It will be interesting to look at Iraq in a decade. It could go any number of ways. Here's a brief analysis of two possible routes:
If we pull out..:
The weak Iraqi security forces cannot contain the internal unrest adequately without the help of the Shi'ite militias. Seeing this new state of a weakened and Shia-based, Iran may attempt to move in for the sake of 'regional stability'; if so, ordinary Iraqis may resist their old enemy's overtures whilst Shia hardliners welcome the change. An internal conflict, between hardliners, backed by Iran, and moderates, backed by the US (perhaps) develops.
If we stay in...:
Our troops are worn down by attrition but reinforced by new soldiers from America and Iraqi volunteers. The ordinary people will either loathe us the more for staying or become used to our presence over a longer period. The focus will have to shift from anti-insurgent offensives to reconstruction in order to win the people on-side. Heavier troop presence will be necessary to ensure the security of the reconstruction teams; maybe a draft will have to be taken. It's a long and hard struggle with a very uncertain future.
Factors to consider:
How strong are the insurgents? 20,000 is a liberal estimate.
How strong are the terrorists? An 'unknown known'. Probably growing in number but losing organisation as leaders are killed off.
What is the mood of the ordinary citizen? They just want security first, and to have Iraq be independent,
Will 'Operation Persian Freedom' be undertaken? Most likely not. No military strategist, even an amateur, would see anything to gain from opening up a third front.
Will new foes/friends emerge? An 'unknown unknown'.
Will Afghanistan draw off troops/attention? Perhaps a little; the Taliban cannot win an offensive war, though.
Who'll be in power in the relevant nations? In the US, it's hard to tell. In Iraq, most likely a Shia leader. In Iran, Ahmadinnerjacket will be gone due to high unemployment and inflation.
Conclusion:
Whichever route is taken, it won't be easy. We must prepare ourselves for some hard times ahead no matter what we do. Of course, it was wrong to start a war in the first place, because:
- Saddam had no connection with Osama bar a mutual hatred of America: a secular dictator and a fanatical theocrat getting on? Come off it.
- Saddam was an introverted dictator. That is to say that he kept his dictatorship to itself, not causing mass regional disturbance and simply maintaining his powerbase within Iraq.
- Iraq did not have and was not capable of developing WMD.
- Iraq is ammunition for propagandists.
- The war has left only one regional power: Iran, a theocratic democracy covertly supporting terrorism.
- Afghanistan was not and is not won.
So, how to win? The only way to win would be politically unacceptable. That is, a mass draft in the 100s of thousands. To maintain order, a vast body of infantry is required, standing on every street corner, watching from the rooftops, patrolling the roads. This is no surge but a medium-term strategy for ensuring stability. In the relative peace afforded by this heavy presence, Iraqi troops and police must be recruited and trained; not disbanding the Iraqi army in the first place would have helped. Also, money must be poured into restoring infrastructure. This strategy has be employed time and time again by numerous empires conquering unstable territories. In order to win, it will cost us highly in lives and monetary resources; the question is, is it worth it?
|