May 18, 2007
Iraq: Why September Could Be A Mirage
Republicans are warning President Bush that he could lose their support on the Iraq war if they don't see results by September, but as the New York Times noted earlier this week, no one is really defining what they mean by progress. Meanwhile, the White House made clear again today that it will not accept a timeline for withdrawal as top Democrats said they would not budge on pulling out the troops.
Bush's standoff with Congress has less to do with what progress might look like than with whether it's even still possible. Both Bush and his commander on the ground, Gen. David Petraeus, have said that quelling the sectarian strife in Iraq is feasible. But it is useful at this point to look back to when Bush announced the Baghdad Security Plan, on which the future of this war and Republicans' support for the president hinge.
Members of the military and Pentagon insiders secretly dismissed Bush's plan to temporarily flood Baghdad with 20,000 troops (the number was later raised to 30,000). Petraeus himself got his current job by demonstrating as a commander in Mosul that political solutions were more effective than mere brute force at calming once-restive areas.
Which brings us to the thing that many people at the Pentagon seem to know and are not yet telling the American people: The U.S. military will need to police Iraq for a very, very long time.
That's according to Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations and former professor at the U.S. Army War College. In an interview with Der Spiegel following a four-week stint in Iraq advising Petraeus, Biddle says Bush is right to believe it would be highly dangerous to withdraw from Iraq. But Biddle says Bush, and his war strategy, are wrong-headed about the nature of the fighting.
"Both sides in the American debate are arguing that if we just do things the way we want, we will bring all the troops home soon. And that's irresponsible," Biddle said. "If we are serious about succeeding in Iraq, the only way you're going to terminate the civil war is by staying to police it."
Petraeus has been more careful than Bush in warning Americans that a reduction in violence won't come easily or soon -- largely because he knows the job is not the military's alone. According to Biddle, the temporary addition of troops in Baghdad will do little to stabilize the country because the mission they're being sent over for is the wrong one. The enemy is not al-Qaida insurgents, Biddle argued.
"The classical strategy for waging counterinsurgency is oriented around winning hearts and minds," Biddle said. The strategy makes "some sense, if the problem you are trying to solve is a classical ideological insurgency. Except, Iraq is not," Biddle continued.
Instead, Biddle said, what is happening in Iraq is a civil war, with Sunnis on constant attack against the majority Shiites out of fear they will be exterminated in a genocide. The presence of al-Qaida is tolerated by many Sunnis because of that fear, he continued.
While the administration has reluctantly admitted that a civil war is brewing in Iraq, the U.S. military has not been permitted to approach the unrest there as such. Should the equally restive Parliament eventually reach a cease-fire agreement, the only force that could be trusted to keep the peace would be Americans, not Iraqis, Biddle said.
"The U.S. is unpopular with everybody in Iraq. On the other hand the U.S. is the only party to the conflict that is not viewed as posing a threat of genocide by anyone," he told the German weekly. "By relying on the National Iraqi Army, all you do is provide one of the two sides with a massive casus belli. The Sunnis will take up arms the minute you depart. We think the Iraqi Army is a neutral institution that defends all Iraqis equally. Sunnis think it is a Shiite militia on steroids."
(Photo credit: Spc. Daniel Love, U.S. Army)
Posted at 2:44 PM
Posted to:
Bush Administration, Congress, David Petraeus, Iraq, Middle East, Military, President Bush, Robert Gates
Share via
