What I WANT in Iraq
Someone asked me this question on another list.
tongodeon, I have a question for you and all of the people here who continually post stories that point out how horribly the US is doing in Iraq or just general hate of everything USA. What's your solution?
...instead of pointing out why we're all wrong, how about offering some solutions? What do you think the US should do, right now and forward?
Do you want the United States to fail in Iraq? By "fail," I mean do you want another islamic fundamentalist state to rise in the place of Saddam rather than some semblence of a government that represents Iraq's citizens fairly? What exactly do you WANT?
drieuxster once told me "There's what you WANT, what you will SETTLE FOR, and what you're GONNA GET."
First, what I WANT, which is presumably what you want: Iraqis greeting us as liberators, Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction destroyed, the Iraqi contribution to the Al Qaeda terror network eliminated, Iraq rebuilt with Iraqi oil money, a representative democracy installed with the confidence of an Iraqi people who are able to defend themselves. A democracy which contradicts the myth that friendliness to America dooms an Arab nation. A country which negates the "America as the world's scapegoat" meme largely responsible for 9/11. "Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism." That is what I WANT(ed).
Then there's Operation Iraqi Freedom's revised standards for success: I'd like a secular government with as few ties to Iran as possible. I'd like Baghdad electrical power, water, and oil flow to begin meeting or exceeding to pre-war levels. I'd like Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish groups to choose political solutions rather than military ones to resolve their existing religious, racial, and economic differences. I'd like to see enough guilty people punished and enough innocent people free that the Iraqi people can have confidence in the various justice systems that may detain or punish them. I'd like Iraqis to have a press free to report stories of interest to Iraqi audiences without the sort of foreign influence that would undermine its credibility. That's what I'll SETTLE FOR.
Finally there's what we're GONNA GET. I'd like the terrorists and foreign fighters in Iraq who are already returning home and starting anti-western terror cells in their own countries to have as little success as possible doing so. I'd like Iraq's dominant SCIRI party to be weakened enough that Iran doesn't end up with the fundamentalist Shia ally it appears to now have. I'd like the human rights abuses in Iraq to be "better than Saddam", not "worse than Saddam" as Iraqi prime minister Allawi said last Saturday. I'd like the Iraqi civil war, which some argue is already under way, to not cause the sort of refugee and humanitarian crisis that brings the Iraq Fiasco to the doors of other nations. I'd like justice to be carried out by police and military under a unified chain of command, not the shadowy "Salvador Option" death squads that we're hearing rumors about starting to see. I'd like Iraqis to have *any* news source availible - American or Arabic - which is reliable enough that their voters can make informed decisions based on objective reality and avoid these troubles. But even this outcome isn't necessarily what we're GONNA GET unless some things change regarding the way we're waging this war.
There isn't an easy five-word sentence that gets us to "what I WANT" no matter who runs the show or how they run it, but I do see five ways that things can be improved.
1) You can't know if you're succeeding without a measure of success, and to measure your success you need full access to facts - even disappointing facts. Allow the Iraqi Health Ministry to release statistics on how many Iraqis are killed every month, as they did until Bush shut them down. Allow the State Department to continue to report "Patterns of Global Terrorism", which was cancelled by the White House last year after almost 20 years of reporting. Provide fact-filled reports on the war's progress as required by the Joint Resolution To Authorize The Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq and as reaffirmed by recent Congressional mandate. Favor more meaningful statistics ("kilowatts generated", "total insurgent strength") over less meaningful statistics ("generators repaired", "insurgents killed"). This is the first and most important component of my solution.
/* Note that I "post stories that point out how horribly the US is doing in Iraq" because I'm trying to reconcile vastly differing pro and anti war views with objective reality. You can't discuss "how it should be" until you agree on "how it is now". */
2) Clearly define our goals and state requirements for military withdrawal based on concrete dates, events, and real-world numbers[1]. "When Bush is happy" is not a real world number. "When 500,000 Iraqi troops are combat-ready and no sooner than six months after the 30 January 2005 election" is a real world number. Define strategies to meet those goals.
