April 24, 2007 4:42
Gates of Iraq
The flap about the wall put up by the U.S. military separating Sunnis from Shiites in Baghdad brought the same unease I felt last week after Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke to the American Chamber of Commerce in Cairo. Gates's comments, like the Pentagon's idea to effectively "gate" Iraqi neighborhoods, perhaps reflect a growing Washington realism about the Iraqi venture. Yet they also indicate confusion about how to sort out the bloody mess and foreboding of what will happen if we can't.
The context, of course, to put it charitably, is that the Bush administration made some disastrous miscalculations in invading Iraq. Thus, it is difficult to have much confidence in its revisions of strategy, such as the Baghdad Security Plan, even when they are backed by pros like Gates and the new American ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker. If the Bush team couldn't get it right four years ago, when Iraqi as well as international support for the invasion was at its zenith, what success can we expect now, after around 70,000 Iraqis or more have been killed and some 4 million turned into refugees?
What struck me about Gates's comments in Cairo was his elaboration on previous general statements that he had made since succeeding Rumsfeld about the serious consequences of "failure." Now he spoke in terms of a "failed state in Iraq," of "chaos," that would "adversely impact the security and prosperity of every nation in the Middle East and Gulf region." He went on: "The first and secondary effects of a collapse in Iraq--with all of its economic, religious, security and geopolitical implications--will be felt in capitals and communities of the Middle East well before they are felt in Washington or New York. The forces that would be unleashed--of sectarian strife, of an emboldened extremist movement with access to sanctuaries--do not recognize or respect national boundaries." Listeners could be forgiven for feeling that this wasn't hyperbole, but a frightening preview from an ex-CIA director of what really may happen.
In the next breath, speaking of confusion, Gates was forced to acknowledge that despite his apocalyptic nightmare, "our commitment there is not unlimited"--that being, of course, because the bungling of the war has undermined American support for it. On Monday, congressional Democrats decided to send the White House a spending bill requiring the start of a troop withdrawal by Oct. 1. Gates's message is essentially that we can't afford to fail but don't be surprised if we do.
It would be nice to see the glass as half full, as Crocker suggested in an interview with al-Iraqiya last week, when he spoke of the violence being perpetrated by tiny minorities and praised the Iraqis' "real sense of determination to find a way through these problems." Crocker is no doubt sincere, yet keep in mind that he and Gates have been brought in to clean up the messes made by others in the administration, and both have humbling personal experiences they spoke about last week that underline the limits of American influence in the Middle East. Crocker survived the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut in 1983, an act that presaged the failure of a U.S. military-backed effort to end Lebanon's civil war. Gates held talks with the Iran's revolutionary prime minister in 1979 about keeping shah-era relations with Iran on track. Three days later, as Gates noted in Cairo last week, Iranian radicals seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran; that Iranian prime minister, a moderate interested in better relations with Washington, was quickly pushed from office. As with Lebanon and Iran, whatever dreams Bush may still have in Iraq, having them is not as simple as accomplishing them.
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
About The Middle East Blog
Tim McGirk, TIME's Jerusalem Bureau Chief, arrived in the Middle East after covering Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Read more
Scott MacLeod, TIME's Cairo Bureau Chief since 1998, has covered the Middle East and Africa for the magazine for 22 years. Read more
Andrew Lee Butters moved to Beirut in 2003, and began working for TIME in Iraq during the Fallujah uprising of 2004. Read more
RSS Feed
 |
Reader Comments (3)
It's good to know that not everyone in the Cheney/Bush Admin. has drank the Cool-Aid.
Posted by sonny c. | April 24, 2007 8:19 PM
Sheesh--evidently some people do need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing; the difference between Vietnam, Lebanon, and Iran--versus Iraq--is that BIG OIL only just signed BIG CONTRACTS for all that high-grade Iraq crude!!!
Perhaps (WHAT???!!!), you, yourself, have made some BIG miscalculations here. One only needs to consider how the Iraq Study Group recommended that we "make friends" with Iran (or invade???!!!), because of their ENORMOUS deposits of fossil fuel!!!
Right, yes sir--at issue is "the serious consequences of 'failure.'" However, what we have here isn't a "frightening preview from an ex-CIA director," rather it's SOP--create global instability and the price of gasoline skyrockets dramatically!!!
Obviously, the current goal of the U.S. Government is to institute the DRAFT, to make damned sure the oil remains flowing!!!
During the Vietnam War, some hamlets were encircled with walls--but the jungle offered an easy escape following hit and run type attacks. And wouldn't that be the case with the walls at issue here? They don't look too difficult to breach...
What does make sense to me would be to encircle all Iraqi cities with a pair of fences, and then conduct "major sweeps" with metal detectors... Start around five miles out, and simply put up one of those chain link fences that are integrated with alarm wires... The second fence would go up maybe 200 yards further out (to keep someone from catapulting a load of explosives over). Mount cameras at intervals, and scramble helicopters or jeep patrols whenever someone crosses the fence on their way in...
Posted by Michael L. Wagner | April 25, 2007 2:13 AM
I know that this may sound unpatriotic but the thought entered my head after reading this article. In Darfur there has been a humanitarian crisis for many years and it has finally started to recieve the international attention that it desereves. Many people have opened their eyes to the injustices caused either directly or indirectly by the Sudaneese govenrment and the jangjangweed militias that have created between 2 and 2.5 million refugees. That is a staggering number, but when I read that the current war in Iraq has created 4 million refugees I was a little confused. Is it possible that we could possibly be in the same boat as those who promote genocide. It all comes down to our motives. If we are doing this beacuse we honestly believe that these sacrifices made by the Iraqi people will all be worth it in the end and we are there to create a better Iraq then in no way are we in the same league as those mentioned earlier. If however, at the bottom of all of this there is a puddle of oil in the shape of a dollar sign then I can't be to sure. If anything can be taken from this it is that I am a twenty year old college student and I am making a comparison between the US, the country that I love, and promoters of genocide. That in itself is not good for anyone, Americans, Iraqis, and myself, but that does not take away from the fact that comparisons can be made. Luckily, beacuse I am a naive college student, there is still hope for this situation. What if instead of saying that America is either in Iraq for oil only, or strictly for the Iraqi people, it was honestly there for both. What if we could invest in the Iraqi oil producing infastucture and distribute that money directly to the Iraqi people. We as Americans should know that the only thing that talks better than guns is money. What if we bought Iraqi peace by using Iraqi oil. And if we could possibly create a more peaceful Iraq who would blame us for taking a little for ourselves? Money can start wars and it can also stop them, it is the biggest motivator known to man. Obviously there are many obstacles that stand in the way such as, creating an Iraq that is safe enough to invest in, distributing money that could end up in the hands of terrorists, and further encouraging an anti-American/capitalist sentiment from orthodox muslims in the middle east, but hey like I said, I am a naive idealist college student. I get away with proposing radical ideas. But in my opinion that is just what this country needs.
Posted by Michael Watson | April 26, 2007 12:43 AM