Ralph Peters - Last Gasps In Iraq

[Peregrino]

Is the writing on the wall? Will we have to pay another butcher's bill for GW III? With commentary like this from thinkers of RP's stature (and he isn't the only one) I'm not looking forward to Nov. 8.

Food for thought - Peregrino



USA Today
November 2, 2006
Pg. 13

Last Gasps In Iraq

I supported this war, but the deteriorating situation is starting to convince me that we can't win. Those of us who hoped that the Iraqis could achieve democracy were wrong — and their failure has implications for the entire region.

By Ralph Peters

On Tuesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki obeyed Muqtada al-Sadr's command to withdraw U.S. troops from Baghdad's Sadr City. He halted a vital U.S. military operation. It was the third time in less than a month that al-Maliki had sided with the anti-American cleric against our forces.

President Bush insists that we have no conflicts with the al-Maliki government. The president isn't telling the truth — or he himself doesn't support our military's efforts. He can't have it both ways. Bush appears increasingly desperate just to get through the upcoming elections.

I supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. I believed that Arabs deserved a chance to build a rule-of-law democracy in the Middle East. Based upon firsthand experience, I was convinced that the Middle East was so politically, socially, morally and intellectually stagnant that we had to risk intervention — or face generations of terrorism and tumult. I still believe that our removal of Hussein was a noble act.

I only wish the administration had done it competently.

Iraq is failing. No honest observer can conclude otherwise. Even six months ago, there was hope. Now the chances for a democratic, unified Iraq are dwindling fast. The country's prime minister has thrown in his lot with al-Sadr, our mortal enemy. He has his eye on the future, and he's betting that we won't last. The police are less accountable than they were under Saddam. Our extensive investment in Iraqi law enforcement only produced death squads. Government ministers loot the country to strengthen their own factions. Even Iraq's elections — a worthy experiment — further divided Iraq along confessional and ethnic lines. Iraq still exists on the maps, but in reality it's gone. Only a military coup — which might come in the next few years — could hold the artificial country together.

This chaos wasn't inevitable. While in Iraq late last winter, I remained soberly hopeful. Since then, the strength of will of our opponents — their readiness to pay any price and go to any length to win — has eclipsed our own. The valor of our enemies never surpassed that of our troops, but it far exceeded the fair-weather courage of the Bush administration.

Yet, for all our errors, we did give the Iraqis a unique chance to build a rule-of-law democracy. They preferred to indulge in old hatreds, confessional violence, ethnic bigotry and a culture of corruption. It appears that the cynics were right: Arab societies can't support democracy as we know it. And people get the government they deserve.

For us, Iraq's impending failure is an embarrassment. For the Iraqis — and other Arabs — it's a disaster the dimensions of which they do not yet comprehend. They're gleeful at the prospect of America's humiliation. But it's their tragedy, not ours.

Iraq was the Arab world's last chance to board the train to modernity, to give the region a future, not just a bitter past. The violence staining Baghdad's streets with gore isn't only a symptom of the Iraqi government's incompetence, but of the comprehensive inability of the Arab world to progress in any sphere of organized human endeavor. We are witnessing the collapse of a civilization. All those who rooted for Iraq to fail are going to be chastened by what follows.

Iraq still deserves one last chance — as long as we don't confuse deadly stubbornness and perseverance. If, at this late hour, Iraqis in decisive numbers prove willing to fight for their own freedom and a constitutional government, we should be willing to remain for a generation. If they continue to revel in fratricidal slaughter, we must leave.

And contrary to the prophets of doom, the United States wouldn't be weakened by our withdrawal, should it come to that. Iraq was never our Vietnam. It's al-Qaeda's Vietnam. They're the ones who can't leave and who can't win.

Islamist terrorists have chosen Iraq as their battleground and, even after our departure, it will continue to consume them. We'll still be the greatest power on earth, indispensable to other regional states — such as the Persian Gulf states and Saudi Arabia — that are terrified of Iran's growing might. If the Arab world and Iran embark on an orgy of bloodshed, the harsh truth is that we may be the beneficiaries.

My disillusionment with our Iraq endeavor began last summer, when I was invited to a high-level discussion with administration officials. I went into the meeting with one firm goal, to convince my hosts that they'd better have Plan B in case Iraq continued to disintegrate. I left the session convinced that the administration still didn't have Plan A, only a blur of meandering policies and blind hopes. After more than three years, it was still “An Evening at the Improv.”

Then, last month, as Iraq's prime minister seconded al-Sadr's demand that our troops free a death-squad mastermind they had captured, I knew a fateful page had turned. A week later, al-Maliki forbade additional U.S. military raids in Sadr City, the radical mullah's Baghdad stronghold. On Tuesday, al-Maliki insisted that our troops remove roadblocks set up to help find a kidnapped U.S. soldier. Iraq's prime minister has made his choice. We're not it. It's time to face reality. Only Iraqis can save Iraq now — and they appear intent on destroying it. Après nous, le deluge.

Iraq could have turned out differently. It didn't. And we must be honest about it. We owe that much to our troops. They don't face the mere forfeiture of a few congressional seats but the loss of their lives. Our military is now being employed for political purposes. It's unworthy of our nation.

Ralph Peters is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors and the author of 21 books. He is a retired U.S. Army officer.

[CoLawman]

Ralph Peters has always been credible. What is unnerving is my inability to offer even..........oh yeah, well... in reply. Could this be the beginning of the tipping point?

[aricbcool]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Will we have to pay another butcher's bill for GW III?

I'm sorry Sir; my googlefu is weak today. What/who is GW III?

--Aric

[Pete]

Originally Posted by aricbcool

I'm sorry Sir; my googlefu is weak today. What/who is GW III?

--Aric

Global War III

WW I was The Great War

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Pete

Global War III

WW I was The Great War

I'm thinking "Gulf War...III

(We've not taken this global yet... )

Just for the record, I would not use USA Today to put in the cat's litter box, that paper is not worth the paper it's printed on.

Team Sergeant

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

I'm thinking "Gulf War...III

(We've not taken this global yet... )

Team Sergeant

I was thinking that we had WW I, WW II and the the chatter about the Cold War as WW III and now the Global War on Terror. We had Gulf War I and Gulf War II. I think Gulf War II is Round I of the Global War on Terror, AKA Islamic War of Expansion.

The pot is simmering.

[The Reaper]

Even if you think you are defeated, it is never a good idea to let the enemy know. They might be about to give up too.

I do not normally disagree with Ralph Peters, but IMHO, he should not have written this right now.

I do believe that PM al-Maliki should have gotten a very special phone call after the first incident asking him how long he thought he could continue to be PM without us, and if he preferred al-Sadr's militia to US forces.

TR