At the heart of the matter is that the conflict is not about
Iraq, or any other territory for that matter. Still, we cling
tenaciously to the anachronistic concept of wars based on
geographic boundaries. The ongoing struggle is about religion
and irreconcilable competing belief systems. It did not start
with Saddam or when the US led coalition invaded Iraq in 2003,
rather the genesis dates back thirteen hundred years. The
impetus for this strife was exacerbated over a century ago when
the Europeans divided up the Middle East at the end of the
Ottoman Empire. The prime concern for establishing borders was
interests of the European countries, not those of the
inhabitants of the area.
As in many other areas of the world, primary allegiances in
the Middle East are based on family and tribal relationships,
not nationalism. The imposed boundaries are near meaningless to
the local inhabitants. Yet, we continue to attempt to impose
Western solutions on intransigent problems. President Bush
stated in his 10 January address to the nation, “The situation
in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people – and it is
unacceptable to me.” How arrogant, since he is largely
responsible for those conditions. Colin Powell, among many
others, warned of the dangers of invading Iraq and the
responsibilities that we would assume in so doing. Powell was
ignored. General Eric Shinseki, then-Chief of Staff of the Army,
told Congress that the force structure dictated by Donald
Rumsfeld was far too small. For that he was sidelined. Instead
of accepting the sage council of those experienced in Middle
East affairs and military leaders, President Bush followed the
advice of neoconservative ideologues who believed the US would
be greeted as great liberators. According to their fallacious
thinking, in short order a self-sustaining government would be
functioning and reconstruction paid for by Iraq’s petroleum
industry. Instead, there have been the deaths of tens of
thousands of people, including over three thousand US military
personnel, and expenditure of hundreds of billions of US
taxpayer dollars with very little to show for it.
Now President Bush claims with just a few thousand more US
troops to support Iraqi forces we can secure Baghdad in a few
months leading to a stable democracy. Then, it is
conceptualized, Iraq will become a beacon for the entire area.
As rationale for this venture, he resorted to the old threat
that if we do not have control of Iraq, “Our enemies will have a
safe haven from which to launch attacks on the American people.”
In fact, when no weapons of mass destruction were found, the
connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda was used as post hoc
justification for the invasion. No such evidence was
forthcoming. We are again warned that, “Radical Islamist
extremists would grow in strength and gain ‘new recruits.’” That
is certainly true and will occur with or without additional
troops in Iraq. Our prior actions and arrogance have guaranteed
generations of such recruits.
The Administration seems to be oblivious to a concept of
strategy. What have been proposed are minor changes in tactics,
not a strategy. Many analysts rightfully fear that we have
destabilized the entire region and that the conflict will
spread. Our actions have virtually assured that outcome. Even
the tactics of sending additional troops runs counter to the
advice of most senior military commanders and the desires of the
Iraqi people. It will result in more casualties for all.
What is needed most urgently is a comprehensive strategy that
addresses the geopolitical realities of the entire region. We
must understand complex demographics and social structures of
the area that do not conform to Western secular ideals. Insured
energy availability will continue to act as a counterbalancing
force in a primarily ideological conflict.
The bottom line is that we have failed to define the
conflict. Our military forces have done all that has been asked
of them and more. Yet, despite ubiquitous platitudes from
politicians and conservative talk show hosts, no one has
satisfactorily described what constitutes winning. Based
on centuries of historical precedence, the probability that
commitment of an additional twenty thousand troops will lead to
stability in Iraq in a few months is vanishingly small. The
question for each lawmaker should be, “Would I send my son or
daughter to this surge in Iraq?”
John Alexander is a retired Army officer and senior fellow
with two DOD universities. He lives in Las Vegas.
Reproduced by permission of the author.
