Iraq Option(s)
I asked the $87+ billion question yesterday and now M. Takhallus of Sideways Mencken has a few ideas of what we might be able to do in Iraq. However, as expected, none of them are pretty, and it appears as if only one of them is truly feasible. I don’t think I have to tell you which option that is.
Personally, the only idea that makes sense for me is listed as number 3 on his list, but it’s simply political hemlock:
Reload And Do It Right. This is what John McCain wants. What I want, too. The occupation was doomed by Don Rumsfeld’s obsession with minimizing the invasion force, and by the entire administration’s cheery Neo-Con Kool-Aid drinking binge. I assumed when we started this war, and when I supported it, that we were doing Japan 1945. It honestly never occurred to me that the adminsitration would have literally no plan for occupation and that they would simply not get what to me was self-evident: that the first rule of occupations is “place boot firmly on neck.” But there is no way, not now, not with all that’s happened, that we could convince the American people to go down this path. This ship has sailed.
I have to correct Takhallus here. This ship hasn’t just sailed, my friend. It’s been hit by a sectarian hurricane and ripped apart. And now we’re finding pieces of it being washed up on shore and cursing that we didn’t see this storm coming.
Then again, maybe our radar wasn’t working properly because the Neo-Cons had put video of clear skies on a loop.
Anybody care to predict a 7-year forecast for Iraq?
3 Responses to “Iraq Option(s)”
Call me a cynic but plan number three would have worked fine in 2004. But, the problem was an election and Bush putting on the spin that all is fine. Bush and company are excellent campaigners, however, once you win an election the really “hard” work starts. 2006 is to late, as Bush(CamusShamus) is leaving this for the “lucky” winners in 2008.
The political will to go in with another 200,000 or more troops to save the situation is dicey at best, Iraq has broken into so many warring factions and private armies it would take years to put it back together, if we could do it at all. Split the country between Shiites, Kurds and Sunni might work, but boundaries and righting past wrongs would still be big issues, resolved mostly with violence. Leaving gives us a complete breakdown and the involvement of neighboring states, civil war turning into regional war. Rudi is right, whatever course we decide on will be done by the “lucky� successor to Bush, but at least Rumsfeld will be gone. What a mess.
Then we would have 340,000 troops mired in this quagmire instead of 140,000 and world opinion of Americans could continue to sink. What would the troops actually do-come between the Sunnis and Shia? Serve as sitting ducks for Al Queda? What happened to standing down when the Iraqi army stood up? This choice was given to Rumsfeld by Shinsecki and he pooh-poohed it and ruined Shinsecki’s career just for pointing out the truth. It is one of many missed opportunities that will not come around again. They blew it.