Saturday, November 26, 2005
Time to declare defeat? Get de-feet out of Iraq
In view of the recent swell of calls by Rep. Murtha, followed by many other Democrats and then Senator Joseph Biden, I thought I'd republish something I wrote in September, 2004,-- 14 months ago:
Breakfast with Bwana
September 21, 2004
To Everything There Is A Season -- Time To Declare Defeat:
In Lovedale, there is a school that was once known as The Major
General Sir Henry Lawrence Royal Memorial Military School. It is now
knows as The Lawrence School. The School's motto is "Never Give
In." Lovedale is a tiny little hill station at an elevation of
7,000+ feet MSL, between Ooty and Coonor. In some ways, the change
of name was a declaration of defeat, it was a "giving in" of sorts.
The move was perhaps an accommodation to a new sense of brevity (not
one of my problems!) but more likely, was a reflection of a
politically correct approach in a newly independent nation whose
government had effectively "nationalized" the institution while
retaining its character as a public school. "Public" school in the
Indian (and British) context means a snooty "private" school. It
probably wouldn't have done at all to have a "Royal" school in a
newly independent nation. As y'all might have guessed, I didn't go
to school in Crawford -- I went to Lovedale. In the parlance of my
schoolmates, I am an Old Lawrencian, an "OL," a member of the "OLA"
(Old Lawrencians Association).
Putting aside the inevitable disclaimers about Alzheimer's and
arthritis that the term "Old Lawrencian" prompts, I have always been
intrigued by the school's motto "Never Give In" because, from the get
go, I thought it foolish.
Our President seems to be suffering a case of terminal Never Give In,
or, more likely, of Never Let Go.
For months, I have watched, as you all have, the unfolding horror in
Iraq and wondered just what do we think we are doing. Then it hit
me ... we really are not doing what we think.
For a moment, I'd like to look at the problem of Iraq from outside
the box of partisan politics, putting aside the question whether the
President misled the nation about weapons of mass destruction, or had
other hidden agendas, and putting aside the question whether we
should have been in Iraq in the first place.
The fact is, we are in Iraq. But the fact is that we should not be
in Iraq in our present capacity which is a sort of police presence
without police powers, a sort of military occupation without martial
law, and a sort of friendly invader without friends.
After the initial bombardment of Iraq designed to "soften" any
resistance, it was no surprise that the US and British forces had an
easy entree into Iraq. For a moment, despite some recusance, it
appeared that the Iraqi people did welcome the overthrow of Saddam
Hussein, or at least the toppling of his statue. I think our mistake
was to treat the Iraqi joy at being rid of Saddam Hussein as the
equivalent of joy at the prospect of having the US maintain a
presence as an occupying force.
I think it is probably reasonable that we tried to be an army of
occupation with the lofty goal of rebuilding the infrastructure and
setting the stage for democratic elections. Yet, on second thought,
it is clear that one of the purposes of our occupation was to prevent
the Shiite majority from gaining control and forming a fundamentalist
Islamic state. There is also no question that we sought to preserve
the territory of Iraq without having considered seriously how the
Kurds, Sunnis and Shia would get along without a supervening
dictatorial structure that was intolerant of autonomous leanings.
Although there are rumblings of a solution with three separate
autonomous regions, we have clearly not resolved how these three
factions will form a nation state of their own volition.
The eruption of violence -- disdainfully characterized by the
spinmeisters of the Administration as an "insurgency" has made the
rebuilding of the country's infrastructure a distant hope and
obviously cast doubt on the viability of even staging an election,
never mind having the election be an accepted declaration of the will
of the Iraqi people. President Bush even went so far as to suggest
that our initial overwhelming success allowed the insurgents to melt
into the populace, regroup, and come back at us. The Administration
has also suggested that the insurgents are outsiders sponsored by Al
Qaeda. Here's what President Bush said in an interview given to Time
Magazine:"Had we to do it over again, we would look at the
consequences of catastrophic success, being so successful so fast
that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped
and lived to fight another day."
"OK." Yes, I understand. It's perfectly clear. You don't get it?
You don't say.
It is clear to me that we have no prospect of control over the
insurgents given our extant view of how much military force we are
willing to deploy. Part of the reason may be that while most Iraqis
may not support the "insurgents," they certainly get some perverse
sense of satisfaction in tweaking the nose of the American military.
