Blogspot: National Security
UNDERSTANDING IRAQ
One of our biggest mistakes in Iraq has been a failure to understand the reality of the the culture and history of the area. Iraq, as a nation, is not centuries old, but is a product of foriegn interests dividing up parts of the world after WWI. In the past century there have been four countries that have been formed with the unique characteristics of the combination of different cultures with separate identities and lands. These were the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslavakia, and Iraq. All had been held together by decades through totalitarian regimes. As we know, the first three have been split up, whether by violent or peaceful means.
Iraq consists of a Shiite majority, a Sunni minority and the Kurds in the north. While the history is complex, suffice it to say that the three have been at odds since the beginning of the estalishment of Iraq as a nation and have only remained together by oppression and genocide. At this point, the Kurdish north is, for all practical purposes, a separate nation and they aspire to make it official.
The constitution Iraq recently approves was negotiated to secure for the Kurds maximum separation. They have separate governance, separate military, separate legal system and explicit protection from the rest of the "country". They refer to themselves, with the acquiescence of the rest of Iraq, as "Kurdistan". They have their own flag and the Iraqi flag is forbidden to fly there. Islamic law cannot be forced on the Kurds. Non-kurdish Iraqi armies are forbidden to enter. Kurdistan is secular, democratic, pro-western, and beginning to thrive economically.
Southern Iraq is Shiite and is funded and controled by Iran. They have not yet formed a unified "region" akin to Kurdistan, although the possibility and mechanism to do so exists. In Southern Iraq, some say that the army has been "infiltrated" by the militias, but for the most part, the militias and the army are the same. The "democratic" ideals put forth by the Shiites is for an Islamic state modeled after and allied with the Iran. The real "war" for Iraq is in the central regions, dominated by the Arab Sunnis, but with strong Shiite presence with a history of oppression and hatred for the Sunni's. What we have to realize is that when we talk about the Iraqi "forces", we are talking about Shiite forces or Kurdish forces fighting Sunni insurgents.
There are no mixed forces. There is little, if any, Sunni participation in government military or police. To question whether there is a civil war is to quibble about semantics. Whatever your position on what has happened or where we go from here, we need to start acknowledging some realities. Iraq, as a nation, is broken... forever. Whether it splits peacefully or violently, it will split. The Iraqis who don't accept that are the Sunnis who have the most to lose. Although we are faced with some really bad choices in the near term because of the mishandling of the situation by the Bush administration, there are some long term solutions if we can only start to speak intelligently about the reality.
Scott, I highly recommend that you read the book "The End of Iraq" by Peter Galbraith. This is where I got the information in this note but there is more to learn. Peter has spent decades in direct diplomatic work in the area as well as other part of the world. Doug Beezley, Gering, NE
The recent revelations of near civil war conditions in Iraq by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld And the clear record of his previous misleading statements to the Congress and the people of the true state of affairs in Iraq Makes the importance of helping folks like Scott Kleeb win office and help turn the national security policy of this country towards a winning new direction. The sheer The sheer incompetence and almost delusionary nature of the current effort is apparent and the defense team including Rumsfeld has clearly proven a failure and should be made to resign - 3rd District folks have always stood for a strong national defense but must also now st also see how poorly and for profiteering that effort has been managed under the Republican administration. I am a retired Army officer and understand about the importance of a winning effort in Iraq. But I also understand why the sacrifice of American lives and treasure is being terribly managed and cynically presented in the guise of Republican flag waving - it takes a new political will in Congress in November to even begin a turn to a better policy - and that begins first by electing a Democratic majority this fall and that starts at home by electing Scott.
I DO NOT LIKE THE TERM "WAR ON TERRORISM"
I am not a big fan of the terms "war on terrorism," and "terrorist" because they do not really explain who or what the "enemy" is and why we are fighting this particular enemy. According to Scott's posting terrorists are "those who would murder innocents." Most other people would probably define a terrorist in the same way. The problem is that if we think of the enemy as a "terrorist," then we will combat the enemy almost exclusively by trying to prevent acts of terrorism when there may be other very effective ways to fight the terrorists. (Of course, preventing physical acts of terrorism is important, but it will not entirely defeat this particular enemy.) Problematically, this "enemy" is not a just a particular group of people; it is a catchy ideology that will be particularly hard to defeat. My take on the ideology is that the people we term "terrorists" see how much material stuff we in the U.S have, and get angry since they have very little.
