Stability in Iraq: How far is the U.S. willing to go?

This article was published in the Delaware County Daily Times, Monday, September 17, 2007.

By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.

The picture of what is going on in Iraq is getting bleaker every day. The plethora of reports is making it murkier and the average citizen is confused. Most of the contents of the reports is true, but incomplete. The opposing parties underscore what supports their claims, and the public does not have the time or the background to sieve through mounds of reports and newspaper articles.
It is true some provinces of Iraq and some neighborhoods of Baghdad are enjoying an improved level of security. It is also true that the killing did not stop, and the loss of lives continues. It is true more insurgents are killed or captured, but it is also true more of them are still conducting deadly attacks. The information from the field is limited and it is manipulated to produce the most desirable outcome: sound bites and slick television commercials.
I am a bicultural, bilingual American. I understand the social paradigm, the politics, and the culture of my country of choice. I equally understand the social paradigm, the politics, and the cultures of the Arabs and the Muslims. So, when I hear politicians (and self anointed intellectuals), and when I read newspapers articles, I understand where the speaker or the writer is coming from. I understand the sounds of demagoguery, the mistakes of the ignorant, and the malice of those who have axes to grind.
I am driven by a desire to promote understanding and to bridge the gap, or narrow it, between the two worlds, so my children and my grandchildren live in peace and harmony with their neighbors in this great country.
The President could announce an end of our military mission in Iraq and inform Iraqis of our plans to withdraw the troops from their country. But neither the current President nor the next (even if he or she were a Democrat) would make the announcement, and inform the Iraqis of his decision.
A different approach would be for Congress to stop financing the war. But this wouldn’t happen regardless of which party controls Congress. A Democratic Congress would fear being labeled as weak on defense. A Republican Congress would not do it because it is the party (dominated by the Religious Right) that took us to this pre-emptive war. The extremists do not want to end the war, they want to expand it to include Iran and Syria.
The third possible way to end the war depends on action by Congress. It is true that Congress may not have the volition to do anything on its own about the war, but if there is a national cry, similar to that which helped end the Vietnam War, Congress may respond. Members of Congress would scurry to align themselves with the public and, perhaps, use the power of the purse to end the war.
A fourth eventuality is for our troops to withdraw in defeat. Our valiant soldiers do not deserve a shameful end to their sacrifice. But if the current situation (lack of security, electricity, water, jobs, and abundance of self centered politicians) does not improve, the insurgency would become stronger. Iraqis would join the freedom fighters for a patriotic goal: To liberate their country from the foreign occupiers.
The fifth possible action is for the President to attack Iran and nuke its nuclear and other military facilities. This action would not end the war; it would intensify and prolong it. At the same time he or his proxy would attack or perhaps occupy another part of Syria. Thus creating a dream security belt from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. The expansion would not end the war, but it sure would extend it for decades to come.
A last possible option to end the war is to nuke Iraq from north to south and from east to west, as a former Marine told me, on the morning of September 11, 2001. This would not happen. The President may lack wisdom, as his political adversaries claim, but he is not a Nero, either.
The only option that makes sense (saves lives and capital) is to plan and execute the withdrawal of our troops, orderly and safely. But, the government, its loyal political pundits, and the allied spin junkies warn us of impending disasters.
They say the Iraqis would fight each other in a full scale and bloody civil war. The whole Middle East would be destabilized. The anti-American forces would rejoice in victory and put up their sails and follow us, to harm us, in our own homeland.
It’s scary. But remember that the Vietnam War took so long because of the scare of the domino theory and its effect on the citizenry.
Here is the more likely scenario. When the military forces begin to withdraw, the violence would increase, but soon (in about six months) it would subside because the majority of the current violence is directed against the coalition forces, the mercenaries, the collaborators, and the beneficiaries of the war.
Once the foreign forces leave Iraq, that violence would dwindle. But the fighting among the militias would rage in the streets and in the neighborhoods of most Iraqi cities. It would mainly be on land grapping and sectarian cleansing.
However, the end of the mayhem would come at the hands of a military unifier—a dictator, who could have been one of those trained by the Americans, not to become a dictator, but to create and preserve peace and tranquility. The new ruler would be supported and aided by Iran, but he would not establish an Iranian type theocracy. Instead the military would rule for a while. Then a limited democracy might be initiated, and in a decade or two, democracy might take hold.
On the other hand, if the United States intervenes to stop the new dictator, a situation like the one in Lebanon might arise and Iraq would become another State in the Middle East perpetually divided and dangerously unstable.