The Beginning Of The End For The War In Iraq [The Day]
by Scott Bates
From Baghdad to Connecticut, the signs are clear.
America's war in Iraq is over. Historians will likely point to the summer of 2006 as the moment when the unlimited United States commitment to building a democratic, pro-American Iraq came to an end. Evidence of the end could be found in the halls of Congress, the streets of Baghdad and in the voting booths of Connecticut.
Testifying before the U.S. Senate , U.S. Army Gen. John Abizaid, the man responsible for our troops in Iraq, dropped a bombshell. When asked if Iraq is slipping in to civil war, Abizaid said, "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular. It is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."
Great Britain's Ambassador to Iraq was not even that optimistic saying that "Iraq was more likely headed to sectarian partition and low intensity civil war than a stable democracy."
Caught in the middle of a bitter civil war based on centuries-old ethnic and religious based hatreds is not where U.S. forces should find themselves. Sensing a shift in events on the ground in Iraq and in American public opinion at home, the Democratic leadership in Congress announced this month that they are united in their belief that U.S. troops should begin departing Iraq within the next four months. Twelve Democratic leaders in Congress announced in a joint statement that "Iraqi political leaders must be informed that America's patience, blood and treasure are not unlimited." On Tuesday, Democratic voters in Connecticut voiced their approval of this policy.
Connecticut Democrats stunned the political world by voting against an 18-year incumbent U.S. senator for his full-throated support for staying the course in Iraq. This earthquake in Connecticut has been felt by every Democrat in Congress. You can be sure that Democratic leaders in Congress saw in the Connecticut vote, ratification of their belief that America's open-ended commitment to Iraq must end.
Chances are better than average that Democrats are likely to win back seats, and possibly gain control, in the U.S Congress this November. Washington's official handicapper of Congressional campaigns, Charlie Cook, recently opined that if current trends continued, Republicans are facing a "rout." The popular energy of the Democratic base electorate that nominated Ned Lamont may well propel Democrats into power in Congress, guaranteeing an end to "staying the course" in Iraq. Even Republicans like U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel are calling for a way out of our occupation duty in the Middle East. Change is in the air and not a moment too soon.
So far this summer, over 6,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq. This killing has taken place after the capture and trial of Saddam Hussein, after multi-party elections, after the formation of a sovereign Iraqi government and after the killing of the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. The evidence is clear that the majority of violence and instability in Iraq today is not as President Bush would have us believe from al-Qaida. Instead, Iraq is in fact entering the low intensity civil war of which Britain's Ambassador notified his government.
Whether Iraq will descend into the utter chaos of a civil war is a political question for the Iraqi people to decide and beyond the control of the current U.S. forces deployed in that far away land. There is little American troops can do to prevent a civil war in Iraq. We must hope that Iraq's leaders and their people step back from the abyss of civil war and take their destiny into their own hands.
We must however create a new plan based on American interests that fits the reality on the ground in Baghdad. We must return to focusing on winning the war on terror, which means destroying the terrorists of al-Qaida. Rather than have our forces perform occupation duty in Iraq, which serves as a recruiting tool for Osama Bin Laden, we should focus our troops on fighting the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11.
We can accomplish these goals by redeploying our forces in southern Iraq to support operations against the resurgent Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan. Some intelligence and Special Forces assets could be re-directed from Iraq to join the hunt for Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
A reduced U.S. military force in Iraq could be redeployed to a few secure locations in the Kurdish north and desert areas near Baghdad to serve as launching pads for strikes against al-Qaida in Iraq and to provide air support and training for Iraqi government forces.
The war in Iraq, as America has been fighting it, looks like it is coming to an end. Perhaps now our leaders can see the situation in Iraq for what it is, and not what they wish it to be and find the courage and new ideas to act in America's long-term interests.
[Scott Bates is vice president of the Center for National Policy and a professor of homeland security and defense at the National Defense Univerity in Washington, D.C. He is a resident of Stonington.]
(c) 1998-2006 The Day Publishing Co.
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=093383eb-59f4-44b3-94a9-a0a7959f4be9
From Baghdad to Connecticut, the signs are clear.
