What are the stakes? How about catastrophic failure--which is what I think we'll get.
Reader comment on article: In Iraq, Stay the Course - but Change It

Submitted by MelM (United States), Oct 24, 2006 at 23:56

What "stakes" are we talking about?

"...the stakes are quite minor,...Do you, dear non-Iraqi reader, have strong feelings about the the future of Iraq?"

If I understand what Dr. Pipes meant by "quite minor" then it would be the nature of these "stakes" that would determine why we should keep any troops in Iraq at all. It's the nature of these stakes that I've seen almost no discussion about in the controversy over what to do in Iraq. Who's talking about consequences? We must judge our decisions, basically, according to U.S. security needs (protecting the lives and freedom of the U.S. people). Getting to the point, what does catastrophic failure in Iraq look like and what are the implications for U.S. security? We need to look beyond the death squads and civil war; something will result from all this; somebody will win.

Catastrophic failure in Iraq looks like this (for starters):

- a new tyranny(s) in Iraq (most likely Islamic totalitarian in nature--picture al-Sadr and his ghoulie pals setting up headquarters in the new embassy building. Yes, I think the U.S. gov. is that stupid!)

• restarted WMD programs
• big-time support of terrorism
• a huge boost for the morale and recruiting of Islamic totalitarians everywhere
• completely wasted: soldier's lives, money and time without anything much being done to fight Islamic totalitarianism.

The security implications: more loss of lives and freedom of the U.S. and our allies and a bigger WOT whenever we get around to fighting it.

The Iraqi gov. now must focus mainly on a "military solution."

The Iraqi gov. needs to remind itself that it is the legal gov. of Iraq and fundamentally IS the "political solution." The Baathists and Islamists who attack the gov. and/or have death squads should be killed, starting at the top. Its opponents should fear the hell out of it; the Iraqi people must be able to look to the gov. for protection from the death squads. When the Iraqi gov. is a winner, the people will respect it and it will survive even with little of the freedom/democracy that one might hope for.

The gov. must recognize that people like al-Sadr will use the political process to help them gain their ends of absolute power. They don't give a rat's behind about participating in any democracy. So, can the Iraqi gov. turn 180 degrees around from this mantra of a "politcal solution"? (I have a hunch about who taught them this "politcal solution" junk.) If the Iraqi gov. is so weak it had to turn loose one of Sadr's murderers the other day, the idea that the Iraqi gov. can turn this around looks a little goofy to me.

Solution

Of the solutions I've seen, I like the one that wants to get our troops out then attack Iran from the air immediately. (NO "Operation Iran Freedom" crap.) Once we attack the big-guns of Islamic totalitarianism, Iraq will be much easier. I think this is basically the idea presented in the Objective Standard journal. "How to Solve America's Terrorism Problem in 5 Easy Steps" Aug 31 2006. theobjectivestandard.com"

Another solution was put forward by the guys over at "Iraq the Model". It has U.S. ground troops going into Iran and Syria (leaving 50,000 in Iraq) and basically is pointing to the fact that men, money, weapons, and tech know-how are coming from countries that have us surrounded. We are right in the middle of a terrorist swamp; resources are coming into Iraq but we're not trying to knock out the sources.

The ITM guys say that we should not have stopped preemption with Iraq. It's nice out-of-the-box thinking but I'd rather see U.S. troops out of Iraq where they're just target practice for the jihadis. Maybe some limited commando ops or such might be useful in Iraq and Iran but essentially I don't want to see any more kids shot to hell trying to bring soccer balls and PTA meetings to Iran. ("America's sin...Hesitation" iraqthemodel.com August 05, 2006.}

Dr. Pipe's solution attempts to avoid catastrophic failure and cut down on American loss of life. But, I think the death squads would take over every neighborhood in Iraq. And, could we really shut down the aid from outside? Plus, Iran and the other terrorist swamps would still be alive and flourshing. If we end up using our troops to keep another dictator from coming to power, I think that's just starting the war all over again with more urban fighting with enemy sniper teams.

My expectation?

Based on what I see from Bush, the dems, and the heavy-hitter senators: we'll get a new totalitarian state in Iraq messing around wtih WMD and terrorism AND a nuclear Iran AND a nuclear North Korea AND a much much bigger war out ahead. And, like WWII, the stakes will be: everything. Sure, some senator might come along with a new vision that would save us but I don't see him/her yet. Listening to Lugar, Biden, Levin, and Warner, I despair of anything good coming from them.

I originally had hopes for the "Iraq the Model" idea but I don't anymore. Just look at the "cut out their tonques" speech in S.A. recently and it's very clear that Islamic totalitarianism in the M.E. isn't going to fundamentally reform any time soon. They don't want no stinkin' freedom and democracy; they want rule by Islam. End of story.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments.