One Utah

It’s important to observe that the USA is not fighting a war in Iraq. The reason I say that is that it’s an occupation, and the fighting that takes place involving the U.S. military is all in support of the occupation. As far as I can tell, the Iraqis who are fighting Americans in Iraq are no threat to our national security– they just want to end the occupation of their own country. There is no way to “win” this occupation, unless you define “winning” as having a large proportion of our ground combat power tied up in Iraq indefinitely.

In any case, the success of the Iraq occupation is limited due to the lack of available forces. Back in February 2003, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki explained to Congress that “several hundred thousand soldiers” would be required (privately, he told SecDef Rumsfeld they would need 500,000). Without an adequate ground presence, the U.S. military has played “whack-a-mole” with various insurgent groups for years and relied too much on indirect fire weapons and air strikes. The civilian death toll from “collateral damage” and sectarian violence has been staggering, over a million according to one estimate.

It appears that the Bush administration may finally be on the way to recognizing that troop redeployment is unavoidable, despite their strenuous efforts over the years to define any withdrawal timetable as a “surrender date” and a “death sentence…for millions of Iraqis”. They have been brought to this point not by U.S. public opinion but by the Iraqis, who (1) have refused any extension of the U.N. Security Council mandate that expires on December 31 and (2) won’t agree to any other arrangement that doesn’t include a withdrawal timetable.

While the Bush administration continues to claim it has the authority to sign a treaty without the approval of the U.S. Senate, Maliki must obtain authorization from the Iraqi Council of Ministers and the parliament.

Yesterday, in the latest of a series of statements from high-ranking members of Nouri al-Maliki’s Green Zone Government, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari insisted that any security deal with the United States must contain a “very clear timeline” for the departure of U.S. troops.

In addition, the Iraqis are demanding an end to legal immunity for U.S. contractors– including hated mercenary outfits such as Blackwater Worldwide.

Of course, at this point the exact text of the treaty remains subject to speculation. Some who have seen it say that the Arabic text includes a defined timetable for withdrawal that does not appear in the English version. Who knows what else is in the fine print?

Also, it is important to note that withdrawal of combat forces won’t mean an end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, although ideally it will end the occupation. The Iraqi security forces are almost totally dependent on the Americans for combat support (artillery and air power) and logistical support (supply, transportation, medical, maintenance etc.), which means up to 80,000 of our troops will stay in Iraq for years to come.

UPDATE: The Center for American Progress points out that Iraqi insurgent groups, such as Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army and some Sunni militias, have reduced the level of attacks against U.S. forces in the belief that the occupation is winding down. They could take up arms again at any time if the expected withdrawal plan doesn’t materialize.

Acknowledgment:
The above photo is stolen from The Onion’s all-too-true article from two and a half years ago: U.S. Troops Draw Up Own Exit Strategy.

This entry was posted Monday, August 11th, 2008 at 12:39 pm and is filed under Disaster, Iraq, Military, National Politics, This Blog, War. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.