About Me

Name: Chris Travers
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

The President's Last Stand

Posted by Chris Travers on Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:48:01 PM
I listened closely to Bush's new direction on Iraq and after careful consideration I have decided that we owe it to the Iraqi people to give Bush one last chance.

I was opposed to starting the war, and I think it is clear to most Americans that it was a horrible mistake.  After taking away Afghanistan as a training ground for terrorists, we have given them Iraq.  I don't see this as a good thing and it was somethng I warned other Americans about in the run-up to war.  We have also lost 10% more American lives in Iraq than in 9/11 so those who say we need to fight them over there so we they don't kill us over here should perhaps amend that to ...so they don't have to kill us over here.

This being said, we did go to war and in doing so, we opened up Iraq to the terrorist traininers that have moved in today.  We have also assumed responsibility to Iraqis and to Americans for creating a state which will extend the rule of law out to provide security for all Iraqis (and by extension provide security for Americans too).  I say, "Shame of the Americans who supported the war in the beginning and then feel like we have had enough without fulfilling our obligations that we took on by going to war."

Bush last night had the look of a man who knew the end was near and that we weren't going to win in Iraq.  His grim speech had all the implications that we were going to make one last rush to the breach to hold the enemy back, that we might be successful.  Nobody I know of thinks 20000 more troops will make a bit of differene, and nobody I know of thinks that Maliki will actually allow us to go after the Madhi Army and the Badr Brigades.  So, nobody I know of thinks that Bush's plan will actually work.  I don't even think so.  Yet I am supporting it.

I believe that we have to do our absolute best to create a lasting peace in Iraq, and that our allies are not blameless in the sectarian violence.  Hence our military can only serve as leverage and not effect the victory Bush had long promised.  I do not believe that we will "win" in Iraq.  But we might, if we are lucky, be able to lay the groundwork for a political solution after we leave.

The main points of Bush's plan are:
  • Counter-militia actions.  These are not likely to be carried out.
  • Counter-insurgency missions.  These are unlikely to put an end to the insurgency because the Shiite militias will still be there.
  • Confrontations with Syria and Iran.  These are likely to destabilize the Iraqi government and Bush may have his hands tied.  (We can't credibly threaten them anyway.)
  • Legislative reform in Iraq.  This is the one grain of hope.  If fair means can be included in how the Iraqi Constitution can be amended, and if the anti-Baathist laws are revoked, then it opens up a possibility that peace can be attainable between the factions after we leave.
If a more thousand US soldiers lose their lives before, and seven thousand lose limbs before we withdraw, it will be worth it even if we only manage to lay the groundwork for a political solution to the civil war.  In the end it is the Iraqis and not our troops that will win or lose the war.

May we never forget this mistake, but may we do what we can to fulfill the responsibilities that we now bear.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An unpopular viewpoint

Posted by Chris Travers on Sunday, January 07, 2007 2:26:53 PM
I am for universal military service.  I think that everyone who is not a conscientious objector should  be required to serve in the military for a few years.  Why?  Because I love America, I love American democracy, and universal military service is the best way to protect ourselves from all threats, both foreign and domestic.

In his farewell address, President Eisenhower talked about both the necessity of and dangers from the permanent weapons industry and standing army we had found ourselves forced to maintain due to the Cold War.  His name  for this new miliatary establishment was "Military-Industrial Complex."  His words echoed the farewell address of George Washington who suggested that overgrown military establishments were the enemies of liberty, and in particular, he said, republican liberty.  Certainly today, one should probably include the intelligence agencies like the CIA in the Military-Industrial Complex as well.

Since WWII, we have found ourselves compelled by long-term threats to maintain weapons factories and standing armed forces of a sort not seen before.  We have instituted the draft in Korea and Vietnam, and in both those cases, we were unable to prevail (Korea was fought to a stalemate which persists today, and the war is not officially over yet), and in Vietnam, we found ourselves in a similar position but without defensible front lines.