America's war in Iraq is over. Historians will likely point to the summer of 2006 as the moment when the unlimited United States commitment to building a democratic, pro-American Iraq came to an end. Evidence of the end could be found in the halls of Congress, the streets of Baghdad and in the voting booths of Connecticut.
Testifying before the U.S. Senate , U.S. Army Gen. John Abizaid, the man responsible for our troops in Iraq, dropped a bombshell. When asked if Iraq is slipping in to civil war, Abizaid said, "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular. It is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."
Great Britain's Ambassador to Iraq was not even that optimistic saying that "Iraq was more likely headed to sectarian partition and low intensity civil war than a stable democracy."
Caught in the middle of a bitter civil war based on centuries-old ethnic and religious based hatreds is not where U.S. forces should find themselves. Sensing a shift in events on the ground in Iraq and in American public opinion at home, the Democratic leadership in Congress announced this month that they are united in their belief that U.S. troops should begin departing Iraq within the next four months. Twelve Democratic leaders in Congress announced in a joint statement that "Iraqi political leaders must be informed that America's patience, blood and treasure are not unlimited." On Tuesday, Democratic voters in Connecticut voiced their approval of this policy.
Connecticut Democrats stunned the political world by voting against an 18-year incumbent U.S. senator for his full-throated support for staying the course in Iraq. This earthquake in Connecticut has been felt by every Democrat in Congress. You can be sure that Democratic leaders in Congress saw in the Connecticut vote, ratification of their belief that America's open-ended commitment to Iraq must end.
Chances are better than average that Democrats are likely to win back seats, and possibly gain control, in the U.S Congress this November. Washington's official handicapper of Congressional campaigns, Charlie Cook, recently opined that if current trends continued, Republicans are facing a "rout." The popular energy of the Democratic base electorate that nominated Ned Lamont may well propel Democrats into power in Congress, guaranteeing an end to "staying the course" in Iraq. Even Republicans like U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel are calling for a way out of our occupation duty in the Middle East. Change is in the air and not a moment too soon.
So far this summer, over 6,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq. This killing has taken place after the capture and trial of Saddam Hussein, after multi-party elections, after the formation of a sovereign Iraqi government and after the killing of the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. The evidence is clear that the majority of violence and instability in Iraq today is not as President Bush would have us believe from al-Qaida. Instead, Iraq is in fact entering the low intensity civil war of which Britain's Ambassador notified his government.
Whether Iraq will descend into the utter chaos of a civil war is a political question for the Iraqi people to decide and beyond the control of the current U.S. forces deployed in that far away land. There is little American troops can do to prevent a civil war in Iraq. We must hope that Iraq's leaders and their people step back from the abyss of civil war and take their destiny into their own hands.
We must however create a new plan based on American interests that fits the reality on the ground in Baghdad. We must return to focusing on winning the war on terror, which means destroying the terrorists of al-Qaida. Rather than have our forces perform occupation duty in Iraq, which serves as a recruiting tool for Osama Bin Laden, we should focus our troops on fighting the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11.
We can accomplish these goals by redeploying our forces in southern Iraq to support operations against the resurgent Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan. Some intelligence and Special Forces assets could be re-directed from Iraq to join the hunt for Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
A reduced U.S. military force in Iraq could be redeployed to a few secure locations in the Kurdish north and desert areas near Baghdad to serve as launching pads for strikes against al-Qaida in Iraq and to provide air support and training for Iraqi government forces.
The war in Iraq, as America has been fighting it, looks like it is coming to an end. Perhaps now our leaders can see the situation in Iraq for what it is, and not what they wish it to be and find the courage and new ideas to act in America's long-term interests.
[Scott Bates is vice president of the Center for National Policy and a professor of homeland security and defense at the National Defense Univerity in Washington, D.C. He is a resident of Stonington.]
(c) 1998-2006 The Day Publishing Co.
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=093383eb-59f4-44b3-94a9-a0a7959f4be9
posted by Rev. Rick Mitchell, PhD at 4:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home