We Could Still 'Lose' Iraq

Moreover, do not underestimate the Arab-Persian tension, it is quite deep.

Dan that is true today, but the trend line seems to suggest that the nation (the people) of Iran want reform and will eventually get it. Once the current State of Iran falls to the will of its own people, maybe Iran's influence will be a positive impact on Iraq compared to the previous Sunni influence? Wishful thinking on my part, but I think it is possibility. I'm clicking my heels three times and wishing :-)

We have lost Iraq. The winners are the Iranians. We took down Iran's nastiest enemy (Saddam and the Sunnis) for them. The Iranians have immense influence in Iraq, and it will be their protectorate when we leave (not to suggest that our remaining would change anything). We had a chance to take out Muqtadr al Sadr in 2003, and lost our nerve. That sent a signal to Iran that we were not thinking strategically. We took out Saddam and killed a lot of al Qaeda operators, but we didn't exploit our strength and position to disable the Iranian regime (seize the Khuzestan oilfields). How much blood and treasure are we going to waste hanging around Iraq? Too much, and for what? It is time to terminate this operation.

What mystifies me about Max's call to stay (for a long, long time) is that he assumes the various enemy groups in Iraq will just sit happily by if we do. It shows on his part a clear misunderstanding of the nature of war, and that for every action there is a reaction, ad infinitum.

The other thing that I just cant figure is how a paltry handful of troops (say approximately around 50,000, and only part of these being actual combat troops)help to stabilize the place. I mean does Max have that much sureness in the efficacy of American military power that a handful of American troops can suppress a civil war in the country that has yet to end?

It seems as though Max views simple US presence as a form of pixie dust, that brings happiness to wherever it is spread.

gian

Please explain:
Why would anyone oppose a job half done??? If you wish to limit the US involvment, have the opposers and protesters demand of their reps in Congress to set a deadline for finishing the "Nation-building and instructing " efforts in Iraq. Once they do that, everyone knows where they stand. I dont suppose this would worsen efforts by the enemy to harm people: They do so regardless.

Support the troops in any case. They are out to protectUS interests,regardless of what you think about this or that war. Support them,care for them, embrace them, and watch this clip dedicated to them!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIzPtGiKzTg

We ARE losing Iraq indeed, not "might." The reason is that our shock&awe put it in a total state of chaos; then, in a rush, we went in for killing rather that coalitions-building of a Sunni Bloc to balance Shiites; and finally, supported the weakest Shia (though indeed nationalist) faction, of a mass of Iraqis that we will need full with, were trying now a quick-fix coalition with the very people who hate us but want to stay in power. Worst of all, most Iraqis blame Americans for the chaos that STILL ravages Iraq. In sum, when you fail, you lose. Ironically, with superficial analysts like Booth addressing the issue-- as if Iraq is OURS to lose-- our loss become rather inevitable. I would recommend Boot ceases his prospective pontification and focus on his retrospective on-the-record entreaties to go in and go in big as he will definitely be amongst those blames for the mess as advisers whose only contribution was "more, more, more....dapper, deeper, deeper" intervention in ways that produced chaos, hence anti-Americanism as we shock&awe our way through that nation's people.

