A Thirty Years War? by George Hunsinger

[Guest guest]

Sun, 26 Jun 2005 03:50:24 +0200

A Thirty Years War? by George Hunsinger

f

 

 

 

A Thirty Years War? by George Hunsinger

 

 

www.antiwar.com/orig/hunsinger.php?articleid=6435

 

June 25, 2005

 

Back in September 2002 James Webb, assistant secretary of defense and

secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, raised a specter

that has come back to haunt us. " The issue before us, " he wrote in the

Washington Post, " is not simply whether the United States should end

the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared

to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to

50 years. "

 

Recently the International Institute of Strategic Studies, a prominent

London-based think tank, concluded that the U.S. will be in Iraq until

2010, because of the difficulties in establishing law and order.

University of Michigan expert Juan Cole sees this estimate as

optimistic. " The guerrilla war, " he writes, " is likely to go on a

decade to 15 years. " But Paul Rogers, a diffident Oxford military

expert, now echoes James Webb. His " ostensibly rash " conclusion is

that " a thirty-year war is in prospect. " On June 19 Secretary of State

Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that America's involvement in Iraq is

indeed " a generational commitment. "

 

Webb had warned about our not having an exit strategy. In an August

2002 television interview, Charles Krauthammer, the well-connected

columnist, explained why not. " We don't speak about exit strategies, "

he noted. " We are going to stay. " Responding to concerns about the

cost, he explained, " If we win the war, we are in control of Iraq, it

is the second largest source of oil in the world, it's got huge

reserves. . . . We will have a bonanza, a financial one, at the other

end. " Today we can see that while Krauthhammer was wrong about the

bonanza, he was right about the prolonged stay.

 

Currently the occupation is going poorly. One reason is the

indiscriminate tactics used by U.S. forces. Whole towns ˆ from

Fallujah to Ramadi and now to the desert villages around Qaim ˆ have

virtually been flattened. Analyst Fred Kaplan comments: " Leveling

towns, bombing every suspicious target in sight ˆ this is not how

hearts and minds are won or how persistent insurgencies are defeated. "

Indiscriminate tactics, of course, also violate morality and the laws

of war.

 

It is not surprising that the occupation lacks wide popular support.

Civilian casualties ˆ already in the tens, and perhaps hundreds, of

thousands ˆ are steadily on the rise. Among children malnutrition has

doubled and mortality has tripled. Hospitals still lack basic

medicines and equipment, water and electricity are in short supply,

half the population is unemployed, and prices for food are inflated.

Car bombs, assassinations, kidnappings, deadly roadblocks, stagnant

sewage, and strikes from American forces are a daily occurrence. At

least one million refugees have fled the country.

 

Those who insist on " staying the course " overlook the unpleasant fact

that the occupation is the main cause of the insurgency, not its cure.

Outstripped and illegitimate, it will only bring more death and

destruction.

 

Although no good options exist, a viable exit plan might include the

following:

 

The U.S. should cease all offensive military operations, withdraw from

population centers, and announce that it plans to depart in six months.

 

An international peacekeeping force should be established, consisting

of UN blue helmets along with forces from the Arab League and the

Organization of the Islamic Conference.

 

Iraqi security forces should be trained under international auspices,

with special attention to respecting human rights.

 

Plans for permanent U.S. military bases should be abandoned, and the

American embassy (now the world's largest) should be reduced to normal

size.

 

A generous aid package, with no strings attached, should be offered to

rebuild what the war has destroyed.

 

As unpalatable as such a strategy may be to our national pride, it is

as prudent, principled and ambitious as the quagmire permits. It is

arguably more " realistic " than continuing to fight indefinitely

against a growing insurgency that is inreasingly sophisticated in

weaponry and tactics. Those who believe otherwise should explain to

the increasingly disillusioned American public how we can extricate

ourselves from the biggest U.S. foreign-policy disaster since Vietnam.

 

Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space

PO Box 652

Brunswick, ME 04011

(207) 729-0517

(207) 319-2017 (Cell phone)

globalnet

www.space4peace.org

space4peace.blogspot.com (Our blog)