Twenty thousand more Joe’s. Twenty thousand more folks, on the ground in Iraq.
Wow.
The Problem
What I have not liked about all of the reporting (here, here, here, here, and, of course, here) is the lacking of description of what’s the source of the problem in Iraq. The root problem. What’s causing all this.
“It’s sectarian violence.”
“The terrorists win if we back out.”
“The insurgents will use the oil money to overthrow other stable governments.”
These things aren’t the problem, they are indicators that there are problems. Big, big difference.
I still contend that there are three conflicts in Iraq, and that it is these conflicts that are causing unrest and violence in Iraq. These three are the “problems” in Iraq:
- There are those who hate this Iraqi government.
- There are those who hate each other.
- There are those who hate the Americans and others, just for being in Iraq.
Can we solve these problems? Actually solve them? Or can we just mitigate them, diffuse them enough so that the Iraqi government can govern?
The Solution
I’m pretty sure we can’t “win”. We cannot put an end to people hating their government. Shoot, we have that in the United States.
But what’s the difference? The people in America who hate their government either think they have a mean of redress, a means of having their issues heard and resolved, or they understand that the US government has the means of violence to suppress just about anything its citizens try. So, US citizens tend to work within the system of government to effect change, instead of outside of it.
That’s not so in Iraq.
The Iraqi government can’t suppress every kind of uprising by its people or those in Iraq (like foreign fighters). It does not have the corner on the means of violence.
And the people don’t think this Iraqi government is the means to solve their problems. In some cases, they think it is the problem. Really, I suspect that they aren’t wild about this whole secular thing, expecting and wanting a Muslim solution. And yes, that is acknowledging that the principles of democracy are incompatible with Islam.
And the hatred of each other?
That will come with law and order. Iraqi law and order. When the Iraqi government, in some form or fashion, has the means to enforce their laws, to arrest those who do wrong, the lid will be put on this. Until then, we’re working up to the day when we look back on the ethnic cleansing going on in Iraq, and we start calling it what it is — genocide. But, again, this is a problem that will only be solved when the Iraqis are in a position to solve it. Yes, there is a US role in this, but there are things the US can do to help; the US can’t do it for the Iraqis.
And those who hate the US and others just for being in Iraq? I have no idea how to resolve this one. It’s a cultural issue. It’ll take time – generations – for the Iraqis to figure out how they feel about Americans, about infidels and non-Muslims, about the various sects within Islam, and so on.
The Reservists and National Guard
There’s also been a quiet change with the National Guard and Reservists. I need to find and read the details on it. Apparently, it was announced after the POTUS gave his speech. As I understand it, it boils down to lifting the restrictions on how often and, really, the sum total of how long non-active duty soldiers can be mobilized for active duty.
It has worked something like this: they can be mobilized to active duty for a sum total of 24 months, for an operations. Maybe 6 here, and another 10 there. But the war on terror has been one operations. And I knew folks, as far back as 2003, who were at their 24 months mark, and I’ve run into reserve and guard units that, on the whole, were filled with people who were at their 24 hour mark.
The solution? Lift that restriction.
Guard and Reserve is looking more and more like active duty.
Oh, poo-poo, Nancy
Another interesting footnote to the article was the comments about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada meeting with the President, only to find that he was informing them of his plan. They somehow thought that they were there to provide input.
I’m pretty sure I understand how this one works. The president decides our foreign policy. Period. Good, bad, liked, hated — it’s his. Congress can try to influence it — cutting off spending, for example — but it’s not their to make, it’s not theirs to implement, it’s not theirs to alter.
It’s his.
I really, really don’t like comments like “was notification, not consultation,” because 1) it gives the false and wrong impression that consultation is expected or required, and 2) coming from members of the house and senate, I’d sure hope that they know that. They instead deliberately send a message to the people that policy is their — Congress’s — mission, not the Presidents, when the know that to be not true.
Bear in mind that Congress will have a say in the President’s plan to increase the total number of folks in the Army and Marines. To do so means money, and that means getting the OK from Congress. President’s policy, but they get to do they checks and balances on that one.
And Iran?
There were a couple of good quotes form the NY Times.
Mr. Bush accused Iran of providing material support for attacks on American troops and vowed to respond. “We will disrupt the attacks on our forces,” he said in his speech. “We will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
And we’re going to do this…. how? Oh, yes — by sending another carrier to the Persian Gulf, and by sending Patriot missile defense systems to neighboring countries. Providing material support for attacks on American troops in Iraq, but a boat on the water and Patriot missile defense systems into countries other than Iraq.
Why?
But they also said that Mr. Bush’s top deputies, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley, had decided that, barring some major conciliatory move from Tehran, American moves to engage Iran had run their course.
