The Marines have a joke. Actually, they have a tremendous sense of humor
because this elite force can afford to joke about itself. In this case, I am
referring to the phrase, "Withdrawal is an advance to the rear." In extremely
rare cases, due to overwhelming enemy forces (Chosin Reservoir, Korea War)
Marines have been forced to withdraw, hence, the joke.
But it
is only a joke. It appears, however, that our President is taking the notion
seriously. President
Barack Obama declared [recently]that the Iraq war was nearing an end
"as promised and on schedule," touting what he called a success of his
administration. The
war in Iraq is over, so say many Americans. They cite no less than the President
as a source who proudly proclaimed some sort of a political victory???
Many media sources clapped their hands in glee.
White House counter-terrorism chief, John Brennan, called the drawdown in
U.S. troops a "truly remarkable achievement."
Unfortunately, these assertions are simply not true, and, in some
respects, the withdrawal is farcical. Dale McFeatters of Scripps Howard writes,
"The 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, had the distinction
of having been the last U.S. combat brigade in Iraq when the last of its armored
vehicles rolled across the Kuwaiti border in the predawn hours [recently]. To
which the soldiers of the 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry
Division, which arrived in Iraq last month for a one-year deployment, might
fairly ask: "What are we? Chopped liver?' But on its arrival in Iraq, the
"Combat' part was dropped from its name and it became the "Advise and Assist
Team,' a distinction its commanding officer was careful to make in an interview
with an Iraqi radio station."
The stay-behind units are to be out by the end of 2011, a departure
perhaps to be as celebrated with symbolism and optimism as the safe and
uneventful arrival of the 4th Stryker Brigade in Kuwait. But after seven years
and five months, the Iraq war remains inconclusive and the nature of its outcome
in doubt.
George
Friedman of Stratfor provides us with a unique overall perspective on the war in
Iraq from its beginning to today. From the onset of the American invasion of
Iraq, the Sunnis had a problem. Friedman states, "Facing a hostile American army
and an equally hostile Shiite community backed by Iran, the Sunnis faced
disaster. Taking support from where they could get it -- from the foreign
jihadists that were entering Iraq -- they launched an
insurgency against both the Americans and the Shia. The Sunnis simply had
nothing to lose. In their view, they faced permanent subjugation at best and
annihilation at worst. The United States had the option of creating a
Shiite-based government but realized that this government would ultimately be
under Iranian control. The political miscalculation placed the United States
simultaneously into a war with the Sunnis and a near-war situation with many of
the Shia, while the Shia and Sunnis waged a civil war among themselves and the
Sunnis occasionally fought the Kurds as well. From late 2003 until 2007, the
United States was not so much in a state of war in Iraq as it was in a state of
chaos."
Friedman continues, "Petraeus stabilized the situation, but he did not
win the war. The war could only be considered won when there was a stable
government in Baghdad that actually had the ability to govern Iraq. A government
could be formed with people sitting in meetings and talking, but that did not
mean that their decisions would have any significance. For that there had to be
an Iraqi army to enforce the will of the government and protect the country from
its neighbors, particularly Iran (from the American point of view). There also
had to be a police force to enforce whatever laws might be made. And from the
American perspective, this government did not have to be pro-American (that had
long ago disappeared as a viable goal), but it could not be dominated by Iran.
Iraq is not ready to deal with the enforcement of the will of the government
because it has no government. Once it has a government, it will be a long time
before its military and police forces will be able to enforce its will
throughout the country. And it will be much longer before it can block Iranian
power by itself. As it stands now, there is no government, so the rest doesn't
much matter."
Gareth
Porter, IPS, reports, "When the Obama administration unveiled its plan last week
for an improvised State Department-controlled army of contractors to replace all
U.S. combat troops in Iraq by the end of 2011, critics associated with the U.S.
command attacked the transition plan, insisting that the United States must
continue to assume that U.S. combat forces should and can remain in Iraq
indefinitely."
Porter
further states, "All indications are that the administration expects to
renegotiate the security agreement with the Iraqi government to allow a
post-2011 combat presence of up to 10,000 troops, once a new government is
formed in Baghdad. But Obama, fearing a backlash from anti-war voters in the
Democratic Party, who have already become disenchanted with him over
Afghanistan, is trying to play down that possibility. Instead, the White House
is trying to reassure its anti-war base that the U.S. military role in Iraq is
coming to an end."
An
unnamed administration official who favors a longer-term presence in Iraq
suggested to The New York Times last week that the administration's
refusal to openly refer to plans for such a U.S. combat force in Iraq beyond
2011 hinges on its concern about the coming midterm congressional elections and
wariness about the continuing Iraqi negotiations on a new government. Wonderful,
now we are fighting a fruitless war on the basis of midterm elections. General
Eisenhower has got to be rolling in his grave.
But
wait; there is more for those who hunger for the incredulous. Porter goes on to
report, "The plan involves replacing the official U.S. military presence in Iraq
with a much smaller State Department-run force of private security
contractors. Press reports have indicated that the force will number several
thousand, and that it is seeking 29 helicopters; 60 personnel carriers that are
resistant to improvised explosive devices; and a fleet of 1,320 armored vehicles
[emphasis is mine]." "Several" is a nebulous term. Porter is an excellent
reporter, but he must deal with the cards dealt by the administration. "Several"
is 10,000; 50,000 are more than "several."
The
contractor force would also operate radars so it can call in air strikes and fly
reconnaissance drones, according to an August 21 report in The New York
Times.
Porter
then dropped a bombshell that sent my heart plummeting. "At a Pentagon press
conference in February, General Odierno referred to the purchase by the Iraqi
government of "significant amounts of military materiel from the United States,
"including M1A1 tanks and helicopters."
In February, I had not heard about that, and I keep a vigil eye on
happenings involving Iraq. What kind of helicopters, troop carriers or
sophisticated gun-ships or both? The M1A1 Abrams is the most technologically
advanced MBT (Main Battle Tank) in the world. Today's Iraqi Shiite leaders are
currently aligned with the Shiite regime in Iran, and we just sold the Iraqi
army the Abrams? Where is this going? General Patton, founder of American tank
strategy, has to be rolling in his grave. To what depths do we go for
politicians to declare a modicum of victory?
The overriding consideration is the calculus has not changed in Iraq, and
the withdrawal of all "combat" troops does not change the calculus, either. It
may, however, exacerbate the volatile issues within that forlorn country. Going
back is not an option. It may happen anyway. And this time our troops may be
facing the American Abrams MBT.
I have long opposed the war in Iraq, actually, even before it began. Now
the American public, a President and a former President, politicians, and our
military leaders are learning why.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).