I think the "terrorists" are also resentful of the power and influence the Christian and Capitalist U.S. has all over the globe and feel that their Muslim and less materialistic way of life is in danger because of the U.S. Since, figuratively, terrorists perceive themselves as cats trapped in the corner by a big man with a club, they strike out with everything that they have with reckless abandon (i.e. they commit acts of terrorism such as suicide bombing). [Please note my conception of "terrorism" as an ideology, or the ideology of terrorism is in no way original.] Okay, perhaps we can defeat this current "wave" of terrorists, but their ideology will pass on to others because the above-mentioned conditions that the ideology of "terrorism" arose out of will still exist.
To stop terrorism, the U.S. needs to combat the conditions which terrorism arose out of. As I see it, the U.S. has two ways to get out of this situation: (1) Act as an empire: Take over and entirely rebuild the Middle East in the image of the U.S. (Once the U.S. actually has control, it can more easily control the conditions and the people in the region). (Although Niall Ferguson did not say this, his book AMERICA AN EMPIRE IN DENIAL was an influence for me to come up with this.) (2) Play nice: Back off being a hegemonic worldwide influence so that other peoples don't feel threatened. This would not mean disarming because we still need to protect ourselves. (This would only work if Americans suddenly became a lot less materialistic because the main reason the U.S. exerts influence in regions is to obtain goods and economic benefits for the U.S.) Right now, we are not doing either.
My guess is that Bush may being trying to do (1), and Congress cannot get a majority of its members to agree wholeheartedly on any particular strategy. I think (1) is ultimately not a good way to go in the end because history has shown us that empires fail because they eventually build up resentment. (2) is better because it will give peoples who feel threatened breathing room, but it is harder because less involvement in foreign countries will mean less trade, and less material goods for us. And we are a country used to ever-increasing prosperity. When it comes to fighting "terrorism," I think we are between a rock and a hard place.
THE WAR ON TERRORISM
I appreciate your candid comments, but I cannot agree. I believe that those who resort to terrorism -- those who would murder innocents -- must be defeated at all costs. At the present time, when it is all too clear that terrorists in the world are capable of causing us great harm, I believe we must join together -- not just as Americans, but as free nations around the world -- to combat this threat with unwavering determination.
I do not agree that the War on Terror 'cannot be won.' There will be set backs. But there will also be successes. I believe there have already been a considerable number of successes, and that those successes have saved American lives.
It is certainly true that those who resort to terrorism have often experienced lives of misery and oppression. Therefore, as part of the War on Terror, we must do what we can to bring greater freedom, prosperity and happiness to regions of the world that have not known these things.
Scott
THE WAR ON TERRORISM
I would like you to know why I am against the war on terrorism. My reason is simply put, the war on terroism cannot be won. We have been fighting a "War on Poverty" since the Johnson administration. We still have poor in our country. Unequal disrtibution of wealth and power has existed since man first started cities. We have been fighting a "War on Drugs", also since the Johnson administration. Drug misuse has existed since man first learned to brew alcohol, and learned which plants can cause hallucinations. Now we find that we are in a "War on Terrorism".
Terrorism has been in existance since man first went to war wagainst his neighbor. Alaxander the Great used terrorist tactics to defeat Darius. Our own Minutemen of the Revolutionary war used terrorist tactics to defeat the British. The invasion of Normandy during WW2 was against German law, therefore an act of terrorism. TO put this another way, what is the differance between a freedom fighter, and a terrorist, other than which side they are on?
Our local American Leigion post has declared that the ACLU is a terrorist organisation. Not because the ACLU has ever been involved in a terrorist act, but because the local American leagion post strongly disagrees with the ACLU on political issues. What the "War on Drugs", the "War on Poverty" have done and what the "War on Terrorism" will do is supply the current administrations cronies with hugh amounts of taxpayer cash, while doing nothing to get to the root of the problem, which is human nature.
GOOD TO HEAR!
This is probably the most balanced and fair look at the situation in Iraq that I have read. In a time when we have people in the media scream from either side their extreme views, it's refreshing to read a reasonable point of view. There were definitly many mistakes (and many ongoing mistakes) being made regarding Iraq right now, but we cannot pull out at this point.
I DID SEE THAT!
But I really feel like it's completely appropriate. I think it actually honors our friends and family and countrymen to endure the emotions that are brought out by those films.
DID YOU SEE THAT THE 9/11 MOVIES ARE COMING OUT...
I lost a friend and I think it's way too early for that sort of historical reflection. It's not even 'history' for me, really more of a current issue.