|
Redirecting Iraq’s
campaign
Fox News Contributor
In short, President George
W. Bush’s plan for “redirecting” the Iraq campaign is logical, in
line with the war on terror and targets the correct enemies of Iraq,
of democracies and of the United States. But the plan needs to fit
within a global vision of winning the global conflict with the
Jihadists, on a long term policy, win the support of the new
Congress, and be well explained to the American people by the
various levels of the Administration. This is where the beef is. On
the other hand, the response by the Democratic led Congress as
stated by Senator Dick Durbin (D-MI) is also logical, touches
sensitive issues if the Iraq battlefield, and lays out the normal
outcome of a strategic success: that is the return of the troops. So
are the White House and Congress in harmony? We will see. Both have
advanced what is essentially logical. The President challenge is to
make sure his bureaucracy follows him thoroughly, and the Congress’
challenge is to make sure the American public sees the big picture
the legislators are not revealing yet for the future. Let’s wait and
see how Washington’s new dual approach will fare in the very near
future.
President Bush’s
renewed strategy
Following are quick comments
on the main relevant points in the President’s speech, immediately
after he made his announcements.
1) The description of the
foes: It has survived pressures put by overseas and domestic
forces on the US to change the rhetoric: Yes the radical Islamists
(which I still propose to coin Jihadists) on the one hand and the
Iranian Mullahs regime are the combined adversary of both Iraqi
democracy and the US, as well as of peace and security in the
region.
2) The
Baghdad Plan: The
suggestion that saturating the capital with as much troops needed to
clean up, maintain the strategic security and transfer to the Iraqi
forces is by itself logical, if the global commitment is to
strategically win the war and not to win a big battle so that troops
can be quickly withdrawn regardless of future developments. But the
new Baghdad Plan makes sense only if there is a new Iraq plan as a
whole. If the so-called “surge” is only to satisfy American pride
now, Americans will pay a higher price later in the process. But if
the plan is to move the geopolitics of the War forward, the Baghdad
step fits the wider puzzle of surging Iraq out of the current
equation. So, if the plan is successful, and the city is somewhat
transformed into a “security island” and a launching pad for wider
circles of Government led offensives all the way to the border, this
is a winning vision. And the “ifs” are very important
3) Embedding: Another
commitment is very important and should have been implemented
earlier: embedding US units in larger Iraqi forces. General Abizaid
has recommended it. Many voices (including modestly myself during
the invasion in 2003) have called desperately to perform the
embedding at all stages. An Iraqi Army fighting its enemies with US
and coalition forces at its core is a winning card in the conflict.
But this supposes a strong support by Iraq’s political
establishment. Washington cannot immerse its forces within Iraq’s
new units and fight along with them, while Baghdad’s politicians
criticize the American ally on Arab TV networks. They cannot have it
both ways. The President and the Democratic response seemed to have
clarified this to the Iraqi Government.
4) al Qaeda’s objectives:
The President description of al Qaeda’s objectives is drawn from
reality. Indeed, the organization, its Salafi and Wahabi supporters
wants to control the “triangle,” and particularly the Anbar province
to launch a “radical Islamic empire.” The President shouldn’t be
afraid to give it the name al Qaeda uses: a Caliphate
ألخلافة
5)
Iran and Syria:
Perhaps the most surprising to the political elite in this country
(US) and in the region, was the clear position towards the Iranian
and Syrian regimes and their policies regarding Iraq. While the
anti-American camp was beating the drum during the past months,
announcing that Washington has completely fallen to the reality of
Tehran and Damascus’ “wisdom,” the White House’s new plan shattered
these fantasies: no, there won’t be surrender to Ahmedinijad and
Assad. Instead the President, naturally and calmly, reconfirmed what
military, security and local observers have known all along: Iran
and Syria are aiding and abetting the Terror war in Iraq and
providing “material support” to the Jihadists. The President vowed
the US and its allies would “interrupt and destroy thannouncement is
by far the single most important statement. I would even see it as
higher strategically than the Baghdad’s surge. For by deterring the
two regimes from crumbling the young democracy in Iraq, America will
begin seeing and also understanding the outcome of the conflict. The
“other steps” announced by Mr. Bush are of the language understood
by the Mullahs to the East and the Baathists to the West of Iraq:
Deploying a strike force in the Persian Gulf, activating
intelligence capacities and installing Patriot systems across from
Iran is the only message that would reach the ears of the Pasdarans
commanders and get back to Muqtada al Sadr in Karbala. But again,
along with these “messages” Washington should be talking to the
Iranian opposition as well and at the same time. This is the
framework I referred to above: A surge in Baghdad makes sense only
if it is part of a surge in Iraq.
6)
Turkey: Another
smart statement was to inform Ankara that a cooperation between Iraq
and Turkey can reassure the “Kemalist” Republic that no chaos will
enflame its south eastern provinces, while Iraq’s Kurds will be part
of security arrangements. Such a message could calm the concerns of
both the Kurds in Northern Iraq and the Turkish secular
establishment; however the Islamists elite may have other plans.
7) Tehran’s Nukes and
Threats: Pointing out that a nuclear Iran under a “hateful ideology”
is not going to be accepted by the region, and by the international
community, is another important point. This red line has to be
reaffirmed, especially as Ahmedinijad and his HizbAllah’s allies in
Lebanon are waging a war of attrition against the moderates both
Sunnis and Shiia in the region. Reminding Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
Jordan and the Gulf principalities that a collapse in Iraq and a
defeat of the US in the region will be a prelude to an offensive by
Iran’s regime against them, is a must.
