gbaji wrote:
Why don't you read that first. Then tell me we don't have a defined set of goals, and defined set of victory conditions, and a defined plan for getting there? Sheesh!
All there is in this document are a bunch of idealistic bulletpoints. It doesn't say anything about *how* you will achieve all these things.
Having said, I'm kinda glad to see this document, since until then, I genuinely thought the government had no idea what "victory" meant.
Quote:
Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
They've already failed on this point. They're losing the battle against terrorists, the "democratic" institutions are a joke, and the security forces are nothing but institutionalised militias that care only about their own faction. Though, I guess, you could say that Iraq met some political milestones, since the elections were relatiely succesful considering the state of the country.
Quote:
Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
Hmm. The less said about that the better I guess.
Quote:
Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism
And that too. It seems so far away...
I agree with Smash that this invasion was doomed from the moment the US didn't get a UN mandate to go in there. Fomr that point on, they went into a war of aggression against all principles of interntional law. Had any other country in the world done that, the SC would've imposed sanctions on them.
If you take this illegality, and couple it with the blatant arrrogance and incompetence of both the Bush administration, and the people Bush sent there, it's quite easy to understand why it all went so wrong.
There are quite a few books that explain what was wrong with the CPA in Iraq. Alawi's "The Occupation of Iraq" is one of those, but there are quite a few out there, from people taht worked within the CPA. I did my Master's dissertation on the CPA'economic reforms in Iraq, and it's schoking how out of touch and clueless these people were. It's incompetence in its highest form.
As to whehter the US should set a timetable, i've been torn on this for quite a while. I don't like the idea of coming in, f
Ucking the place compeltely, and then leaving. It seems cowardly.
But what's the alternative? Stay, and keep on fighting? I can't see how that would make anything better. The US army has been "staying and fighting" for 4 years now, with no results. No improvements.
When you look at the lofty "goals" above, those "definitions of success in Iraq", does anyone really think they can be achieved now through US military power? I don't. I can't see what magical event would happen to turn things around. The economics are lost. The politics are lost. The military is very close to losing. When insurgents are able to bomb the Green Zone in the middle of a "surge", it's hard to be optimistic.
So, if we are realistic, we know that the US military alone can't make the situation in Iraq better. All they do is inflame passions and give motivations to ordinary Iraqis to fight.
In a perfect world, the US would give the means to the UN to do some work on the ground. But eventhat seemsunlikely, since the place is so enflamed that the UN would get bombed out of there.
I can't see any other solution than to leave. Not just leave, wash your hands, and forget about it, of course. Leave, and negotiate with the surrounding countries. Iran, of course, Syria, ISrael, Egypt, Jordan. You need to get neighbouring Arab countries involved, not militarily, but politically and economically. You need a UN presence not far away. You need a US military presence in a neighbouring country too, just in case.
It's hard to be optimistic about the future of Iraq. But, with huge amounts of diplomatic work, with financial aid, with negotiations, and with a huge effort from the interntional commmunity, you can limit the damage. A bit.
Whatever happens, this failure will haunt the US and the rest of the world for at least another generation. Not only that, but a perfectly executed "damage limitation" strategy would still not guarantee anything.
And, worst of all, I don't think the US has the stomach to do this anymore. To me it seems that the country just wants to "forget about Iraq", wash their hands and "move on". Not that they could, of course. Iran is still making nasty noises, Afghanistan is far from stable, NK is still pissing on our hands...
It's not all doom-and-gloom, of course. Hopefully lessons will be learnt. And things can still turn out "ok", if we're lucky and the next administration is less incompetent.
But I'm not holding my breath.