I am aware that the draft has never been popular, and what I am proposing is a sort of universal draft.  Howver, one also has to see that our currently all-volunteer army is having a corrosive affect on our democracy.  The Army has become a way out of poverty for many Americans but our policy-makers are insulated from the human cost, as is the majority of the American public.

Would we even be in Iraq if the Bush girls had to be over there too?  How many senators have children or other relatives serving in Iraq?

Going to war is a serious decision and one that has become all to easily made in our nation today.  It is easily made because few think that they will actually be called upon for the sacrifice of their very lives.  In short, we as Americans should not be given the luxury of looking at war causalties as something that happens to other Americans.  As a result of this shortsightedness, the majority of Americans supported the Iraq war until it became clear that Americans were going to get killed in larger numbers than in 9/11.  Then they began to turn tail and advocate running.  Every American needs to understand the stakes before going into a war.  Those stakes need to be personal.  Yes, it will keep us out of many needless conflicts (probably would have included Iraq), but I would also hope it would make the victory deeply personal too so that when we do have to go to war, we will all be involved in winning it, if not in the battlefield in the marketplace of ideas, because we all will share the stakes.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

To Stay in Iraq?

Posted by Chris Travers on Saturday, January 06, 2007 1:17:51 PM
In my last post I talked about changing my mind and supporting a controlled withdrawal from Iraq.  At least one individual has suggested that I don't have faith in our nation's military which is by most accounts, not only the most powerful, but also the most capable in the world.  The problem I see though is not a military problem but a political one.

Our men and women are dying in Iraq because of our obligation, after the fall of Saddam, to help provide the opportunity for the Iraqi people to build a better government which can defend and sustain itself, uniting Iraq under a banner that is inclusive of all Iraqis.  Our military is there to give them this opportunity.  But as you can lead a horse to water, you can't make him drink.  It therefore makes little sense to me to have our forces engage in a conflict that is unwinnable not due to any military fact but due to our ally, the Iraqi government being structured in a way that prevents this from happening.  In the US, it took at least two tries to come up with a Constitution that early American revolutionaries could back, so we ought not to rush the Constitutional process in Iraq.

The process in Iraq is made more complicated by the fact that Saddam exploited deep divisions between various groups in Iraq to deflect violence away from his regime.  Before the war, Saddam began passing out weapons to anyone who wanted them according to the BBC, and thus we have found ourselves in the middle of a heavily armed population with deep hostility between various groups.  Most are willing to put aside clan animosities in order to either oppose the Sunnis or the current government and the US together.  However, we have to assume that in the absense of a stable and inclusive government in Iraq, total anarchy will ensure for a long time to come.

The current Iraqi government includes at least two individuals who have private sectarian armies, and these armies (the Madhi Army and the Badr Brigades) have been implicated in a great number of the extra-judicial ("death-squad") killings in Iraq.  These death-squad killings are almost always sectarian in nature, and have no place in an Iraq that is inclusive to Kurds and Shiited and Sunni Arabs.  We cannot afford to continue to have our brave men and women give their lives for those who are making the problem worse.  In short, the current government of Iraq is no less a terrorist organization than are the insurgents and we need to recognize this.  Our military ought not be in Iraq just to let the Iraqi government make us target practice for terrorists.

Until the execution of Saddam, I believed that al'Maliki was not involved in fomenting the sectarian strife, but since that time, it has become clear that he is largely in the pocket of al'Saldr.  I can only think that the timing of Saddam's execution, obviously chosen in order to send a clear sectarian message, must have been demanded by al'Sadr.  Shame on al'Maliki for going along with this!

We have really two options other than "stay the course" (which is morally reprehensible for the reasons I have noted above).  The first is to make a controlled withdrawal in such a way as to avoid emboldening Salifi militants.  THis course of action was outlined in my last post.

However, it is still possible to fight the war in Iraq if people want to see American troops make a difference.  While I do not believe that most Americans have the stomach for what needs to be done, I do not believe that it is unwinnable.  If we are to prevail by ourselves in Iraq, the following needs to be done:

1)  Push for a Hague indictment against those members of the Iraqi government involved in sectarian violence.  Express a willingness to the Iraqi government to be the agents of arrest for al'Sadr and others who are involved.  Yes, that includes al'Maliki.

