Every time I post about something political I vow afterwards to not post any more about political things. But we really are coming to the edge here. If this report is correct, then Sistani has layed down something of an ultimatum, and the U.S. response will decide the future of Iraq, the region, and possibly the entire world.
I realize that seeing global political issues in stark binary terms is probably a sign of naivete, but nonetheless it really does seem like the U.S. has backed itself into a corner where there really are only two options.
If the U.S. heeds Sistani's warning they will not go into Najaf to get Sadr. This will hand Sadr an obvious and powerful victory, but worse, it will also grant him a base of operations from which to build and safeguard his army. U.S. forces will have to do something like the "Karzai strategy" outlined by big jimmy above: pull back from the cities into heavily fortified bases out in the desert where U.S. troops will have to sit around waiting to get picked off by the sea of militants who will now be able to mount attacks against them and then retreat to the safety of their cities where the U.S. can not pursue them.
This sounds untenable militarily.
But, on the other hand, if the U.S. goes into Najaf to arrest or kill Sadr and crush his army (as they have vowed quite explicitly to do,) then it looks like Sistani might call on Shi'ites to "resist with their last breath". There are 140,000,000 Shi'ites in the world (for comparison, this is roughly the population of Russia.) And it seems like Iraqi Shi'ites, at the very least, will heed his call (that's 60% of 25 million people, or 15,000,000 people.) Short of flattening whole cities from the air and killing a substantial part of the population (hundreds of thousands?) I strongly doubt that 130,000 U.S. troops can hold their ground against the entire population of Iraq.
So what's the plan?
I still say immediate withdrawal is the best bet. Although my plan is different from the ones we have started to hear in the media which are all "declare victory and get out." My plan is to "admit defeat, apologize, and get out." Hardly a likely scenario. But also, it occurs to me, couldn't the U.S. hand the whole thing over to Sistani? He has said numerous times that he doesn't want political power - but maybe they could leave it up to him and allow him to choose the person to be in power (followed by a nationwide election - which Sistani wants - to be held as soon as he thinks it is possible.) In short, keep the troops there and give Sistani operational control - whatever he says goes. That might possibly work too.
My fear is that the U.S. plan is more along the lines of "let's poke a little more at this hornets nest - maybe something good will finally come out of it." ABC news is certainly making it sound like we are getting ready to attack.
|
I realize that seeing global political issues in stark binary terms is probably a sign of naivete, but nonetheless it really does seem like the U.S. has backed itself into a corner where there really are only two options.
If the U.S. heeds Sistani's warning they will not go into Najaf to get Sadr. This will hand Sadr an obvious and powerful victory, but worse, it will also grant him a base of operations from which to build and safeguard his army. U.S. forces will have to do something like the "Karzai strategy" outlined by big jimmy above: pull back from the cities into heavily fortified bases out in the desert where U.S. troops will have to sit around waiting to get picked off by the sea of militants who will now be able to mount attacks against them and then retreat to the safety of their cities where the U.S. can not pursue them.
This sounds untenable militarily.
But, on the other hand, if the U.S. goes into Najaf to arrest or kill Sadr and crush his army (as they have vowed quite explicitly to do,) then it looks like Sistani might call on Shi'ites to "resist with their last breath". There are 140,000,000 Shi'ites in the world (for comparison, this is roughly the population of Russia.) And it seems like Iraqi Shi'ites, at the very least, will heed his call (that's 60% of 25 million people, or 15,000,000 people.) Short of flattening whole cities from the air and killing a substantial part of the population (hundreds of thousands?) I strongly doubt that 130,000 U.S. troops can hold their ground against the entire population of Iraq.
So what's the plan?
I still say immediate withdrawal is the best bet. Although my plan is different from the ones we have started to hear in the media which are all "declare victory and get out." My plan is to "admit defeat, apologize, and get out." Hardly a likely scenario. But also, it occurs to me, couldn't the U.S. hand the whole thing over to Sistani? He has said numerous times that he doesn't want political power - but maybe they could leave it up to him and allow him to choose the person to be in power (followed by a nationwide election - which Sistani wants - to be held as soon as he thinks it is possible.) In short, keep the troops there and give Sistani operational control - whatever he says goes. That might possibly work too.
My fear is that the U.S. plan is more along the lines of "let's poke a little more at this hornets nest - maybe something good will finally come out of it." ABC news is certainly making it sound like we are getting ready to attack.
- jim 4-13-2004 7:18 pm