My plans
One friend, after my recent articles about the Iraq Study Group Report, has challenged me as to what I would do in relation to Iraq. In other words, if I accept that the current policy is not working (on that I agree) and that the Report itself is a facade for appeasement of America's enemies, then what are the alternatives?
I have two cardinal rules, first if the Sunnis and Shia wish to battle out their ages old hostility in a sectarian civil war, then the US forces (a mere 120,000 in a country of 22 million) cannot stop them, so why try. But to "cut and run" would be disastrous. I would declare that the training of the Iraq Army to defend the democratic, but powerless, Iraqi Government, will be continued within US compounds, and so, second I would withdraw all American and coalition forces within well-defended facilities and stop all American patrols and military operations. Then there would be a kind of "survival of the fittest," let the Government, the Shia militias, the Sunni death squads and the al Qaeda terrorists fight it out. True the US bases would be targets, but not as much as the currently exposed forces are during patrols through enemy-infested Shia and Sunni areas.
Why is it important for the US to have bases in Iraq? Because we have real enemies there and we may need to fight them. Better to have a "beachhead" directly there, than to have to go back in from scratch. I would put these bases in well-defended locations, among our best allies, such as in the Kurdish area and along the Jordanian and Kuwaiti borders, with easy access from those countries. I would also hold a major airport in a remote area so that major reinforcements can be flown in at short notice if needed.
There are two possible reasons for a future conflict, first if Iran takes over the Shia areas of Iraq and threatens to use atomic weapons or even conventional warfare against our forces, and second if the al Qaeda or another anti-American terrorist group takes over or is allowed to train and develop as it did in Afghanistan. These are serious possibilites, and having US forces on both the west (Iraq) and east (Afghanistan) of Iran is a military asset that has not been effectively used, while those forces have been pinned down by local anti-American forces. They need to be relieved of this task so that they are ready to carry out the much more important strategic job, if needed. They will in effect be the forward beachhead of US forces in the Mid-East.
Of course, in time, circumstances may change, the Iraq Government may fall, those who come into power may tell the US to leave. If and when that happens we must be flexible, but this "retract and hold" plan has the simplicity of retaining our forces there, while reducing their current combat role, a compromise plan if you like between the current exposed combat situation and a complete withdrawal/defeat.
So that's my suggestion, but much more relevant as far as I am concerned is what to do about Israel's situation. I don't disagree with PM Olmert's attitude of "show the world" (the bastards) that we are the ones willing to make peace - at almost any price, i.e. letting them break the ceasefire by shooting Kassams from Gaza, letting Hizbollah truck in weapons at night from Syria, agreeing to release 500-1000 prisoners for one kidnapped soldier, etc. But, meanwhile we wait and see how things progress, whether the Siniora Government in Lebanon can hold in the face of pro-Syrian Hizbollah attacks, whether Abbas can finally come out and declare new elections for a PA Government, and if so what the results will be (either civil war or a Fatah or Hamas Government) and whether or not Iran makes good on its implied threat to actually develop nuclear weapons. Since we cannot predict the future we might as well let it reveal itself in its own time, meanwhile preparing (far better than we did last time) for the likely war plans of our enemies.
I have two cardinal rules, first if the Sunnis and Shia wish to battle out their ages old hostility in a sectarian civil war, then the US forces (a mere 120,000 in a country of 22 million) cannot stop them, so why try. But to "cut and run" would be disastrous. I would declare that the training of the Iraq Army to defend the democratic, but powerless, Iraqi Government, will be continued within US compounds, and so, second I would withdraw all American and coalition forces within well-defended facilities and stop all American patrols and military operations. Then there would be a kind of "survival of the fittest," let the Government, the Shia militias, the Sunni death squads and the al Qaeda terrorists fight it out. True the US bases would be targets, but not as much as the currently exposed forces are during patrols through enemy-infested Shia and Sunni areas.
Why is it important for the US to have bases in Iraq? Because we have real enemies there and we may need to fight them. Better to have a "beachhead" directly there, than to have to go back in from scratch. I would put these bases in well-defended locations, among our best allies, such as in the Kurdish area and along the Jordanian and Kuwaiti borders, with easy access from those countries. I would also hold a major airport in a remote area so that major reinforcements can be flown in at short notice if needed.
There are two possible reasons for a future conflict, first if Iran takes over the Shia areas of Iraq and threatens to use atomic weapons or even conventional warfare against our forces, and second if the al Qaeda or another anti-American terrorist group takes over or is allowed to train and develop as it did in Afghanistan. These are serious possibilites, and having US forces on both the west (Iraq) and east (Afghanistan) of Iran is a military asset that has not been effectively used, while those forces have been pinned down by local anti-American forces. They need to be relieved of this task so that they are ready to carry out the much more important strategic job, if needed. They will in effect be the forward beachhead of US forces in the Mid-East.
Of course, in time, circumstances may change, the Iraq Government may fall, those who come into power may tell the US to leave. If and when that happens we must be flexible, but this "retract and hold" plan has the simplicity of retaining our forces there, while reducing their current combat role, a compromise plan if you like between the current exposed combat situation and a complete withdrawal/defeat.
So that's my suggestion, but much more relevant as far as I am concerned is what to do about Israel's situation. I don't disagree with PM Olmert's attitude of "show the world" (the bastards) that we are the ones willing to make peace - at almost any price, i.e. letting them break the ceasefire by shooting Kassams from Gaza, letting Hizbollah truck in weapons at night from Syria, agreeing to release 500-1000 prisoners for one kidnapped soldier, etc. But, meanwhile we wait and see how things progress, whether the Siniora Government in Lebanon can hold in the face of pro-Syrian Hizbollah attacks, whether Abbas can finally come out and declare new elections for a PA Government, and if so what the results will be (either civil war or a Fatah or Hamas Government) and whether or not Iran makes good on its implied threat to actually develop nuclear weapons. Since we cannot predict the future we might as well let it reveal itself in its own time, meanwhile preparing (far better than we did last time) for the likely war plans of our enemies.
posted by Jack Cohen at 8:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home