8) The big picture:
Last but not least, reminding Americans and democracies around the
world that the War on Terror will be decided by the outcome of an
“ideological struggle” between “moderation and extremists” is
needed. It is important that the President, Congress but also the
intellectual establishment expands its condemnation of the “hateful
ideology,” names it and prescribes the medicine: freedom. It was
crucial that the speech would indicate that the other candidates to
democratic statehood in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine are
looking at Iraq’s outcome. Equally important was to predict that
Terrorism won’t stop and that victory in the Arab world would occur
when democracy will turn the tides, as I will make the case in my
forthcoming book this spring.
Finally, by calling on
Congress to form a bipartisan committee and by naming a seasoned
leader such as Senator Joe Lieberman to work on a new consensus, Mr.
Bush did the right thing that is to respond to the American public’s
message sent last fall, but also during the elections of 2004: Unity
against the Jihadists.
The Democratic Party
response
Senator Dick Durbin
(D-Michigan) delivered the Democratic response. Here again,
bypassing the traditional and natural partisan styles, many of the
Senator’s points were logical. Here is a summarized evaluation:
1)
Escalation and “new
direction”: While it is true that the
US needs a “new direction” in the War on Terror, the “direction”
should be in line with a strategic and global response to the Jihadi
plans. Hence, the measurement is not about escalation or
de-escalation, it is about weakening the enemy and adapting to its
mutation. Any strategic analyst would recommend that when the enemy
escalates, you should find a solution to the escalation, not dodge
it. For the next step of the enemy is to perform another escalation.
Iran, Syria, HizbAllah and al Qaeda’s constellation are doing just
that.
2) The Abizaid doctrine:
Senator Durbin referred to General John Abizaid’s recommendation not
to increase US forces unless Iraqis would increase their
participation. The argument is not philosophical. General Abizaid
didn’t state that increasing the forces is a wrong principle, but
suggested (and I agreed with him fully) that this surge has to be
part of a clear “Iraqization.” This equation seems to be a common
point to the Administration and the new majority in Congress but
both parties seem shy to admit that they have a significant analysis
in common: that is to ask for an Iraqi commitment to the campaign.
3) The sacrifices:
The Senator’s response touched again the most sensitive cord:
American lives are being lost and the price is heavy. No one would
argue with this ethical, philosophical and human fact. Losing lives
(pass 3,000) in any circumstances is painful, whatever the
circumstances are. But again, in the wider perspective of a war with
a determined enemy, the bigger question is this: Would ceasing the
campaign in the region insure full security in New York, San
Francisco and Midwest America on the medium still raging in the US
and worldwide. Arguments are solid and powerful on all sides, but at
the end of the day the party I would believe is the Jihadists
themselves: They want to destroy America’s national security and the
region’s hope for liberty. Until experts in Jihadism prove Bin Laden
and Ahmedinijad wrong, the rational approach is to keep liberating,
or at least trying to. Any alternative choice should provide us with
a full plan as to the protection of the international community from
the new menace of the century.
4)
The Iraqis must move forward: Perhaps
the most powerful statement made by the Senator was to strongly
address the Iraqi Government. On this issue, Senator Durbin was
right on target: Those who have been “liberated” from Saddam must
rise and assume their responsibilities. Mr. Durbin’s words cannot be
brighter enough. Yes, America paid a dear price over the past four
years: 3,000 lives and tens of billions of dollars to remove Saddam
Hussein and allow the Iraqi new justice system to try him. The US
helped the Iraqis vote three times, draft a constitution and form a
new army. In this fourth year, it is time for Iraqis to stand. In
many interviews in Arabic on Iraqi radios I challenged local
intellectuals and leaders to move the front lines of the struggle to
Iraqi hands. I have called on Iraqi academics and public figures to
visit the United States and talk to its people. It was illogical to
see the American debate taking place without Iraqi voices. Senator
Durbin touched an important cord: The Iraqi Government must be
courageous and disarm the militias. Iraqi leaders are ultimately the
only ones “to lead their nation to freedom.” And as the Democratic
response underlined “they cannot be calling for 9/11″ to secure
neighborhoods and Mosques areas. That was the Abizaid vision: Iraqi
soldiers fighting for their cities. I often argued that Iraqi
sacrifices were being offered in the wrong places: waiting to be
recruited in front of police centers; in front of schools, in buses,
in the market place. Instead, if the Iraqi people is consenting to
offer sacrifices, allow him to offer its martyrs in a battlefield
against al Qaeda or the Iranian militias. But at the end of the day,
this is an Iraqi decision, and again both the President and the
Senators seemed to be united in this regard.
5)
US commitment:
The Senator’s words were carefully
chosen when speaking about US commitment. He clearly announced a
strong bipartisan support to the troops: They will be equipped,
backed up and well armed. That should go without any doubt. Also,
there should not be an open ended commitment to the Iraqis for a
continuous flow of men and women to fight for them, and instead of
them. But at the same time, the new Congress must come to realize
that the pendulum is not swinging between “fixing Iraq” and “coming
back home.” The world is not functioning like this. The US went to
Iraq to face off with a “threat” not to repair a constitution or
arrest a Noriega. Our legislators must hold all the hearings,
briefings and meetings they can hold to see clearer in this War on
Terror. True, it isn’t about WMDs that weren’t found yet but at the
same time it is not also about quitting a conflict unilaterally at
the timing of the enemy. Both parties need to sit down outside
politics and prepare the country to face a threat which is not going
away, just because we hope it would.
***
Dr Walid Phares is a Senior
Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, visiting
Fellow wit the European Foundation for Democracy and the author of
Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West |
