymied the Brits, Moguls and even Alexander the Great. I've heard it described as the place Empires go to die.
Look at the facts... There's no police force or real army to enforce anything in Iraq. The government is hanging by a thread and is always on the brink of lawlessness. I thought this war was a mistake the moment we failed to sign on most of the EU nations and the United Nations. And not finding WMD didn't help anyone's case. The natural option is to get more allies in and to train more Iraqi troops. The former seems impossible. Europe is only going to leave as the tide turns even more against the war. The US is losing pro-war politicians by the second. Spain just got rid of theirs and Italy is on the brink of doing the same. In terms of training Iraqi troops, there are serious questions about whether its feasible to train troops outside of Iraq. 1)Its a logistical nightmare because of the sheer number of troops needed to be trained. We're talking hundreds of thousands and we can't just airlift all of them out 2) They're needed right away so there can't be a lag in getting them in and out of Iraq. 3) NATO and other European nations have generally offered special ops and more specific training. More general police training can only be done on the ground. You can't teach the conditions of Iraq in Europe. I think our troops have figured that out as well. The only hope is that our troops just keep training and actually be competent about it. The adminstration has made up half the numbers about how many soldiers have been trained and to what capacity, but hopefully it will speed up and get better. (I pray it does anyway) As for withdrawal, that would be absolutely terrible. 1) Iraq could seriously just become an anarchic state. There would be ZERO law enforcement since the Iraqi army is feeble enough now even with American support. There's just no way the government could function. It would create a power vaccum that would just result in fragmentation. The Kurds would isolate themselves and the Sunnis would use this as an opportunity to carve out some territory they feel they could actually have some influence over, and would probably end up fighting with Shiite forces. 2) In terms of terrorism, I can only see it using this as the justification for even more violence. They'll spin this to be their victory and they'll use it to carve out even more support from the poor and exploitable. Plus in a lawless state there's no reason why they wouldnt just grow in number. I hated the fact that we had to send men and women here to fight a war that really shouldnt have happened but sadly we're trapped and the alternatives aren't any better.