3) Respond to the insurgents' complaints that are in line with our core national values anyway. Formally and publicly announce that we do not wish to permanently occupy a foreign country, and pledge to withdraw all troops from Iraq when our objective mission goals[2] are met. Publicly and formally announce full compliance with the letter of the Geneva Conventions rather than pussyfooting around vague undefined phrases without legal weight like "humane treatment" or "enemy combatant". Hold no prisoners in any country without charge: habeas corpus is a good idea no matter who formally enjoys constitutional protection. Cease extraordinary rendition practices. Hold civilian military contractors to the same uniform code of military conduct that their military counterparts are held to. Hold Iraqi military and police to similarly strict and clearly defined codes of conduct. Yes I realize that there are some negative consequences to these suggestions, but the current negative consequences are all too apparent.
4) Reward administration and military staff whose decisions and actions result in progress toward clearly-defined mission goals[2] as indicated by regular reports of objective fact[1]. Demote or remove incompetence and failure at all levels - regardless of how much public loyalty or insubordination the people in question show to the Administration.
5) If success is reached, withdraw troops and hold ticker-tape parade through Times Square. Conversely, if the situation continues to show no sign of improvement, do not "stay the course" when the course is broken. If people start saying things like "sure it looks bad but do you think *you* could do any better?" and both parties have embraced the concept of withdrawal and loss minimization the jig is up no matter how anyone chooses to define it. Cut (your losses) and run (like hell). With negative-trending lines, it's better to spend our money on eventual recovery rather than postponing inevitable collapse. Redeploy soldiers to whatever bordering countries wish to have our help preparing camps for refugees from the unavoidable civil war, to minimize the war's spread to other countries.
/* Note that I'm not advocating a "cut and run" strategy right now because we've never had satisfying objective metrics to determine success. The Bush administration has refused to provide concrete goals and objective metrics at every turn, expecting us to trust that we've won when he says we've won. */
tongodeon, I have a question for you and all of the people here who continually post stories that point out how horribly the US is doing in Iraq or just general hate of everything USA. What's your solution?
...instead of pointing out why we're all wrong, how about offering some solutions? What do you think the US should do, right now and forward?
Do you want the United States to fail in Iraq? By "fail," I mean do you want another islamic fundamentalist state to rise in the place of Saddam rather than some semblence of a government that represents Iraq's citizens fairly? What exactly do you WANT?
drieuxster once told me "There's what you WANT, what you will SETTLE FOR, and what you're GONNA GET."
First, what I WANT, which is presumably what you want: Iraqis greeting us as liberators, Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction destroyed, the Iraqi contribution to the Al Qaeda terror network eliminated, Iraq rebuilt with Iraqi oil money, a representative democracy installed with the confidence of an Iraqi people who are able to defend themselves. A democracy which contradicts the myth that friendliness to America dooms an Arab nation. A country which negates the "America as the world's scapegoat" meme largely responsible for 9/11. "Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism." That is what I WANT(ed).
Then there's Operation Iraqi Freedom's revised standards for success: I'd like a secular government with as few ties to Iran as possible. I'd like Baghdad electrical power, water, and oil flow to begin meeting or exceeding to pre-war levels. I'd like Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish groups to choose political solutions rather than military ones to resolve their existing religious, racial, and economic differences. I'd like to see enough guilty people punished and enough innocent people free that the Iraqi people can have confidence in the various justice systems that may detain or punish them. I'd like Iraqis to have a press free to report stories of interest to Iraqi audiences without the sort of foreign influence that would undermine its credibility. That's what I'll SETTLE FOR.
