Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, November 27, 2006
Cliff May :: Townhall.com Columnist
Iraq Options
by Cliff May
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Iraq is a mess. We have come to that conclusion because virtually every day we see innocent Iraqis slaughtered by suicide - bombers. Of all the possible responses, the most perverse may be this: To propose that Americans pull out of Iraq, abandoning innocent Iraqis to the tender mercies of those dispatching the terrorists.

Yet that is what many Americans now favor, perhaps because they have been persuaded that when Sunnis and Shites kill one another, Americans must be to blame. With apologies to Carly Simon: We're so vain, we probably think this sectarian strife is about us.

An insurgency led by Saddam Hussein loyalists also inflames Iraq. If the insurgents succeed in driving Americans out of the country, Saddam will be pleased but perhaps not astonished. He has long maintained that the United States lacks the will to prevail against a determined enemy. Years ago, he told Americans: "Yours is a society that cannot accept 10,000 dead in one battle."

Many Americans see no link between the conflict in Iraq and America's war with the Militant Islamist movement. Osama bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman al -Zawahri, would beg to differ. He has called Iraq one of the "two most important battlefields" of the world war now underway.

The other key battlefield is Afghanistan. Should the U.S. accept defeat in Iraq, how many suicide - bombings in Kabul will be required before America and its allies retreat from that far less strategically vital front as well?

And after that, we would have to expect Pakistan – an ally of Militant Islamists until the Taliban was routed by American forces five years ago this week – to switch sides again. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and during the 1990s it looked the other way while its top nuclear scientist shared nuclear technology with some of the world’s worst tyrants. What would prevent that from resuming?

Iran's rulers, now egregiously violating treaty agreements by developing their own nukes, would be confirmed in their conviction that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Lenin of the Militant Islamist Revolution, was correct when he said in 1979 that provoking the United States does not incur substantial risk because "America cannot do a damn thing."

The perception of American weakness also is inspiring Syria, Iran's junior partner, to test how far it can go. This week, Pierre Gemayel, a cabinet minister from a prominent Christian family and a critic of Hezbollah and Syria, was assassinated, hammering a long nail in the coffin of Lebanon's fledgling democracy.

Gemayel's murder tells the world that Hezbollah, Syria and Iran will not be bound by even the most basic international laws. Who in the so - called international community will contradict them? The Pope has criticized the assassination but how many divisions does he have?

Before long, expect such relatively moderate Muslim nations as Jordan and Bangladesh to make accommodations with those successfully projecting power. And expect them to distance themselves from those who are not.

Iraq is a mess. It has not become, as the President hoped it would, "a country that can sustain itself; a country that can govern itself; a country that can defend itself; and a country that will be an ally in the war against these extremists."

Suicide bombers and explosive devices triggered by garage door openers have turned out to be surprisingly effective weapons: though not decisive in any battle, they have eroded America's will to fight.

But because "victory" as Bush once defined it now seems out of reach, it does not follow that the solution is to cut and run – or even to cut and stroll away, the policy euphemistically called "phased redeployment." More modest but still significant goals can be achieved.

We can continue to fight Saddamist insurgents and al - Qaeda terrorists wherever we find them – and we find them in Iraq. We can accelerate the training of Iraqi forces. We can do what is necessary to stabilize Baghdad -- as we have pledged to do and tried to do but so far have failed to do because sufficient resources have not been devoted to the task.

As for the sectarian violence, our presence is not the cause and our absence would not be the cure. By continuing to play the role of honest broker between the Shia and Sunni communities, we may be able to prevent the conflict from spiraling into all - out civil war.

There are no good options in Iraq. There are only bad options and worse options. Let's hope President Bush and the new Democratic leaders in Congress are wise enough to distinguish between the two.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Clifford D. May is the President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Be the first to read Cliff May's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Thought provoking article.
How to get out?
Sort of "Redeploy" to Iran.
That would draw most of the terrorists to defend the source of their financing & supplies and they would be vulnerable in transit.
After Iran is secure enough to be sure it no longer supplied terrorists then "Redeploy" to Syria.

On the first instance of civilians gathering to volentarily serve as human shields, we should make certain that NO civilian escaped alive.
Terrorists DELIBERATELY TARGET our civilians and then run and cower behind their own civilians secure in the belief Americans will not fire on civilians.
Civilian refugees should have left the combat areas long before any troops got there.
When civilians remain in a battle zone they are deliberately aiding the enemy and therefore are legitimate targets.

