Bush's New Plan: More Death

Strategy Is to Accelerate Iraqi Civil War and Run Away

January 16th, 2006 - President Bush's call for a "surge" in troop levels and new rules of engagement in Iraq show that he hasn't learned a damn thing. Whatever his true motives were for invading Iraq, whether for revenge or for revenue or to rush the Rapture, the reasons he gave us were all false, and he knew it. And just like a child with his fist stuck in the cookie jar he keeps telling his parents the dog ate the snickerdoodles.

His insistence falsely connecting this war with the one on terror is getting tedious. The small clutch of Osama's fighters in Iraq only arrived after the U.S. invasion, because of the power vacuum we created. They are unpopular and will be tossed out by the Iraqis just as soon as the civil war is over. But the "Big Lie" of the moment is that Mr. Bush's new plan is an attempt to provide "security" to Iraqi citizens. It is simply picking a side in a civil war. And to provide United States with an opportunity to slip out the back door.

Of the many blunders our leadership has committed in Iraq the most damaging may have been the blind "De-Baathification' of Iraq's armed forces, This meant tossing out the most of the Sunnis, essentially leaving units comprised of either wholly Shiite or wholly Kurdish soldiers. Saddam's former favorites, the Sunnis, already defeated and resentful, saw Shiites wearing police and army uniforms begin a bloody campaign of revenge. The fact that the Sunnis formed up into their own militias and started bombing back should have been no surprise to anyone. What do we honestly expect from young men with no money, no electricity, and no way out? What is it like, year after year, watching your parents, wives and children die violently all around you? A bonfire of rage is burning in Baghdad.

President Bush wants to fight fire with firepower. First he would throw twenty thousand more of our sons and daughters onto the blaze, bringing us back to a level that was unable to provide security in 2003. The Administration knows perfectly well that this is not enough to make a real difference. It is nothing more than cover for the second element, which has two parts. First, in an effort to finally take Baghdad, we push the Shiia dominated Iraqi military to the front and line up our twenty thousand newbloods behind them. Next we tell them about the new "rules of engagement" which our President described as eliminating "political and sectarian interference (that) prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence." In other words, go crazy, Shiite army. Cleanse Baghdad of the Sunni menace. Our effort will not be to stop the civil war, but to get it over with as quickly as possible.

The brilliant part is putting the Iraqis up front, providing us with an exit strategy. President Bush said 'America's commitment is not open-ended." And that if Iraq does not meet "benchmarks" it will "lose the support of the American people." Zbigniew Brzezinski calls it "Blame and Run". It can be summed up like this: "If your government (that we put in place) can't end your civil war (that we started) in your country (that we destroyed), then we quit. I mean, come on. We can't do everything."

So - what to do? America should use its position as biggest bulldog in the pit to make a series of diplomatic gestures based on mutual benefit. The first thing to do is free the Kurds. They deserve their own state. The creation of Kurdistan would naturally involve talks with both Turkey and Iran since both have substantial populations of cantankerous Kurds camped along their Iraqi borders. Involving Turkey might mean we could bring the nations of the E.U. to the table, since Turkey is hot to join them. The Europeans know the Iraq war is bad for business.

Iranian Kurds are clannish and often don't agree with the central government. A substantial population of them live in a single province right on their border with Iraq. What kind of a Kurdistan sits next to them in class is a big concern to Tehran. Having a couple of informal get togethers with the Iranians really couldn't hurt at this point. Their whole foreign policy is based on fear of the Great Satan. Why not take off the horns, hang out, have some hummus, talk about those crazy Kurds, and pass out some Beckham T-shirts. Wherever we do talk to people we have to quit bullrushing them. Gives 'em the jitters.

Next, we follow the example of the last infidel to successfully invade Iraq, Genghis Khan. The Great Khan did not use "shock and awe". He closed in around Baghdad slowly, taking smaller villages first. Before his army moved on they made sure the town was secure and observing the Great Law of Genghis Khan, which held all religions equal. When he finally conquered Baghdad he did not occupy it. Instead he ordered all its citizens out of the city and allowed allies he had made in country to enter and root out the remaining "insurgency".

As the armies of the Great Khan slowly swallowed the country the conquered towns and cities came to realize that they could carry on with their lives under Mongol rule, with little change. But they also learned that to break the Great Law by engaging in violence among religious sects brought swift and terrible punishment. This should be our model. We should neither quit in Iraq nor accelerate the civil war. Instead, let us patiently bring permanent security where we can, making use of what allies we can find. And for God's sake, let's get the lights turned on.

And tell the President he smells like snickerdoodles.