This all leads me to express what, at least to me, has been an
obvious point -- the American system of governance, with its checks
and balances for a free people, is not the kind of system that works
with a people not yet free and not cognizant of the value of checks
and balances. That will all come, we hope, in due time. Meanwhile,
there is, in my view, little hope that the US military can control
the violence without becoming a repressive, brutal and ruthless
occupation force. Not only is there no will in the US leadership to
have the military assume such a role, it is not in the psyche of this
nation. It just simply cannot happen that we will use military force
to impose martial law type of control. Moreover, we may not have the
forces to commit to such a course.
There is, however, in Iraq, as there was in Iran, a force that can
impose control and eliminate the violence overnight. That force is
the authority of the clergy. Oh yes, I know that everyone will
immediately shrink back in horror and say that we cannot let the
mullahs and the ayatollahs take control. Yes, we can. Let us go
back to our initial goals: a. get rid of Saddam Hussein, b. rebuild
the infrastructure, c. set the stage for a democracy while not
permitting a democratic choice to be a fundamentalist Islamic
Republic. Well, we have accomplished a, and cannot do any more of b,
until we have some sort of stage that is stable. I think that if the
military were to withdraw and we were to cease all work on rebuilding
the infrastructure until there is stability, the clergy would fill
the vacuum and bring about a sense of order. Our message would be
simple: 1. we will not work on rebuilding the country if our
soldiers and workers are being attacked, and 2. while we are ceding
control to the clergy, we stand by at the ready to take action if
there is any attempt to create a dictatorial fundamentalist Islamic
state.
This plan would get us out of the business of being a police force
without police powers, remove us as an occupying force, and give the
people a stake in promoting stability and tranquility without which
we cannot rebuild their country and its infrastructure. Without a
defined enemy -- the American soldier -- to attack, the insurgents
must attack fellow Iraqis or cease their destructive actions. It
seems to me that if the Islamic clergy can rally the populace to put
a stop to the violence, it will be stopped. There is little chance
that the clergy will exert such influence on behalf of American
occupation forces, but to protect the Iraqi people .... well, that's
a different story.
The problem is that President Bush likely won't do this and Senator
Kerry has not thought of it.
It's time to give in and declare defeat in respect to a portion of
the task we should never have undertaken. We should simply admit
that we have no business being a local police force and have no
ability to force the populace to cooperate with us in preventing more
attacks.
Do you all think it's hopeless? Well, don't give up just yet. There
is hope. As Sir Henry Lawrence said: "Never Give In."
Cheerz.....Bwana
___________________________________________________________________________________
Breakfast with Bwana
September 21, 2004
To Everything There Is A Season -- Time To Declare Defeat:
In Lovedale, there is a school that was once known as The Major
General Sir Henry Lawrence Royal Memorial Military School. It is now
knows as The Lawrence School. The School's motto is "Never Give
In." Lovedale is a tiny little hill station at an elevation of
7,000+ feet MSL, between Ooty and Coonor. In some ways, the change
of name was a declaration of defeat, it was a "giving in" of sorts.
The move was perhaps an accommodation to a new sense of brevity (not
one of my problems!) but more likely, was a reflection of a
politically correct approach in a newly independent nation whose
government had effectively "nationalized" the institution while
retaining its character as a public school. "Public" school in the
Indian (and British) context means a snooty "private" school. It
probably wouldn't have done at all to have a "Royal" school in a
newly independent nation. As y'all might have guessed, I didn't go
to school in Crawford -- I went to Lovedale. In the parlance of my
schoolmates, I am an Old Lawrencian, an "OL," a member of the "OLA"
(Old Lawrencians Association).
Putting aside the inevitable disclaimers about Alzheimer's and
arthritis that the term "Old Lawrencian" prompts, I have always been
intrigued by the school's motto "Never Give In" because, from the get
go, I thought it foolish.
Our President seems to be suffering a case of terminal Never Give In,
or, more likely, of Never Let Go.
For months, I have watched, as you all have, the unfolding horror in
Iraq and wondered just what do we think we are doing. Then it hit
me ... we really are not doing what we think.
For a moment, I'd like to look at the problem of Iraq from outside
the box of partisan politics, putting aside the question whether the
President misled the nation about weapons of mass destruction, or had
other hidden agendas, and putting aside the question whether we
should have been in Iraq in the first place.
The fact is, we are in Iraq. But the fact is that we should not be
in Iraq in our present capacity which is a sort of police presence
without police powers, a sort of military occupation without martial
law, and a sort of friendly invader without friends.
