----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 11:08
AM
Subject: [Futurework] Iraq
revisited
An article that may or may not be appreciated by those on the list. But,
I hope it evokes some controversy.
Darryl
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 11:05 AM
Subject: [PINR] Nov. 12, 2003: Iraq
> _______________________________________
> Power and Interest
News Report (PINR)
>
>
http://www.pinr.com>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
------------------------------
>
> November 12, 2003:
>
> The Power and Interest News Report does accept exclusive outside
> submissions. If you are interested in having an analysis
printed, please
> contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]. Be sure to include
links to, or a history of,
> your previous published writings.
Our readership consists of influential
> academics and public policy
advocates located in a variety of different
> countries throughout the
world.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> "U.S.
Occupation of Iraq Entering Critical Phase"
> Drafted by Erich Marquardt
on November 12, 2003
>
http://www.pinr.com>
>
In many respects, the current political conditions in Iraq are
very similar
> to that of Vietnam forty years ago. In Vietnam, one of
the major goals of
> the various U.S. administrations, from Truman's to
Ford's, was to create a
> viable government in South Vietnam that had
the support of the Vietnamese
> people but would also be a proponent of
U.S. interests in Southeast Asia. In
> order to achieve this goal,
Washington supported a handful of South
> Vietnamese leaders, from Bao
Dai to Nguyen Van Thieu. Yet all of these
> leaders were corrupt and
did not represent the interests of the Vietnamese
> people. In Iraq,
the Bush administration is facing similar political
> concerns that
successive U.S. administrations faced in Vietnam, while at the
> same
time suffering from what many Americans feel is an unacceptable
>
casualty rate that was only seen in the later years of U.S. involvement in
> Vietnam.
>
I believe Ray was alluding to this a couple of weeks
ago.
> There is growing concern in the United States over the Bush
administration's
> policy in Iraq; according to an ABC/Washington Post
opinion poll released
> November 02, for the first time a majority of
Americans disapprove of the
> Bush administration's handling of the
current conflict in Iraq.
> Additionally, the poll found that 60
percent of the U.S. population finds
> the current casualty rate
unacceptable. Subsequently, continued U.S.
> casualties have prompted
the Bush administration to quickly pursue a policy
> that has already
been labeled "Iraqification," eerily similar to the
> failed
"Vietnamization" policy of the 1960s and 1970s.
>
> The policy
of "Iraqification" involves training Iraqi military and security
>
forces in order to have them replace U.S. forces; the intent is that Iraqis
> will eventually fight Iraqis for the interests of the U.S.
government. Yet
> there is no reason to believe that this policy will
be any more successful
> than it was in Vietnam. As in Vietnam, the
type of individual who is willing
> to fight his own population in the
interests of a foreign power is often
> corrupt and fails to make an
effective fighter. The success of this policy
> relies on whether the
Bush administration can marginalize Iraqi guerrilla
> forces and
prevent them from gaining support among the civilian population.
>
> Presently, it is not clear if the Bush administration is achieving
this
> goal. While Washington has succeeded in establishing a central
bank,
> circulating a new currency, restoring some essential services,
and in
> appointing a governing council made up of Iraqis, resistance
to the U.S.
> presence has been growing. The attacks by insurgent
fighters have also
> become more deadly, culminating in the November 02
attack on a U.S. Chinook
> helicopter that killed 16 U.S. soldiers and
wounded 21 more. The first week
> of November was the deadliest week
for U.S. soldiers since early in the war
> with 36 U.S. soldiers losing
their lives. Plus more since this was
written.
>
> In the last month, U.S. officials admit that
attacks on the some 130,000
> U.S. troops in Iraq have grown to three
dozen a day. Contradicting President
> Bush's claim that the
"desperation of resistance is proof we are winning,"
> the continued
and now increased resistance speaks to a different theory:
> that
Washington thus far has failed to root out Ba'athist elements and
>
independent resistance groups, and has also been unable to prevent certain
> segments of Iraqi society from actively sympathizing with these
fighters.
>
> The clashes between resistance fighters and U.S.
forces in the streets of
> Iraq continue to anger the Iraqi population
who blames the U.S. for the
> current instability in the country.
Recent polls from Iraq show that much of
> Iraqi society now views U.S.
forces as occupiers rather than as liberators.
> These feelings of
distrust can be expected to intensify the longer U.S. and
> guerrilla
fighters continue to battle in the cities of Iraq.
>
> The source
of many Iraqis' anger is the overwhelming force frequently used
> by
U.S. soldiers in response to attacks and civil disruptions. While this
> strategy is effective in large open terrain, such as the desert, and
when
> dealing with regular military units, it is typically ineffectual
when used
> in dense urban environments filled with people carrying out
their daily
> lives. Instead, this policy may virtually guarantee
otherwise avoidable
> losses of civilian life and also add to an
increasingly negative image of
> the U.S. presence.
