THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume IX, Issue # 75, April 29, 2007
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
IRAQ: IS IT A WAR OR A BATTLE?
By Alan Caruba
VIEWING THE U.S. INVASION & OCCUPATION OF IRAQ AS ONE BATTLE IN A LONG WAR: ALAN CARUBA ARGUES
THAT IT IS TIME FOR A STRATEGIC WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ, THAT WE NEED TO BRING OUR MILITARY FORCES HOME
IN ORDER TO RETRAIN, REBUILD, RE-EQUIP, & EXPAND THEM TO MEET THE CHALLENGES THAT LIE AHEAD IN THE LONG
WAR WITH ISLAMISM
FULL STORY:
The political theatre being played out in Congress and the White House cannot disguise the fact that our adventure in Iraq
has been a succession of blunders, and the only question is how and when we shall make our exit?
In his book, The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace, Ali A. Allawi, who spent two and a half
years as a minister in the transitional Iraqi governments that followed the U.S. invasion and overthrow of the Baathist
regime, writes, “At the end of the Governing Council’s life, I could see the tell-tale signs of disintegration — both in the
incoherence of the American ‘project’ in Iraq and in the utter mediocrity, incompetence, and venality of the new political
order.”
The U.S.A. has been “defeated,” not by al-Qa'ida or the “insurgents,” but by the ancient tribalism of the Middle East, the
vast religious schism between Sunni and Shiite, and by having no insight whatever regarding the role corruption plays in
all areas of Middle East governance.
Had we merely removed Saddam Hussein and left, we would have spared ourselves a great deal of embarrassment. The
man and his Baathist Party literally slaughtered tens of thousands of Iraqis. His “neighbors,” especially Iran, wanted him
gone.
I began 2007 saying it was time to leave Iraq. Sending more troops to the war zone strikes me as a bad idea. Our military,
which has performed valiantly, needs time to rest and prepare for the next challenge. In the broad context of our presence in
the Middle East, we have fought a battle in Iraq, not a war.
The perturbations of the Middle East are going to continue for a very long time. We need to bring our forces home, rebuild,
retrain and re-equip them. And, yes, we need to expand our Army to meet the challenges that lie ahead because the
Islamists will interpret the withdrawal as weakness. Let us remember we are still the world’s lone superpower.
Declaring, as U.S. Senator Harry Reid did, that the war is “lost” only demonstrates the narrowness of his vision and that of
the Democrats he leads. Just as Americans engaged in a long Cold War with the Soviet Union, interspersed with some “hot”
conflicts, the war against the Jihadists will last a very long time -- at least a generation.
A report in the April 14, 2007, edition of Time Magazine spells out conditions affecting our soldiers, sailors, Marines,
and airmen that are impermissible. Colin Powell, former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says,
“The active army is about broken.” Last fall, General John Abizaid told a Harvard audience, “This is not an Army that was
built to sustain a long war.”
The decision to invade Saddam Hussein’s Iraq has been a succession of astonishing and serious blunders. In the words of
former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, “You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want.” We
went to war with an army trained and equipped for a short duration of intense conflict.
In three weeks, we were in downtown Baghdad. What followed next was mass looting. “Bad things happen,” said Rumsfeld.
They have continued to happen ever since.
After Saddam was gone, the Iraqis held elections, hastily wrote a constitution, and then put an interim government in place
under U.S. guidance, despite our ignorance of the schisms that existed. Much, if not all, of this was cosmetic and subject to
arbitrary deadlines. The blunders by everyone involved are too numerous to list.
For now, however, the longer we remain, the more we feed the resentment of the various Iraqi groups maneuvering for control.
It’s a no-win situation. If you’re looking for gratitude, forget it.
A double-edged sword, 9/11 forced the Muslims of the Middle East to address the issue of terrorism and, at this point, with
bombs going off again in Morocco, Algeria and Iraq, the governments of these and other Muslim nations are committed, as
always, to ending the threat of Islamism.
They have been dealing with Islamists for decades. Egypt, since the 1950s, has been a hotbed of Islamism in the form of the
Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian government having dealt with the threat by jailing the Islamists and executing them, though
not fast enough to keep Anwar Sadat from being assassinated. Fifty-nine years after Israel’s independence, the Palestinians
still want to kill all of the Israelis and all of peoples of the Western world.
“Strategically,” the U.S. intervention in Iraq appeared to be a good idea to the neocons. Iraq is bordered by most of the other
nations in the region and would have been an ideal platform from which to project power. Now, our dearly acquired new
wisdom suggests we do so from somewhere “over the horizon.” Call it a learning curve.
Have we had any success in exporting stable constitutional democracy to Middle Eastern nations over the course of the last
century? Actually, no. Only Turkey is the exception and that was due to the leadership of Kemal Ataturk after World War I.
Recently, more than 300,000 Turks rallied to support secular government, and that is very good news. Pakistanis also rallied
to avoid government by mullahs. Call it progress. Even Muslims know that mullahs and ayatollahs have no idea how to run a
modern nation.
The last U.S. congressional elections confirmed that a slim majority of Americans have decided it is time to reach for the
bug-out bag and boogie on home. Just ask the Israelis how well occupation worked in Lebanon or the Gaza strip? Or, perhaps,
the former Soviets who tried to occupy Afghanistan?
Arabs may not have much to brag about, but they are a proud people, convinced of their moral superiority to the West. They
have long memories of Western nations imposing their will on the Middle East, and they resent it.
No one wants their nation occupied by a foreign army. So, let’s leave. We will likely return at some point to fight new battles
somewhere in the Middle East or the Horn of Africa, but between now and then we can rebuild our military and buy lots of
new ordnance.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
The Middle East & the Problem of Iraq
Page Two
Page One
The Problem of Rogue States:
Iraq as a Case History
National Strategy for Victory in Iraq
American Foreign Policy -- The Middle East
American Foreign Policy -- Constitutional Democracy:
U.S. Promotion of Constitutional Democracy in Foreign Countries
Middle East -- Arabs, Arab States,
& Their Middle Eastern Neighbors
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
International Politics & World Disorder:
War & Peace in the Real World
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
Counterterrorism & U.S. National Security
U.S. National Security Strategy
Alan Caruba is a veteran business and science writer, a Public Relations Counselor, and Founder of the National Anxiety Center, a
clearinghouse for information about media-driven scare campaigns. Caruba writes a weekly commentary, "Warning Signs," posted
on the Internet website of the National Anxiety Center, which is located at
www.anxietycenter.com.
Caruba’s new book, Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy, has been published by Merril Press.
© Alan Caruba 2007
Published with Permission of Alan Caruba
ACaruba@AOL.Com
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume IX, 2007
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity