----- 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.
>
