Dare To Inquire: "In Iraq, Stay the Course - but Change It" by Daniel Pipes    
 "In Iraq, Stay the Course - but Change It" by Daniel Pipes0 comments
25 Oct 2006 @ 19:40, by Bruce Kodish

Daniel Pipes makes sense, once again.

From www.danielpipes.org | Original article available at: In Iraq, Stay the Course - but Change It

by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
October 24, 2006

As coalition policy reaches a crisis, may I resurrect an idea I have been flogging since April 2003? It offers a way out of the current debate over staying the course (as President George W. Bush has long advocated) or withdrawing troops on a short timetable (as his critics demand).

My solution splits the difference, "Stay the course – but change the course." I suggest pulling coalition forces out of the inhabited areas of Iraq and redeploying them to the desert.

This way, the troops remain indefinitely in Iraq, but remote from the urban carnage. It permits the American-led troops to carry out essential tasks (protecting borders, keeping the oil and gas flowing, ensuring that no Saddam-like monster takes power) while ending their non-essential work (maintaining street-level order, guarding their own barracks).

Beyond these specifics, such a troop redeployment would imply a profound and improved change of course. It means:

*Letting Iraqis run Iraq: Wish the Iraqis well but recognize that they are responsible for their own country. Or, in the words of a Times of London headline, "Bush to Iraqis: you take over." The coalition can help but Iraqis are adults, not wards, and need to assume responsibility for their country, from internal security to writing their constitution, with all due urgency.

*Seeing violence in Iraq as an Iraqi problem: The now-constant violence verging on civil war is a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one, an Iraqi problem, not a coalition one. The coalition should realize it has no more responsibility for keeping the peace between Iraqis than it does among Liberians or Somalis.

*Terminating the mammoth U.S. embassy in Baghdad: The American-created "Green Zone" in Baghdad is too high profile already, but work now underway to build the biggest embassy in the history of mankind, a 4,000-employee fortress in the heart of Baghdad, will make matters significantly worse. Its looming centrality will antagonize Iraqis for years or decades to come, even as it offers a vulnerable target for rocket-wielding enemies. Scheduled to open in June 2007, this gargantuan complex should be handed back to Iraqis, the over US$1 billion spent on it written off as a mistake of war, and a new, normal-sized, embassy built in its stead.

*Ending the coddle: The inept, corrupt, and Islamist leadership in Baghdad discredits the Bush administration's integrity; conversely, Washington's embrace makes it look like a stooge. Other Iraqi institutions – my pet peeve is the National Symphony Orchestra in Baghdad – also suffer from the patronizing embrace of American politicians. Muslim sensitivities about rule by non-Muslims makes these rankling offenses.

*Reducing coalition ambitions for Iraq: From the start, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was too ambitious and too remote from American interests ("Operation Coalition Security" would have been a better moniker). Give up on the unattainable goal of a democratic, free, and prosperous Iraq, a beacon to the region, and instead accept a stable and decent Iraq, one where conditions are comparable to Egypt or Tunisia.

The situation in Iraq has become a source of deep domestic antagonism in the coalition countries, especially the United States and Great Britain, but it can be finessed by noting that the stakes there are actually quite minor, then adjusting means and goals on this basis. Do you, dear non-Iraqi reader, have strong feelings about the future of Iraq? I strongly suspect not.

Iraqis want possession of their country; and peoples in countries providing troops serving in Iraq have wearied of the hopeless effort to transform it into something better than it is. Both aspirations can be satisfied by redeploying coalition troops to the desert, where they can focus on the essential tasks of maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, keeping the fossil fuels flowing, and preventing humanitarian disasters.

The idea has developed since World War II that when the United States protects its interests by invading a country, it then has a moral obligation to rehabilitate it. This "mouse that roared" or "Pottery Barn rule" assumption is wrong and needs to be re-evaluated. Yes, there are times and places where rehabilitation is appropriate, but this needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, keeping feasibility and American interests strictly in mind. Iraq – an endemically violent country – fails on both counts.

From www.danielpipes.org | Original article available at: www.danielpipes.org/article/4066

[< Back] [Dare To Inquire]



Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other entries in
24 Jan 2009 @ 00:36: History's Tragic Farce
22 Jan 2009 @ 19:56: Sowell On Our New President
20 Jan 2009 @ 02:53: The Bush Legacy
4 Jan 2009 @ 19:56: Israel' Response Is Disproportionate!
13 Nov 2008 @ 04:09: I'm Goin' To New York...
10 Nov 2008 @ 17:33: "A letter to the president-elect from a Middle East realist" by Barry Rubin
31 Oct 2008 @ 18:02: Running against Bush by Caroline B. Glick
8 Oct 2008 @ 19:18: Yom Kippur Greetings
6 Oct 2008 @ 22:10: One Reason That I'm Voting For McCain
7 May 2008 @ 22:51: Happy Birthday, Israel!

[< Back] [Dare To Inquire] [PermaLink]?  [TrackBack]?