2)  Commit perhaps 100000 more troops to Iraq.  Yes, this would mean the draft.  Declare that all parties involved in sectarian violence will be considered enemies of the Iraqi people and that we will not take sides as we are doing now.  Be willing to fight a multi-front war against the Madhi Army and other Shiite groups at the same time we fight against the Sunni insurgency.

3)  Unambigously condemn the timing and manner of Saddam's execution.

4)  Indicate that we are willing to allow the militias such as the Madhi Army or members of the Sunni insurgencies to integrate into multi-ethnic units of the Iraqi army.

5)  Unambiguously announce that as soon as a stable peace is formed we will get out.  Announce that we will neither seek nor accept long-term basing agreements in Iraq.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Time for a Change

Posted by Chris Travers on Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:33:08 PM
Occasionally I change my mind with regard to political ideas.  This happened to me today when, out of boredom I was reading the reactions to the Saddam execution video.  I now believe that we need to be getting out of Iraq as quickly as we can, ideally brining in EU and Arab League peacekeepers to stabilize the area.

Before the war, I was opposed to beginning it.  I felt, like many (though not the majority) Americans that invading Iraq was going to do nothing except provide international terrorists a new training ground now that Afghanistan had been largely taken from them.  I also felt that the real goal needed to be success in Afghanistan (which is now dangerously sliding backwards).  However, after Saddam fell, I also felt it was our responsibility to try to help stabilize the Iraqi state so that those Iraqis who have suffered both under Saddam and during the war would have a chance at a better life.  I also thought and continue to believe that it is important to stop the use of Iraqi soil for terrorist training excersizes.

However a number of things have happened to change my mind.  The first was the unauthorized Saddam execution video which shows the former tyrant appearing to bravely face a group of Iraqi civilians and officials who resemble more a lynch mob than an execution squad.  There is no doubt in my mind that many Sunnis in Iraq and elsewhere will now regard Saddam as a hero.  It is worth noting that only 3 countries have welcomed the announcement of the execution:  The US, Israel, and Iran.

The Pope has condemned the recording specifically, and the Iraqi government has also focused their investigation on the recording rather than the mistreatment.  But I think that focusing on the recording is missing the point.  Saddam was, for all intents and purposes, lynched rather than executed in a professional manner.  Furthermore, the timing of the event is largely regarded to contravene existing Iraqi law because it was done on the first day of the most important feast for Sunni muslims (the Shiites begin their celebration a day later).  In this regard, it might even contravene the Constitution of Iraq.  THe hanging was thus done in a way to maximize the message that Sunnis are not welcome in the State and is a very dangerous precident.  The Iraqi government has shown that they are not interested in reconcilliation between the ethnic groups, and that they are indeed not our partners in building a stable Iraq.

The second issue (completely independant of the last) is that a recent poll showed that most Iraqis now prefer that the US leaves and that the vast majority now say that Iraqis are worse off today than under Saddam.  If we are that unwelcome, our presence is going to do nothing but bolster the insurgency.

This being said, I do not approve of a simple unconditional withdrawal.  Simply retreating from Iraq will provide a number of dynamics which will make Americans less safe and fuel the movement of the militant Salafi muslims who count bin Ladin among their number.  We ought to bring the troops home not out of defeat but out of respect for the wishes of the Iraqi people.

Neither ought we to abandon the Iraqis to the inevitable civil war which will serve only to provide save harbor and training opportunities to terrorists.  Instead, we should phase out US involvement and hand it over to peacekeepers operating ideally under EU and Arab League flags, though the UN is another option (the UN is politically at a disadvantage, however in dealing with incidents).  The EU has shown that they are capable of delivering peacekeeping forces capable of helping to end the civil war in the Congo.

But in the end, I do not believe that our leaders will do the right thing.  We will see more bloodshed, and eventually will cut and run maybe around 2009 or so, abandoning Iraq to the sort of chaos that only benefits terrorists.  I hope I am wrong.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »