The Iraq war is winnable, but not by the U.N.

Iraq Forum

A week of counterattacks by the U.S. military has improved security in Iraq, but we wish we could say the same about judgment in Washington. All sorts of people are drawing the wrong lessons from the surge of violence, enough so that the war could still be won on the ground in Iraq but lost in Georgetown and the East Side of Manhattan.

The most important lesson of the past 10 days is that the assaults in Sunni Fallujah and parts of the Shiite south do not represent a broad national uprising against the coalition. If they ever do--if most Iraqis really don't want us there--then the U.S. would have no choice but to leave. But most Shiites haven't joined Moqtada al-Sadr's call for revolt, and his Mahdi Army has melted away at the sight of U.S. forces. The Fallujah insurgents, meanwhile, are the same Baathist elements who want to restore the old regime that most Iraqis were glad to be rid of. In short, the Iraq war remains winnable, notwithstanding the quagmire chorus that has once again broken out in Washington.

The latest old advice, including from John Kerry, is to turn it all over to the United Nations. It's hard to know what specifically proponents mean by this, since the current U.N. presence in Baghdad consists only of political envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. If Mr. Brahimi can serve as an honest broker among Iraqi factions, then he might do some good. Then again, Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post reports that he began a meeting with the Iraqi Governing Council by declaring that he came "as a brother Arab"--in the presence of two Kurds and a Turkoman member.

A broader U.N. mission fled Iraq the first time it was attacked last year, and only yesterday Kofi Annan ruled out sending "a large U.N. team" for the "foreseeable future" for security reasons. That means U.S. soldiers would still do the fighting, albeit under U.N. command. Pakistani U.N. troops sat in their barracks while Army Rangers took casualties in Mogadishu, and Dutch U.N. soldiers let the Serbs drag Bosnian men off to their deaths in the "safe" zone they controlled in former Yugoslavia. The last thing U.S. military officers need is to have their plans for controlling Fallujah overruled by some U.N. political actor answerable to the French and Russians.

It's also far from clear that Iraqis would welcome control by the same U.N. that administered the corrupt Oil for Food program that enriched Saddam Hussein. If the price of U.N. involvement is to sweep the Oil for Food scandal under the carpet, then Iraqis would be justifiably furious.

Another Washington mistake is to see the past week as a failure of "Iraqification." We said long before the war that the U.S. should train and supply Iraqis opposed to Saddam, and the delay in doing that has cost us. But the Iraq Civil Defense Corps was never supposed to be a front-line force; it was formed to assist coalition troops with intelligence and other duties. The failure of one of its brigades to deploy to Fallujah is a problem that needs to be addressed at the command level, but other units have been fighting bravely. The number of pro-coalition Iraqis killed in action since September has been roughly equal to the number of Americans.

The spin in recent days that no Iraqis are willing to fight in their own cause is simply false. And some of the people now questioning the loyalty of the ICDC are the same folks who said it was a mistake to disband an Iraqi army loyal to Saddam. General John Abizaid's decision to reappoint some former Iraqi officers to ICDC leadership posts may help, but only if the choices are made carefully enough to exclude the worst Baath elements. De-Baathification was not a mistake as far as the Shiites are concerned.





After 35 years of terror, and uncertain that they can depend on the U.S. in the long run, many Iraqis are also understandably wary of speaking up too loudly or too soon. More of them will begin to do so once there is more clarity about what is going to happen when sovereignty is transferred on June 30, and especially when elections are going to be held. One reason Mr. Sadr is able to exploit Shiite fears is because no one knows when or whether there will ever be an election.
Coalition officials have been trying so hard to make sure that the Sunnis of Saddam's former strongholds feel wanted that they've risked alienating the Shiite majority. Uncertainty has only fed those fears. If even U.S. regent L. Paul Bremer can't explain what is going to happen after June 30, then no wonder Shiites who have lived in fear for decades are suspicious. More clarity about the political direction is now the most urgent need beyond security.

On the politics, by the way, the White House and Mr. Bremer would do well to look to America's own experience with federalism. One legitimate Iraqi fear is that they will be ruled again by an all-powerful central government in Baghdad. The coalition might find Iraqis in the provinces more amenable to political compromise if they control things that matter, such as having a direct claim on some Iraqi tax receipts or on U.S. reconstruction aid. It's an illusion to think, as some in the CIA and coalition headquarters still do, that the way to solve the Sunni problem is by rekindling Iraqi nationalism through control in Baghdad. Moderate Sunnis are far more likely to come around to the new reality if they see that they will have some local control.

All of this is contingent on improving security, which means winning in the Sunni Triangle and against Mr. Sadr. U.S. forces clearly have the power to do so, if they are given the authority. The Marines in Fallujah were making great progress before the recent cease-fire, rolling up terror safehouses, bomb factories and foreign fighters. Allowing a respite at the request of the Iraqi Governing Council may make sense if it wins more Iraqi support for the effort, but the reality is that the remnants of the Fedayeen and Saddam's Mukhabarat have to be killed or caught. The last thing they want is a free Iraq.





Unlike many in Washington in the past week, President Bush does not seem to be panicking. One thing we wish he'd do better is explain the realities in Iraq, and his strategy for victory, as he no doubt did at the press conference scheduled for last night after our deadline. If the November election is a referendum on Iraq, then the one sure way for Mr. Bush to lose would be to dodge the subject. Especially with the chattering classes wringing their hands or counseling retreat, Mr. Bush needs to help Americans understand why failure cannot be an option.

source

The UN (though great in concept) doesn't do anything. They take in great amounts of money and seem to do nothing. Iraqi insurgents actually chased out the UN. Yeah, they are really helpful.

For history, I am writing a paper on the UN, and why they should be disbanded, it will be good when its finished.

In wake of all the uprisings in Iraq, it looks to me the we have 2 choices.
Cut and Run (To the benefit of those who hate us and want to see us fail) is not an option. "Our colors don't run".
or,
Add additional troops and stomp them into submission. Double the troop count and kill every insurgent in the country. Take no prisoners.
I prefer the latter.

Bush is not considering sending more troops into Iraq during an election season. After all he gave the impression that the war was all but certain victory. Sending more troops into Iraq now would give him the appearance of (exactly what he's doing) playing Iraq by ear.

Iraq will be problematic for years to come gentlemen make no mistake about that. We have convinced no one (outside of the US) and only solidified the beliefs of those that think we are unjust infidels seeking the riches and resources of their holy lands.

Now we cannot simply "cut n run" as some of you think but we are responsible for Iraq, something Colin Powell evidently told Bush months before invading. We are involved in what's my opinion as a no win situation for the US and every thing to lose. Even if by some miracle we stabilize Iraq the stigma of unjustification will hang over the US like the stench of a dark morbid cloud. The only way out I can see is through international efforts of the UN.

Bush will avoid as much blood shed (for US troops) as he can before Nov 3rd. It's not in his best interest. We must stay and fight now and unfortunately die. As I tally up the cost, I personally do not think it is worth it. Iraq is no better off now that it's ever been. It's complete chaos and anarchy there and just as it is in another region in the Mid East, the suicide bombers will never relent and insurgence will seem be manufactured as the US fight for causes that seem to elude the logic of world opinion.