Consequences of an Iraq war timetable
Senior army analysts argue against early withdrawal, but still see 'bleak' road ahead.
Two senior analysts from the US Army War College, who in 2003 accurately predicted the troubled aftermath of a US invasion of Iraq – that the US would win the war, but could lose the peace – have released a
new 67-page report [
627KB PDF] that says a US troop presence in Iraq cannot be sustained more than three years.
The
Associated Press reports that while the two men, Middle East scholar Andrew Terrill, and Conrad Crane, director of the Army Military History Institute,
warn of serious problems ahead, they also agree with President Bush that setting a timetable for withdrawal would only embolden the insurgents and undermine support in other communities.
Among the scenarios seen as likely by the two men, is the inability of the US and Iraqi forces to "crush the insurgency prior to the beginning of a phased US and coalition withdrawal."
It is no longer clear that the United States will be able to create (Iraqi) military and police forces that can secure the entire country no matter how long US forces remain.
Mr. Terrill and Mr. Crane reason it may prove difficult to build "multiethnic and multisectarian" police and military units, and suggest factional militias may come to the fore instead. At the same time, "The United States may also have to scale back its expectations for Iraq's political future," by accepting a relatively stable but undemocratic state as preferable to a civil war among Iraq's ethnic and religious factions.
"US vital interests have never demanded a democratic state in Iraq before 2003," they note.
Terrill and Crane focus the main part of their report on the consequences of a timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq. President Bush has argued against such a timetable, while some critics of his policies in Iraq have said he should give a more definite idea of when troops will be taken out of Iraq. Terrell and Crane see the setting of a definitive timetable as a potential "catastrophe" and an excuse for allowing the system to collapse."
For one thing, they say, as soon as a timetable is announced, some Iraqis cooperating with the Americans "will calculate that US protection is a declining asset," and ally themselves with the insurgents, or seek protection of a militia. For another, the insurgents might do what the North Vietnamese did in 1973: bide their time, build up their forces, and attack all-out once the Americans leave.
Thirdly, with an inflexible timetable, "the United States may end up abandoning a potentially hopeful situation and instead allowing that nation to plunge into civil war."
But retired Lt. Gen. William Odom, one-time director of the
National Security Agency, recently wrote for NiemanWatchdog.org, a website of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, that "all the terrible things that the Bush administration predicted would happen if we pulled out our troops too soon are already happening." He also believes the only way for the US to
bring democracy to Iraq and the East is for US troops to leave now, not later.
In an interview Friday morning on National Public Radio's
Morning Edition news program, Lt. Gen Odom also said that the consequences of the US invasion of Iraq had
helped two of American's opponents: Al Qaeda, because it gave them a place to train followers in terrorist tactics, and Iran, because it did the one thing that Tehran had been unable to do itself - get rid of Saddam Hussein. Odom also said there will be chaos in Iraq "whether we pull our now or in eight or ten years." If the US leaves now, however, he believes some positive benefits will result, such as Al Qaeda would be "run out of Iraq."
In a separate opinion piece for The Strategic Studies Institute of the War College, Andrew Terrill looks at another long-term strategy that has been discussed for Iraq, and highlights the
danger of seeking permanent US bases in Iraq.
Any US expressions of interest in long-term bases may seriously hurt the already fragile legitimacy of the Iraqi government, which the United States must seek to support. Resistance to basing rights by Western powers traditionally has been a central characteristic of Arab nationalist thought which is sensitive about issues of sovereignty and Western domination. In the current Iraqi political environment, such concerns cannot be casually disregarded by key Iraqi leaders. Even moderate Iraqi politicians fear that the United States may seek to dominate the post-Saddam Iraqi government. American bases could be seen as a central part of such a strategy, just as British bases were a key part of London's ability to dominate Iraq until at least the 1940s. On Wednesday, President Bush gave a speech at the US Naval Academy that
outlined his plan for victory in Iraq, and also restated his opposition to a timetable for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. A key part of that plan for victory is for Iraqi troops to take over the defense of their country. As an example of how this transition from US troops to Iraqi troops is progressing, the president gave the example of how Iraqi troops led the assault at the recent anti-insurgent operation at Tel Afar, unlike the 2004 assault on Fallujah which was primarily led by US troops.
But a
Time magazine reporter who was embedded with troops at the battle has
called into question the president's version of the attack. Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware appeared on
CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 Thursday, and said that Iraqi troops did not lead the assault.
I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were not leading. They were being led by the US Green Beret special forces with them. Green Berets who were following an American plan of attack who were advancing with these Iraqi units as and when they were told to do so by the American battle planners. The Iraqis led nothing. Sen. John Warner, head of the US Senate's Armed Services Committee who also appeared on the Anderson Cooper show, accepted Mr. Ware's description of the event, but also pointed out that unlike Fallujah, where Iraqi soldiers dropped their arms and fled, this time the soldiers stayed and fought the entire battle. Sen. Warner said the US may have drawn up the battle plan, which was why US forces were in charge of the Iraqi units.
Also...
•
Two US allies pulling out of Iraq (
Associated Press)
•
The Case of the Secret Memo (
MSNBC)
•
US military pays Iraqis for positive news stories on war (
Knight Ridder)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Tom Regan
.
|
RSS feed