Taliban Funeral Debacle. . .
That specific event was when we, who supported the President in the war effort, began to have doubts with how the War on Terror was being conducted. This was a few months back, I'm sure most on this board remember. One of our armed predator drones happened upon a Taliban funeral ceremony in progress. It was estimated to be about 200 of the most vicious and vile. Permission to hit the target was asked for but denied by some PC General. Word got out about it. The GOP base was infuriated. But no follow-up explanation was ever given by Rumsfeld or the President. We had hoped that we would hear that the General had been relieved and put in charge of the Pentagon laundry - which is where he belonged. But we got dead silence. Again, the ultra-loyal GOP base was ignored, disrespected and insulted. Just as with the illegal immigration issue. And the Dubai ports, issue.
So what did this core/base of GOP voters do? I'm talking about the folks who got "W" over the top in 2000 and 2004. Not to mention the 2002 mid term vote of confidence. But I degress. What did these former "W" enthusiasts do? Well they just waited as they knew 11/7/2006 was coming. And it came. Then they got their message through to the White House loud and clear. Rove, Mehlman and "W" could not tune them out this time. DD
http://streetlevel.townhall.com

loco
the critics are all Americans, I presume. That gives them a stake and a say.

Hooray
Cliff, this is a good article and as for the critics of it, where are their credentials?

C'mon, Cliff
I have read you since your days with VCarroll and RMN. You can and do do [sic] a lot better than this column. Give some concrete recommendations (more, anon.) There are still a few of us out here who think that Iraq is but our first shot in the war against Militislamistan that they have been fighting for a quarter century. You are one of the best experts. Apply your expertise. Don't shy away from boldness, which is what it will take - both on the battlefield and the web - to prevent our granddaughters from obtaining forced circumcisions and burkas.
What about imbedding our troops, leveraging them twentyfold and training the Iraqis at the same time (and dispersing and reducing mortality risk)?
What about focusing, both on the ground and on the web, on new metrics, such as "net change in electrical transmission lines in/out of Baghdad" and "net change in acre-feet of potable water in/out of Baghdad"?
What about organized secession into Kurdistan, Shi'istan, and Sunnistan, with petroleum royalties managed by an economic federation of all three sovereign states?
Best regards,
Tim C

Truth
In reality, we did not do that in Germany or Japan. We had trials for ringleaders, and restored authority. However, they knew that, if necessary, we would have killed them all. That knowledge of our resolve is what is missing now.

We do not have to sink to their level in either bloodthirst or methods. We do have to have the same level of determination to do whatever it takes to survive. The reason suicide bombing works is simple mathematics: one person can take out dozens. And we do not want to be responsible for those deaths. But we must assert that: we are not to blame, those who do the acts are evil and are accountable for their own actions. And we will continue, despite the attacks, to dismantle AQ, and the other insurgent groups, until we have a degree of certainty that the Iraqi government can guarantee civil authority will control the nation.

Do we have the will to do so?

Truth
Honestly, the only thing that will end this war is the total destruction of the people we are fighitng. IN Germany we hunted down every single freakin Nazi and put a gun to his/her head and pulled the trigger. War is hell and these people are not going to change their minds. they are out to kill us all be it we great them with open arms and hugs or armed to the teeth... make no mistake... they want to kill us all.

We need to do to them what they want to do to us. It is brutal, it is hard, it is cold, but it is what must be done.

I Don't Like Those Ideas...
..but I haven't heard many better ones.

Our enemies recognize our weaknesses in this type of conflict. We have an emotional reaction to any casualties, whether ours or theirs. If anyone dies, they win. Americans do not want to be the bad guy. If we are oppressors, we will do anything to make the oppressed happy. American MSM is prone to believe the worst of the US. We are very succeptible to propoganda, the more heinous the better. Truth is secondary, as long as the lie blazes in bold print on the NYT.

These weaknesses undermine our greatest strength, our well-trained and well-equipped military force. If they go all out, there will be enemy casualties and we are bullies. If we go for half-measures (to be fair), we will sustain unacceptible casualties. Either way, we will be castigated by our own press.

We are a society of conflict avoidance in a time that an early conflict may prevent a disasterous later conflict. President Bush has shown resolve to this point, but the clock is ticking. Leadership is misery for the leader, and history probably won't look kindly on this war even if it prevents a later war; potential wars don't have casualties.