>
>
The more Iraqis who have a negative image of the U.S. presence, the greater
> the risk that otherwise uninvolved Iraqis will either cooperate,
support, or
> sympathize with anti-U.S. guerrillas. This is already
evident in cases of
> resistance by Iraqi civilians; for example, in
the Sunni Triangle city of
> Abu Ghraib, U.S. troops have been
consistently fighting both residents and
> guerrillas. Unless U.S.
forces are willing to completely lock down these
> cities, conducting
operations in ones such as Abu Ghraib seem
> counterproductive and may
only embolden the guerrillas.
>
> In addition to stimulating
resistance, operations in cities such as Abu
> Ghraib, along with the
use of overwhelming force, hurt the image of U.S.
> involvement in
Iraq. For instance, New York Times reporter Alex Berenson
> recently reported that in Abu Ghraib U.S. troops "fired on a
photographer
> trying to cover the fighting and barred reporters from
viewing the scene."
Actions like this, to me, indicate Bush's desperate
need to suppress information
and appear to indicate another aspect of
insanity.
> While such
controversial images may be suppressed in the United States, they
> are not elsewhere; as well as on Arab television, European news
networks
> frequently show videos of U.S. troops responding with
overwhelming force in
> the middle of busy market streets. Instead of
attempting to prevent these
> images from reaching the outside world,
greater peacekeeping training must
> be given to U.S. forces to prevent
their fighting methods from turning off
> not only Iraqi society, but
also the wider world.
>
> The continued inability to pacify Iraq
will lead to a failure of U.S.
> objectives in the country and in the
region as a whole. One of the main U.S.
> objectives in Iraq is to
create a viable Iraqi government that has the
> support of the Iraqi
people but that will also be congruent with U.S.
> interests in the
Middle East. It is not clear if this objective is still
> possible.
Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor who served as a
>
consultant to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, warned London's
> Daily Telegraph that "any democratically elected
Iraqi government is
> unlikely to be secular, unlikely to be
pro-Israel, and frankly, moderately
> unlikely to be
pro-American."
>
> Feldman's statement points to one of
the most fundamental dilemmas the Bush
> administration faces: that a democratic Iraq may be an Iraq unfriendly to
>
America.
Gee. Could this possibly be true?
(SARCASM)
Furthermore, it highlights the difficulty that Washington is
>
discovering in finding an Iraqi government that supports U.S. interests
> while also garnering the support of the Iraqi people -- a situation
that
> Washington never managed to accomplish in Vietnam. In fact, even
Ahmad
> Chalabi, a member of the governing council who is close to the
Pentagon,
> stated, "The Americans, their methods, their operations,
their procedures,
> are singularly unsuited to deal with this kind of
problem."
>
> But the U.S. cannot leave Iraq unless Washington is
willing to face a loss
> of U.S. influence in the region and the world.
If the U.S. were to pull out
> of Iraq without establishing a strong
authority there, the country would
> likely fall into civil war that
would possibly result in territorial
> fragmentation. The Kurds in the
north, Sunnis in the center and Shi'a in the
> south could easily
plunge into internecine conflict; this perhaps explains
> why, since
Iraq's creation, the country has been largely run by
> authoritarian
leaders who have repressed political dissent, thus securing
> the
stability of the state. Furthermore, outside powers would inevitably
>
become involved in any Iraqi civil war, creating the possibility of Iraq's
> Shi'a south becoming enveloped in the affairs of Iran -- a bordering
Shi'a
> Islamic republic -- or the Kurds of the north attempting to
create a Greater
> Kurdistan. These outcomes would be considered
setbacks to U.S. interests.
>
> The continued inability to pacify
Iraq reflects the larger problem faced by
> Washington of successfully
interacting with Arab and Muslim societies.
> Facing countries with
values quite contrary to the United States',
> Washington has failed to
provide these societies with a desirable cultural
> model to follow.
Attempts to do so have only enraged Muslim societies and
> have
resulted in a major polarization between the interests of Washington
>
and the interests of these societies.
>
> In light of this, Vice
President Dick Cheney's claim that "We are rolling
> back the terrorist
threat at the very heart of its power in the Middle East"
> could not
seem further from the truth. Subsequent surveys by various
groups,
> such as the Pew Research Center, show that hatred toward the
United States
> has been rapidly growing in almost all countries
throughout the world,
> especially Arab and Muslim ones that feel that
the "war on terror" is simply
> a "war on Islam."
>
Is the idea of democracy being threatened by those
who abuse it in their attempt
to "force" its acceptance around the
globe?
> This polarization will result in more attacks on U.S. interests
abroad and
> possibly at home. Even individuals
like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
> are beginning to question
official rhetoric, who admitted in his recent
> leaked memo that the
United States "lack[s] the metrics to know whether we
> are winning or
losing the global war on terror."
Are the rats beginning to leave the sinking ship; or,
have they garnered enough
loot to make getting out worthwhile?
Because America is too
> powerful for any state actor to attack,
and because hatred for America is
> spreading across the planet,
individuals in a position of relative weakness
> will use the most
effective means of damaging U.S. interests: engaging in
> terrorist
tactics.
>