Max, like the other two respondents I spent roughly 38 months of my 9 year career in Iraq. I have seen the progress as my three deployments spanned 2003 to 2008, or from initial invasion to post surge Iraq (if you want to identify it by campaign). My current occupation is as a company/team trainer imparting what lessons I have learned about counterinsurgency to those that are preparing to practice it in the two way live fire which is Afghanistan at the moment. As I read your article I think of a quote that I like to use, "apples and oranges are inherently different, however they are both fruit".
You are correct in your statements regarding post WW1 and 2 Germany, Japan, and South Korea, however there is one fundamental difference between those nations and Iraq... culture. Prior to collapse all three of the iconic examples possessed a relatively robust middle class, institutions of higher learning, an academic class, and (though considerably degraded) an industrial capacity. Iraq had all of these prior to and during the beginning of Saddams rule, however they were greatly degraded during the latter part of his regime for multiple reasons. That being said it establishes the fact that while similar, the conditions in Iraq are vastly different than those in Germany, Japan, and South Korea which are the examples you give for garrisoning U.S forces there. The fledgling nature of Iraqs middle class, academia, and industrial capability explain the reason there is continued violence. The other main reason of continued violence in Iraq is that it is an acceptable means of pushing a political agenda. As an example I was partnered with a Sons of Iraq leader who had political aspirations. One day he was targeted by his own cousin who detonated a small VBIED (car bomb) on him and his security detail. He came out of the whole thing unscathed and I asked him why his own family was attempting to kill him. His response was as follows, " we had an outstanding argument over the last 10 to 15 years that had degenerated into a blood feud, so him attempting to kill me was perfectly acceptable and I was aware of it, this is also... how do you say it... .politics". Given his assessment of the incident and in further conversations with him I came to learn that violence is a means to an end in politics as far as their culture is concerned. That being said, it is becoming less and less acceptable as the Sunni/Shia/Kurdish power struggle continues to play out, but it will likely result in more civilian deaths over time (it runs many parallels with our civil war in some respects i.e. continued political violence by the KKK post war). As Iraqs middle class evolves, their professors and scientists return, and their industrial complex is re-booted you will see Iraqis come to a better understanding of the natural resources that they posses and exactly how influential that can be in the Middle East. This should diminish current violence to nothing more than standard criminal activity given time.
The other variable that Iraq has that none of the iconic examples present is the Kurdish problem. The push by the Kurdish people to expand their unrecognized borders and political influence could side Iraq with Iran, but it could also side Iraq very closely with Turkey (which is the best diplomatic option for us at this particular juncture). Either way this can only be indirectly influenced by our diplomats and it is not a problem that the current administration or the international community would be willing to put "grey matter" effort into.
We went into Iraq in 2003 based on intelligence (however reliable) that Saddam possessed WMD and that it was a harboring ground/safe haven for terrorist organizations. The 2011 National Military strategy states under section A. Counter Violent Extremism that, "The Nations strategic objective in this campaign is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaida and its affiliates... " It can be argued that building an Iraqi democracy is not the reason we are there to begin with. As far as disrupting and dismantling AQ I think we have been pretty effective in the last 9 years or so in both the Iraq and Afghan theater. That being said, there is no real reason for us to stick around in Iraq other than to re-build the infrastructure and re-establish governing bodies that were dissolved/destroyed during the war. Likewise, it can be argued that staying in Iraq is prudent to our overall strategy given its future potential for influence in the Middle East and its geographic location.
However, as far as your fear of pulling out of Iraq by the end of the year is concerned, I dont think you have to worry. Based on the 2011 re-write of the National Military Strategy of the United States , "We will maintain an appropriate presence capable of reassuring partners and allies and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear arms", the sentence following the above reads as follows, "Our nation seeks a long-term partnership with Iraq, including in security affairs" I am pretty sure this isnt a typo and is reasonable foreshadowing that there will be a military garrison in Iraq for some time to come. As far as political promises go the commander and chief has made good on his promise with "the last combat brigade left Iraq". Whether you believe that or not perception by the American public is reality and based on media coverage our current administration has made good on their promise. It is sad that the American public is so easily influenced by the media and that their level of coverage concerning one topic or the other deems what is important, but that is reality. Iraq will most likely turn into a Kosovo scenario for us, as the nation progresses and certain diplomatic gates are met we will continually reduce force to the eventual zero. Ask any American on the street if we are still in Kosovo and they will likely respond with, "huh, that ended like 10 years ago or something" or "Kosovo? Where is that at? We sent soldiers there?" That being said the current administration is very adept at the information war waged on the public and the world on a minute by minute basis, bottom line dont expect much coverage or any on Iraq in the near future. Ten years will pass and the last soldier will eventually come home and no one will know, except those that go there. Iraq will eventually stabilize based on the resources both human and natural that it has at its disposal, but it will not follow the model set forth by post WWII Germany, Japan, and post Korean Conflict South Korea based on its ethnic and cultural differences from the former. In laymans terms an omelet will be made but eggs are going to have to get broken to make it.

Iraq is not our nation, but rather a nation we liberated from Saddam and now they have a civilian government. We are not a colonizing power, it is now up to the Iraqi government and people to find their own path to peace, and most likely it will be a bloody path (not unlike America's history).Perhaps the current turmoil in Iraq is healthy, because it will force needed political and social compromise to achieve a state of relatively enduring peace. Maintaining troops there only prolongs the current status quo, it doesn't address underlying issues and those issues are Iraqi issues, not U.S. issues.

Don't be fooled by the voices of people like Max. Staying is simply interfering with the needed Iraqi political evolution. Leaving will permit that evolution (no matter how bloody) to move forward towards eventual stability. We already made a mess based on the arguments of those like Max, it is time to stop the foolishness. Bill

Hey Max- As one of those 50k troops who has now spent 3 years in this country I invite you and yours to put your money (that you make from these continuous wars) where your mouth (and pen are) and spend more than a minute here doing your part.

It will never be perfect, but it will be an Iraqi un-perfect and no longer our bi-yearly vacation spot for thousands of troops who no longer know how to fire artillery, maneuver tanks or could fight a war with any medium power without taking some early lumps. You and yours have broken our Army and the suicides, wounds and the heartbreak of Walter Reed, Fort Sam Houston and the like are going to be your legacy past down.

This war needs to end. It has to be sink or swim for Iraq. We have presence in Kuwait and Yemen. Let the Iraqis rule themselves as the Egyptians will. Allow the US Army to regain the edge it needs for things was created for- to defend the United States against foreign and internal threats to our countries national security. That goes for Afghanistan as well.

By the way if this is what you call a "WIN" I feel pity on you. From a soldier's viewpoint this was a mess and won't get much better! I have a weapon for you anytime Sir.Please ensure your kids see a recruiter soon.

2PHs