So, with a limitted time table, I propose: holding patterns in some areas of conflict in Iraq. Use of overwhelming force in specified areas. Acceptance of international condemnation. Acceptance of the long-term political fallout at home.

Republicans will suffer at the ballot box in '08, but it is the right thing to do, if not the only thing to do.

What'll We Do? What'll We Do?
To beat a terrorist, be a terrorist. The US will never be successful at rebuffing terrorism until it understands that fighting terrorists is brutal business. Strict control of the populice and search and destroy missions of martial law violators and suspected terrorists/insurgents/militias should be employed. That should be the number one focus of US interest in Iraq and Afganistan. All other goals - democracy in these countries, building infrastructure, etc. should be mere byproducts of the US goal of beating the terrorists at their own game. The US must be more brutal than the terrorists. Until this is realized, a self-deprecating, politically correct US will be backed into a corner and eventually destroyed.

Steelhand gets it
He wants to focus on the problem at hand. We can let history direct the finger of fault at some later date as it surely will.
I have an out. It is barbaric, so be warned. But it serves several purposes. One, it give us military cover to get out. Two, it should tamp down the civil war. Three, it will give Islamic enemies pause when they consider us weak. Four, it will tell the world the United States has to be reckoned with according to long held standards or civil discourse and to slap our extened hand of peace is folly.
I recommend round the clock, indiscriminate (meaning exactly that) destruction while our military on the ground disengages, embarks onto planes and ships going home. I would first target oil. Yes, oil. It is the stangulation hold to put on that part of the world. I would also give Iran what for.
Then I'd go home with a "so what" attitude.
I'll leave it to thoughtful people like you all to decide the consequences/outcome of something like this. Remember, I know this is unacceptable barbarism. Therin lies it's charm.
The saying that war is politics by other means fails as a truism when we are trying to do both at once. Why, if you are our enemy, engage us in political discourse if it looks like they may beat us? We have to beat them to a pulp first, then talk.
Just an aside question: Is Bagdad going to be our Stalingrad?

We're There, What Do We Do?
Other than offering blame for why things didn't work and, "I told you so's," how about looking at what happens if we leave?

If we leave ASAP: We lose credibility in the world for having the ability and will to do what we set out to do. No enemy will ever worry about our strong military; our weak will will undermine it if they hang on long enough.

We give up the advantage of confronting Al-Qiada on foreign soil. They will be free to confront us here rather than hanging on for dear life there.

We lose the position of having a huge military presence on the ground next to Iran, our most potent enemy.

We surrender Israel to the choice of its fate: either a Proactive attack on Iran likely to bring even more international criticism and unlikely to do much to harm Iran. This is even more true in light of the defense technology sold by Russia to Iran. And, of course, they will have no chance of fly-over rights in Iraq with us gone. Or they can await the on-coming nuclear confrontation with Iran. And I don't like the odds when playing chicken with the insane Iranian leaders.

Oh, that's right. Defending Israel is no longer an acceptable purpose. It marks me as an evil NEO-CON!! Whatever the hell that means. They are an ally, our most solid one there. And the thought of disregarding millions in an allied nation to a fate that makes Pol Pot's regime look like a tea party is disconcerting to say the least.

What's the upside if we leave? We won't risk further loss of American lives. However, the vast majority of those offering their lives in sacrifice to defend us want to finish the job. The insurgents will make nice? No, the Shi-ites, Sunnis and Wahabbi's will create another bloodbath, with the Shi-ites, armed by Iran, the 1-to-5 favorites.

No, it's not pretty, but pick your poison.

mcap16 , maidencraig
And your credentials?

These top 2 posters........
Don't know their ages, but as is the case with so many of our countrymen they want results YESTERDAY, or at least NOW, INSTANTLY.
War just doesn't work that way.

Too much instant coffee, microwaved meals, FedExing, Tang, etc.

Gee whiz!.....raidencraig
How else can one respond to this fruitcake, raidencraig?

No credibility
I'm sorry, but Mr May has no credibility on the subject of Iraq. As a neo-conservative leader of the PNAC and a major advocate of the war in Iraq, this "mess" is on his hands as well. He needs to give up the fantasy of Iraq and stop putting American troops in harms way for his fantasies...

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.