Iraq Strategy Debates Wrong Issues
With September fast approaching and General David Petraeus’s long awaited report on the effectiveness of the Iraq troop surge soon due the Iraq debate in the US Congress and among Presidential candidates is still focused on the level of the US troop presence in Iraq.
What a political sham the entire “troop level” issue has become. For one thing the US will have to draw down troops soon. The level of combat operations over the past five years has placed such a strain on the US military that the present level of troops deployed is not sustainable.
There are troops who are on their fourth tour of duty in Iraq over five years. These guy and gals are going to need a lot of help adjusting to life back in the States whenever they do return. How can you keep sending the same troops back to a war zone over and over again without serious consequences? There is already a large but unknown number of troops suffering from PTSD. Another deployment or two will send some of them over the edge.
In addition, great amounts of military equipment is just plain worn out. The time and money that it will take to refurbish our military is going to be a big number. So the US will have little option by next Spring. Forces can not be maintained indefinitely at current levels.
What the administration, congress, and Presidential candidates will not admit is that there is no plan or desire to bring all of the troops home. Not next Spring or ever. This is what the national debate should be about. Is it right for America to invade, occupy, set up a puppet government, and to permanently garrison troops in another nation? Are we as Americans comfortable in being an imperial power?
The war on Iraq is not about bringing freedom and democracy to the long suffering Iraqi people. As recent interviews with Iraqis reveal over and over compared to the present hell of the American occupation living under Saddam Hussein was heaven on earth, even with his brutality. At least it was safe to go grocery shopping or for your kids to go to school.
No, no matter what President Bush may continue to say even he is not crazy enough to spend over one trillion in US Dollars, cut short over 3,700 American lives, and be responsible for the deaths of up to 650,000 Iraqis, for the impossible task of nation building. In the end Americans from the President on down are showing little regard for what the Iraqis want or for how they have and are suffering under our occupation. In fact, as conditions in Iraq further deteriorate, the American debate becomes increasingly centered on us.
This sad fact is expressed by Jon Alterman of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, who says that the debate has been more about who to blame than what to do.
The Democrats find it easier to blame the Bush administration than come up with an alternative policy. The administration blames Iran and al-Qaeda. One shift under way, says Mr Alterman, is towards a more self-centred policy.
“Americans are losing interest in what Iraqis want,” he says.
What Mr. Alterman fails to say is that the Americans who really count, the President and his tight group of imperialistic friends, never had any intention of withdrawing completely from Iraq. When you look at Iraq’s strategic location in the Middle East, the fact that it has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, the fact that from Iraq American’s military bases can project power across the entire Middle East, you can see that Iraq is a prize worth fighting for.
Unfortunately, for the US other forces are willing to fight for Iraq as well. The obvious groups opposing the US in Iraq, like the home grown insurgents who oppose a foreign occupation, and al Qaeda, who opposes Americans in the Middle East wherever they may be. These opposing forces are really only the minor ones.
There are some very big players who oppose our presence in Iraq. Let’s start with the Russians and the Chinese. Do you really think that those governments want to see the US further expand its 737 military bases spread across the world? Especially by bringing enough of a military presence into Iraq to control all of the Middle East oil fields.
Then there are the regional forces, our “friends” and foes alike who oppose the US setting up a puppet state in Iraq. How about Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to name the largest ones? Supposedly our friends, there is a huge money trail leading from Saudi Arabian businessmen to the insurgents in Iraq. The introduction of Stella Soviet era anti aircraft shoulder fired missiles into Iraq are thought to be financed by Saudi money.
In order to be meaningful the debate in the United States about Iraq has to be an honest one. The present debate about troop levels is bogus. The debate that needs to take place is whether America wants to continue in its quest for world domination and if so what price are we willing to pay to continue that quest?
I’m not against American imperialism by the way. Not if it’s done in the right way and brings benefits to the countries that we dominate as well as to America. What I am against is the tremendous dishonesty in Washington and throughout American. Why can’t Americas accept the fact that since World War Two we have emerged as an imperial power?
Once Americas accept that fact then we can honestly debate how we can be the best possible imperial power in a dangerous world. The resource wars have started and we have better be ready for them. In a world of increased demand for and diminishing supplies of natural resources like oil, natural gas, copper, tin, nickel, food stocks, timber, and even clean fresh water, if we plan to maintain anything even close to our present lifestyles we had better remain strong.
It’s how we deploy and project that strength across the world that needs to be debated.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
