[This was originally posted on August 17, 2006. Events since that time, along with the revelations in Woodward’s State of Denial, reinforce my argument.]
As someone who favored the invasion of Iraq without UN Security Council authorization, and who stands by this position to this day, the course change I propose here comes after much reflection and with considerable reluctance. My reluctance stems from the fact that, should this proposal be implemented, it would mean the abandonment of what has long been the Bush Administration’s primary objective: to establish a stable, democratic Iraq. This admirable goal would give way to another goal espoused with equal frequency by the Administration: to contain the spread of international terrorism by al-Qaeda and other jihadi groups. In simple terms, the proposal gives priority to realpolitik over idealism.
Despite a beefed-up security effort by the Iraqi government, a record 3,400 Iraqi civilians were killed last month. Among others, senior American military officials have opined that sectarian violence has resulted in a state of near, if not actual, civil war. I see nothing on the horizon suggestive of an easing of tensions between the Shi’a and the Sunnis. More likely than not, the situation will further deteriorate.
Given American public opinion, the one action that could conceivably turn things around—a substantial increase in our force level—is absolutely, positively out of the question. Even if a decision to boost the number of boots on the ground were deferred until after this fall’s elections, it would be political suicide for the Republicans—in 2008.
It’s nonsensical to throw good lives after bad—and good money after bad—by having our soldiers and marines caught in the crossfire between between two Islamic sects that have hated each other for more than thirteen centuries. It didn’t have to turn out this way: never before has this mutual enmity raised its ugly head in Iraq. The Administration’s mistakes are responsible for it. However, throwing dirt in Bush’s face and using the benefits of hindsight to show how things could have been done better aren’t my purposes here.
We are where we are, and I believe that the American national interest can best be served by redeploying our troops to Iraq’s borders with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria to limit the ingress and egress of current and future terrorists. Iraq’s perimeter should become a no-fly zone. Our navy can guard Iraq’s small coastline.
- Having our troops stationed on the borders of Iran and, less importantly, Syria would send the message to the Tehran theocrats and the Damascus thugs that a diminution of our resolve shouldn’t be inferred from the change in our deployment policy.
- Given Iran’s nuclear ambitions, having American forces on its borders would introduce uncertainty as to our reaction should its program reach the point of no return. If Iran were to attack, our presence would act as a tripwire for the use of airpower, as during the Cold War.
- Having our troops on their border would reassure the Saudis by decreasing the likelihood that the Iranians will attack Saudi oilfields. Most of the oilfields are located in the predominantly Shi’a portion of the Kingdom, which is only a missile lob across the Persian Gulf.
- Because the proposed redeployment is directly related to our national interest, it could be more readily explained to Americans, more of whom would support our presence in Iraq. National unity would increase; partisanship would decline.
Marc,
I’ve responded to you at my blog…the post was too long to leave in comments.
theinformationprocessor.blogspot.com
I concur with you, Marc. May I suggest that an American military base in Iraq on the Iranian border should be Marines, who would rotate out of our huge desert Marine base in Twenty-Nine Palms, CA? As for another American base on the border with Syria, a NATO base would be ideal [Turkey’s a member of NATO; we must always remember Turkey when considering northern-western (Kurdistan) Iraq].
The Iraqis have delayed discussing autonomous regions for 18 months, which puts their discussions of politically dividing Iraq into three new states smack into our summertime presidential election cycle in 2008. If those American redeployments are our best option—and I agree that they are—then we should start building those bases immediately, or they’ll never be built once the internal momentum builds by Sunni, Shi’ite and Kurdish Iraqis to break-up Iraq into three new states.
Reading Mr. Woodward’s book, Secretary Rumsfeld is not likely to continue to serve as Secretary for those full 18 months; if he ever offers his resignation again (twice offered already), it might very well be accepted. His troops won the war long ago, when they plucked Saddam out of his spider’s hole. He had a brilliant plan to win the war, but Mr. Rumsfeld offered no plan to win the peace.
‘Be free,’ Marc.
Putting troops along the border along Iraq is not only asinine, it is suicidal from a military, economic and democratic point of view. Iran controls the Straights of Hormuz, through which 40% of the oil supplies of the world go. Do you want petrol at $20 a gallon? How would that convince an American electorate that supporting Middle East democracy is in their best interests.
It would confirm, in Muslim eyes, that the U.S is imperialistic, its rhetoric is a sham and further the victim complex throughout the Middle East. It would turn Ahmedinejad into Nasrallah, a matyr for many from a little nutcase. It would give weight to Iran’s mad rhetoric and increase danger against Israel. I hate the nut as much as you but we cannot go guns blazing in this time. What to do about Iran’s ambition for nuclear is something I have yet to decide upon.
I think you’re right, Marc, that the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
Bush is betting that the collective decision of a free people will pin against the advance of Radical Islam. While this may be true in some places and times, it may not be true in early-21st century Iraq. If it’s not, I think we have to go back to the basics and more intelligently decide where to apply our oil-spots.
So in that case you would be right. A combination approach—protecting the autonomy of Kurdistan while guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Iraq against its neighbors—would be the only way to go.
I believe that the American national interest can best be served by redeploying our troops to Iraq’s borders with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria to limit the ingress and egress of current and future terrorists. Iraq’s perimeter should become a no-fly zone. Our navy can guard Iraq’s small coastline.
This sounds very similar to what Rep. Murtha has been calling for, for a strategic redeployment of American forces.
This is his prescription:
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq
Although I think he may want to call for a full withdrawal sooner rather than later, he could probably get behind a plan that gets us out of the cities and towns to push the Iraqi government to take on more of the responsibility for its own security. Another scenario I’ve heard consists of re-deploying within Iraq to the Kurdish North as that keeps us close enough to al Anbar should al Qaeda camps be established, and close enough to keep a check on the Shiites in the south, while also preventing the Kurds march to independence and Iran and Turkey’s involvement to prevent it.
Given Iran’s nuclear ambitions, having American forces on its borders would introduce uncertainty as to our reaction should its program reach the point of no return. If Iran were to attack, our presence would act as a tripwire for the use of airpower, as during the Cold War.
Actually, a big reason behind Iran’s push (though not the only reason) is the fact that American troops are stationed both to its east and west in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since Iraq was part of the axis o f evil, and given China’s protection of North Korea, Iran sees itself as the next option for regime take-down in the region and is seeking to prevent it by preparing the strategic landscape to counter American moves, through the use of proxies in the region such as Hezbollah.
Iraq and Vietnam and the “State of Denial” and Krepinevich’s “Oil-Spot Strategy”...
Bob Woodward, who has been known for his incredible access to classified reports and close contacts to members of the Bush administration, has just published a new book State of Denial (Amazon.com, Amazon.de) and writes in the Washington Post article &...
This is an interesting idea.
It’s hard to accept that for no good reason we are hobbling ourselves in Iraq, where we are desparately needed, as we hobbled ourselves in Vietnam, where we were not. It’s hard to move beyond that fact and think about what options are available in the absence of our best ones. The quarantine is certainly one, maybe a good one.
We also have to consider what our troops will do if the shit really hits the fan in Iran. If we go into all-out war with Iran, would having our troops in quarantine position around Iraq be good for us?
Is this move really the best thing for Kurdistan? This is crucial because both in terms of morality and morale, and also in practical terms, supporting our friends is priority number 1.