After the initial bombardment of Iraq designed to "soften" any
resistance, it was no surprise that the US and British forces had an
easy entree into Iraq. For a moment, despite some recusance, it
appeared that the Iraqi people did welcome the overthrow of Saddam
Hussein, or at least the toppling of his statue. I think our mistake
was to treat the Iraqi joy at being rid of Saddam Hussein as the
equivalent of joy at the prospect of having the US maintain a
presence as an occupying force.
I think it is probably reasonable that we tried to be an army of
occupation with the lofty goal of rebuilding the infrastructure and
setting the stage for democratic elections. Yet, on second thought,
it is clear that one of the purposes of our occupation was to prevent
the Shiite majority from gaining control and forming a fundamentalist
Islamic state. There is also no question that we sought to preserve
the territory of Iraq without having considered seriously how the
Kurds, Sunnis and Shia would get along without a supervening
dictatorial structure that was intolerant of autonomous leanings.
Although there are rumblings of a solution with three separate
autonomous regions, we have clearly not resolved how these three
factions will form a nation state of their own volition.
The eruption of violence -- disdainfully characterized by the
spinmeisters of the Administration as an "insurgency" has made the
rebuilding of the country's infrastructure a distant hope and
obviously cast doubt on the viability of even staging an election,
never mind having the election be an accepted declaration of the will
of the Iraqi people. President Bush even went so far as to suggest
that our initial overwhelming success allowed the insurgents to melt
into the populace, regroup, and come back at us. The Administration
has also suggested that the insurgents are outsiders sponsored by Al
Qaeda. Here's what President Bush said in an interview given to Time
Magazine:"Had we to do it over again, we would look at the
consequences of catastrophic success, being so successful so fast
that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in escaped
and lived to fight another day."
"OK." Yes, I understand. It's perfectly clear. You don't get it?
You don't say.
It is clear to me that we have no prospect of control over the
insurgents given our extant view of how much military force we are
willing to deploy. Part of the reason may be that while most Iraqis
may not support the "insurgents," they certainly get some perverse
sense of satisfaction in tweaking the nose of the American military.
This all leads me to express what, at least to me, has been an
obvious point -- the American system of governance, with its checks
and balances for a free people, is not the kind of system that works
with a people not yet free and not cognizant of the value of checks
and balances. That will all come, we hope, in due time. Meanwhile,
there is, in my view, little hope that the US military can control
the violence without becoming a repressive, brutal and ruthless
occupation force. Not only is there no will in the US leadership to
have the military assume such a role, it is not in the psyche of this
nation. It just simply cannot happen that we will use military force
to impose martial law type of control. Moreover, we may not have the
forces to commit to such a course.
There is, however, in Iraq, as there was in Iran, a force that can
impose control and eliminate the violence overnight. That force is
the authority of the clergy. Oh yes, I know that everyone will
immediately shrink back in horror and say that we cannot let the
mullahs and the ayatollahs take control. Yes, we can. Let us go
back to our initial goals: a. get rid of Saddam Hussein, b. rebuild
the infrastructure, c. set the stage for a democracy while not
permitting a democratic choice to be a fundamentalist Islamic
Republic. Well, we have accomplished a, and cannot do any more of b,
until we have some sort of stage that is stable. I think that if the
military were to withdraw and we were to cease all work on rebuilding
the infrastructure until there is stability, the clergy would fill
the vacuum and bring about a sense of order. Our message would be
simple: 1. we will not work on rebuilding the country if our
soldiers and workers are being attacked, and 2. while we are ceding
control to the clergy, we stand by at the ready to take action if
there is any attempt to create a dictatorial fundamentalist Islamic
state.
This plan would get us out of the business of being a police force
without police powers, remove us as an occupying force, and give the
people a stake in promoting stability and tranquility without which
we cannot rebuild their country and its infrastructure. Without a
defined enemy -- the American soldier -- to attack, the insurgents
must attack fellow Iraqis or cease their destructive actions. It
seems to me that if the Islamic clergy can rally the populace to put
a stop to the violence, it will be stopped. There is little chance
that the clergy will exert such influence on behalf of American
occupation forces, but to protect the Iraqi people .... well, that's
a different story.
The problem is that President Bush likely won't do this and Senator
Kerry has not thought of it.
It's time to give in and declare defeat in respect to a portion of
the task we should never have undertaken. We should simply admit
that we have no business being a local police force and have no
ability to force the populace to cooperate with us in preventing more
attacks.
Do you all think it's hopeless? Well, don't give up just yet. There
is hope. As Sir Henry Lawrence said: "Never Give In."
Cheerz.....Bwana
___________________________________________________________________________________