Finally there's what we're GONNA GET. I'd like the terrorists and foreign fighters in Iraq who are already returning home and starting anti-western terror cells in their own countries to have as little success as possible doing so. I'd like Iraq's dominant SCIRI party to be weakened enough that Iran doesn't end up with the fundamentalist Shia ally it appears to now have. I'd like the human rights abuses in Iraq to be "better than Saddam", not "worse than Saddam" as Iraqi prime minister Allawi said last Saturday. I'd like the Iraqi civil war, which some argue is already under way, to not cause the sort of refugee and humanitarian crisis that brings the Iraq Fiasco to the doors of other nations. I'd like justice to be carried out by police and military under a unified chain of command, not the shadowy "Salvador Option" death squads that we're hearing rumors about starting to see. I'd like Iraqis to have *any* news source availible - American or Arabic - which is reliable enough that their voters can make informed decisions based on objective reality and avoid these troubles. But even this outcome isn't necessarily what we're GONNA GET unless some things change regarding the way we're waging this war.
There isn't an easy five-word sentence that gets us to "what I WANT" no matter who runs the show or how they run it, but I do see five ways that things can be improved.
1) You can't know if you're succeeding without a measure of success, and to measure your success you need full access to facts - even disappointing facts. Allow the Iraqi Health Ministry to release statistics on how many Iraqis are killed every month, as they did until Bush shut them down. Allow the State Department to continue to report "Patterns of Global Terrorism", which was cancelled by the White House last year after almost 20 years of reporting. Provide fact-filled reports on the war's progress as required by the Joint Resolution To Authorize The Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq and as reaffirmed by recent Congressional mandate. Favor more meaningful statistics ("kilowatts generated", "total insurgent strength") over less meaningful statistics ("generators repaired", "insurgents killed"). This is the first and most important component of my solution.
/* Note that I "post stories that point out how horribly the US is doing in Iraq" because I'm trying to reconcile vastly differing pro and anti war views with objective reality. You can't discuss "how it should be" until you agree on "how it is now". */
2) Clearly define our goals and state requirements for military withdrawal based on concrete dates, events, and real-world numbers[1]. "When Bush is happy" is not a real world number. "When 500,000 Iraqi troops are combat-ready and no sooner than six months after the 30 January 2005 election" is a real world number. Define strategies to meet those goals.
3) Respond to the insurgents' complaints that are in line with our core national values anyway. Formally and publicly announce that we do not wish to permanently occupy a foreign country, and pledge to withdraw all troops from Iraq when our objective mission goals[2] are met. Publicly and formally announce full compliance with the letter of the Geneva Conventions rather than pussyfooting around vague undefined phrases without legal weight like "humane treatment" or "enemy combatant". Hold no prisoners in any country without charge: habeas corpus is a good idea no matter who formally enjoys constitutional protection. Cease extraordinary rendition practices. Hold civilian military contractors to the same uniform code of military conduct that their military counterparts are held to. Hold Iraqi military and police to similarly strict and clearly defined codes of conduct. Yes I realize that there are some negative consequences to these suggestions, but the current negative consequences are all too apparent.
4) Reward administration and military staff whose decisions and actions result in progress toward clearly-defined mission goals[2] as indicated by regular reports of objective fact[1]. Demote or remove incompetence and failure at all levels - regardless of how much public loyalty or insubordination the people in question show to the Administration.
5) If success is reached, withdraw troops and hold ticker-tape parade through Times Square. Conversely, if the situation continues to show no sign of improvement, do not "stay the course" when the course is broken. If people start saying things like "sure it looks bad but do you think *you* could do any better?" and both parties have embraced the concept of withdrawal and loss minimization the jig is up no matter how anyone chooses to define it. Cut (your losses) and run (like hell). With negative-trending lines, it's better to spend our money on eventual recovery rather than postponing inevitable collapse. Redeploy soldiers to whatever bordering countries wish to have our help preparing camps for refugees from the unavoidable civil war, to minimize the war's spread to other countries.
/* Note that I'm not advocating a "cut and run" strategy right now because we've never had satisfying objective metrics to determine success. The Bush administration has refused to provide concrete goals and objective metrics at every turn, expecting us to trust that we've won when he says we've won. */