Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: NutCrackerBoy

The War on Terror is not complete. Particularly, Syria and Iran remain havens of support for world terrorism. (Perhaps the Sudan and Somalia?)

In any case, THE issue with World Terrorism is state support. If we remove all state support, then the terrorists will always be in fear of the knock on the door and will have no place to rest, plan, operate.

Therefore, Iraq was a necessary step. The end of our presence in Iraq could be as simple as declaring it has gone on as far as we've deemed fit to take it, or it could be as difficult as saying we need to get everyone in Iraq thinking in the patterns of western democracies.

I'm in favor of the end-certain being defined by our need to act elsewhere in the war on terror. That would mean a fledgling government in place in Iraq....as early as 6 months from now. But to leave Syria and Iran intact on the border of Iraq is to leave the war on terror incomplete.


16 posted on 01/15/2005 5:52:03 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: xzins
A reading of neo-con philosophy about the ME leads to the conclusion that we invaded Iraq not to deny terrorists sanctuary (there are dozens of other places that were friendlier to them) but to permanently change the map. Sadam's support for terrorists could not stand alone as the reason. Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran all provided higher levels of support than Iraq. None of these countries though had a Sadam, or UN resolutions that could be used as quasi-legal justification against them, or the central location of Iraq. Iraq was simply the best target option for us to create the desired change.

Once that is understood the next step to acknowledge is that we will not leave Iraq for decades. Iraq is now a territory from which we can project power throughout the region without having to seek permission from reluctant allies and without having to undertake a six months build-up of forces.

We are not winning in Iraq. We are not losing either. The war is currently bogged down in stalemate. Progress has been made but no place in the country is absolutely safe. And, comparisons to 1945 Germany and Japan are false. Those nations had been reduced to rubble in both the literal and figurative sense. Their populations had been pounded into full submission (with truly rare exceptions) by years of all out war and carpet bombing of civilian centers. They were ready for any force that would impose safety and order. None of this is true in Iraq.

There is a logic to disengagement short of withdrawal.

We have given the historically warring factions of Iraq a common enemy if not a common goal. As long as we are there in the numbers that we are today the Shiites, Sunnis, Baathists, Turkmen leaders all have the luxury of winning support within their ranks by attacking us. This does not suggest unity among these factions, although the Turkmen are associated with the Sunnis. (And, because of their anti-Kurd activities, the Turkmen receive aid from Turkey, even though there is no tribal connection. This aid from Turkey to the Turkmen finds its way into the hands of the Sunni and is used against us.)

Once we announce a shedule for down-sizing these factions will be forced to readjust their sights with attention given to securing the biggest slice of post-occupation Iraq. This would have the effect of moderating the Shiites, who have the most to gain. Additionally, Turkey would need to rethink its support of the Sunni-associated Turkmen.

Iran....with the US in Iraq in force Iran has no fear of an anarchical neighbor, a chaos next door that they cannot afford. There are significant internal and exiled dissident Iranian groups that would find feasible operating room within a chaotic Iraq from which they could stage and support insurrection within Iran. A US draw down of forces would make Iran face the consequences of continued support across the border.

Syria could be dealt with through the threat that the forces pulled from Iraq duties could be re-directed toward Damascus. The establishment of RCT sized "Fort Apache" style FOBs, removed from the population centers and into the barren western desert would enforce that threat, while at the same time removing our troops from the areas where they are most vulnerable. This last is already underway.

The alternatives to a limited but sizeable withdrawal seem to be endless stalemate or following the French model. Neither of these options seems palatable.

22 posted on 01/15/2005 7:56:11 AM PST by wtc911 ("I would like at least to know his name.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson