Impossible Scissors

Former mayor Ed Koch has some frank, common-sense advice to offer on Iraq. The piece is so good that I'd have been proud if I had written it.

With this Memorial Day passed, we are reminded that America is still a nation at war, and it's a global conflict for which there will be no elegant solutions or triumphant capitulations. The signs of this war are all too apparent from those veterans who bear the scars of war; some scars are painfully visible, while others are psychological and spiritual. There are thousands dead and a few who have gone missing, their fates known only to God.

It is the search for the missing that has grabbed many headlines over the last two weeks. With perhaps 4,000 soldiers looking for three missing comrades (one of whom, PFC Joseph Anzack, recently was recovered after being tortured and executed by his captors,) this is a mission that American soldiers never take lightly. Reading stories like this, about soldiers who are killed while searching for their comrades, is never easy to accept.

At the same time, all should know that within the US military, a GI has no better motivation to fight than for the safety of his comrades. The American soldier does not fight for riches, and he really doesn't fight for any lofty political ideal, either. The American soldier knows that there is no greater bond between men than the bond between comrades who fight together, eat together, live together, and ultimately die together. Regardless of the soldier's beliefs about the righteousness of his mission, he knows that the most righteous mission, and the only mission he will gladly die for, is ensuring the safety of a brother in arms.

Entering into the theater last weekend to see Spider-Man 3, I had to say that my expectations had been lowered. Why did Sam Raimi need to include THREE villains? Why re-tool Spider-Man's origin? By the end of the movie, I felt that, while the aforementioned problems detracted from the movie, it was still good enough to earn a marginal "thumbs up" from me.

My biggest gripe was that there wasn't enough time to develop the characters of the alien symbiote or its eventual host, Eddie Brock. In the comics, Eddie Brock isn't really a bad guy, and he has an overwhelming sense of guilt for many of his misdeeds. When he becomes "Venom," he's a "lethal protector" instead of a super-villain. Think of him as a twisted and brutal version of Spider-Man. The movie instead turns Eddie Brock into a vindictive smart-ass, and the symbiote is normally seen as a fabric-looking costume (rather than an amorphous alien that truly bonds to its host) that amplifies the rage felt by its wearer. I really felt that, given the guilt-laden nature of the comics' Venom character, the Sandman should have been dropped, and many of his scenes given to Eddie Brock. It would also eliminate the lack of resolution for the Sandman's mission. I think that Sam Raimi never understood the essence of "Venom," leading him to criticize the character's "lack of humanity."

With that being said, I think that the contrast between Sandman and Venom in Spider-Man 3 is that movie's redeeming virtue. The film's conclusion should make us ask ourselves if we will be destroyed by our anger and hatred, or if we can be liberated by forgiveness. It helped to remind myself that life is too short to be so angry and to obsess about "getting even" with people. I want to live my life like The Sandman, not like Venom.

Representative Ron Paul took a lot of heat during Tuesday's presidential debate for suggesting that "bombing Iraq for ten years" led to the 9/11 attacks. Such a remark might draw praise from leftist circles, but it was wholly unwelcome during a Republican debate.

Nevertheless, Americans should look at Ron Paul's words and see a lot of truth in them. Al Qaeda fights to rebuild a fundamentalist Islamic caliphate, but it views America as its number one obstacle towards achieving that goal. Much of it stems from support for undemocratic, un-Islamic despots who run most nations in the middle east. Yet, for a decade between the Persian Gulf War and the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden was frequently able to cite America's actions in containing Iraq as reasons that Muslims should join his jihad. Whether it was no-fly zones or the basing of US forces in Saudi Arabia and other gulf nations, Osama was against it. Whether America's actions in containing Iraq were just or not is of little consequence here; those actions helped to inflame Islamic anti-Americanism, buoyed by daily reports from the Iraqi Information Ministry about all the Iraqis whose deaths could be blamed on America.

At the same time, we can't say that the containment of Iraq was bin Laden's sole motivator in his war against America. Osama hated America even when he was fighting our common enemy, the Soviet Union. He has always viewed America as the supporter of un-Islamic sheiks and the immovable mountain between him and his idealized caliphate. As long as madmen dream these extravagant fantasies, and refuse to tolerate religious freedom and secular government, there will always be terrorism, and there will always be Osama bin Ladens.

The sudden death of Jerry Falwell is certain to spark very polarized reactions, including sadness on the right and jubilation from the extreme left. Perhaps that's the only way for a polarizing figure like Jerry Falwell to leave this earth.

While Falwell has passed on, his legacy still leaves a massive footprint on the terrain of American politics. He and Pat Robertson were driving forces in organizing politically-conservative fundamentalist Christians into a major voting block. The so-called "Religious Right" delivered the "solid south" to the Republicans for the first time in over a century, made values and morals into important issues of debate, and made everybody forget about the "Religious Left" that had traditionally used Christian teachings to agitate for big-government "social justice." Without Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition, would anybody be debating Opie & Anthony, Janet Jackson's nipple, the Parents' Television Council, partial-birth abortion, or same-sex marriage? For better or worse, Falwell made the political landscape a lot more interesting.

Characters like Jerry Falwell are studies in contrast. Were they men of God or purveyors of hate? More like preachers, or like politicians? Probably an even balance of both. They were quick to judge others, but their critics were quick to judge them. Ultimately it should be their ideas that are accepted or condemned, rather than their characters. The final judgment rests with The Lord. Redeemingly, all who believe in Him will know eternal life.

"General" Harry Reid has declared that the war is lost, but the Democrats want to stretch their Iraq withdrawal plan out over a year or more. I've asked in the past why the Dems would keep our troops in Iraq any longer than necessary if they felt the war was lost. Now I think I've stumbled on the answer.

1. The American public has to know that "the boys are coming home" before the election in November 2008

2. The Iraqi government has to last at least until the November election so the Democrats won't be blamed at the polls for the defeat and chaos that will surely follow.

Therein lies the weakness of the United States--wars are won and lost at the polls more often than they are on the battlefield. The only way that Americans can be brought back on board the "stay until the job is done" bandwagon is through some miraculous offensive that deals a decisive blow to the insurgents and militias. In 1864, Abe Lincoln was on the verge of defeat until a series of victories by General Phillip Sheridan swayed voters back towards Honest Abe (perhaps the first "November Surprise" in American history. In Iraq, there will be no dramatic developments of the sort, as the insurgents are a diverse amalgam of Iraqi and foreign malcontents; not all of them can be dealt with in a single offensive, and many of them will only come to heel if some sort of peace deal is brokered.

Ayman al Zawahiri's new video tape has centered around a mocking rant against President Bush. He claims that America's presence in Iraq is an opportunity for al Qaeda to kill up to 300,000 Americans. The first thing that went through my mind is that this is Zawahiri's equivalent to President Bush's infamous "Bring 'em on" remark.

I then thought about Michael Scheuer's central argument in Imperial Hubris, that the al Qaeda leaders genuinely believe in what they say, as they are very principled and idealistic. The recent Zawahiri video, as well as bin Laden's last audio tape from over a year ago, seem to invalidate that observation. Zawahiri is now calling on minorities in America to rebel against "whitey." Do these terrorist assholes think they can rebuild their mideast caliphate by starting race riots in America? I've got news for these chodes: when terrorists attack one American, it's an attack against ALL Americans, regardless of race, color or creed.

Zawahiri's boast comes at a bad time for al Qaeda. Opinion polls in middle eastern countries show that more and more Muslims are denouncing al Qaeda. In Iraq, al Qaeda has killed so many innocents that the terror groups former supporters in Anbar province are turning against it. The so-called "Taliban Spring Offensive" has not lived up to the pronouncements of Taliban commanders, aside from battles that leave 136 Taliban killed in a single day.

Zawahiri and the Taliban are operating from the same playbook: use rhetoric to intimidate the enemy when you are short on action. American can learn a lesson from this, too. If America can hold together through "Max-Q" in Iraq, we can restore the necessary degree of stability so we can leave honorably. The truth is that al Qaeda is on the ropes worldwide, and especially in Iraq. They gambled that they could defeat the US by starting a Sunni-Shiite civil war. While there is much work to be done in order to undo the damage caused by al Qaeda's strategy, the terrorists have pissed off so many people that they may never be able to form a stable government in Iraq.

Labels: Iraq, Terrorism

The only aspect of the Iraq War that Republicans and Democrats can agree on these days is that the Iraqi government isn't meeting its obligations. Most recently, there's been talk that the Iraqi parliament will take a two-month summer recess.

General David Petraeus hopes that the surge will buy time for Iraqi leaders to reach a political solution to Iraq's sectarian problems. Defense Secretary Robert Gates met with the Iraqi prime minister and warned him that "the clock is ticking." Yet the Iraqi parliament wants to waste the sacrifices of American soldiers by taking two months off instead of engaging in intense negotiations to save their country.

If the parliament goes on recess, here's the strategy the US should follow:
1) Evacuate all Americans from the green zone
2) Carpet-bomb the green zone
3) Use precision-guided munitions to destroy the homes of Iraqi parliament leaders
4) Withdraw all American forces from Iraq
5) Eat popcorn and drink beer while watching Iraq turn into an orgy of violence

In the deliberations over the war spending bill, it appears that Democrats and Republicans both agree on tying some form of aid (either military assistance or non-military aid) to political benchmarks that Iraq's government must meet. The president has paid lip service to benchmarks, but has failed to attach any penalties for the failure to meet them. Hopefully the president will realize that there's no point in propping up a government that can't work towards national unity, and he'll relent in his opposition to the benchmarks proposed by Congress.

If there's any bright spot to the vetoed spending bill, it will hopefully scare the Iraqi government into taking action. As much as Iraqis may resent the "infidel occupiers," they know that life will get a lot worse if America leaves Iraq in its current state of affairs.

When passing the defense spending bill with a troop withdrawal timeline, the congressional Democrats were fond of saying that Iraq's sectarian violence can only be solved politically, not militarily. While the Democrats act like this is some kind of divine revelation, the truth is that all Americans see value in the use of diplomacy in the effort to mend Iraq's deep divisions. The difference is that Democrats live in a hopelessly naive fantasy where diplomacy can work without any military component. Realists know that diplomacy can never achieve its goals if there's no negative consequences (i.e., military force) for sides that refuse to make concessions.

Over the last two years, the United States and its allies in the Iraqi government have made negotiations with selected insurgent groups. Each time, the results are the same: the insurgents insist on a timetable for withdrawal. For the United States, a timetable cannot guarantee that insurgents will make a long-term commitment to peace; it only increases the likelihood that insurgents will resume the violence once America leaves. The insurgents currently have no incentive to agree to any kind of truce, because congressional Democrats (and a few spineless Republicans like Gordon Smith) want to give them the withdrawal they desperately seek.

General David Petraeus has publicly said that the goal of his "surge" strategy is to buy time for the Iraqi government to achieve political reconciliation between the warring factions. It certainly doesn't help that Harry Reid has assumed the title of "General" and declared that the surge is a failure and the war is lost. What the troops need instead is for Congress to give it a chance. The troops also need pressure applied on the Iraqi government: come to a compromise that will ensure peace, or risk an American pullout that will lead to a decade of Iraqi civil war.

The insurgents and militias will only accept a peace deal if the alternative is a battle that they cannot win. By trying to take American combat troops off the table, congressional Democrats are an obstacle to a peace deal and provide fuel for further violence. Perhaps America's armed forces have the ability to apply the military force necessary to get the warring factions to the bargaining table; they deserve a reasonable amount of time (until September or so) to attempt it. The alternative is an Iraqi civil war that, if Lebanon is any example, will require 15 years and millions of lives before the warring factions can agree to peace.

The Democrats are using the mantra of "transition the mission" to describe their pullout plans from Iraq. The Democrat plan may be a "transition," but it's an abrupt one that leaves no chance for peace in Iraq. What's sorely lacking, on the part of the defense department, is a plan for an orderly transition of the combat mission from US to Iraqi forces that has a reasonable chance for success.

In spite of the troop surge that has required great sacrifices on America's part, there's no reason why the transition can't begin now. Of Iraq's 18 provinces, only four are subject to the Wahhabist terrorism or sectarian violence that prompted the surge: Anbar, Baghdad, Diwaniah, and Salah ad Din. The other 14 provinces are ripe for Iraqi control; currently, the Iraqi army controls only two.

There is no reason why the Iraqi army shouldn't be controlling the 14 relatively calm provinces within the next six months. This is also an opportunity to test the concept promoted by Fareed Zakaria: reduced contingents of US combat forces, located in remote bases, would serve as a safety net to ensure that Iraqi Army units are not overrun. As Iraqi army units gain more experience and confidence, they can hopefully be called upon to fill more of the missions that America traditionally performed.

How long would American forces need to act as a reserve for the Iraqi Army? That's a good question that requires a good answer. The military commanders haven't been straight with the American public about the herculean effort that will be required to build a competent Iraqi army. I suspect the truth of the situation is that the Iraqi army may be a decade away from where we need it to be. A depressing metric is that the Iraqi army is less competent than the ARVN forces of South Vietnam, in the assessment of some military observers.

The Democrats' desire to withdraw US combat forces flies in the face of reality; you cannot embed US trainers if they have no combat support to bail them out of trouble. Nor can you conduct the counter-terrorism mission in Iraq (which most Democrats still claim to support) without engaging the populace and gathering intelligence on terrorist activities. At the same time, the Iraqi army needs a push to begin bearing the responsibility for stabilizing Iraq. US forces should assume a reserve role as soon as possible, without creating the conditions for collapse of Iraqi society. Hopefully the "surge" in the four most troubled provinces can result in political reconciliation and get Iraq back on track for transition to Iraqi rule.