OPINION & EDITORIAL
Potential withdrawal imperils Iraqis
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Mike Skelly:
- Students' behavior during games suitable (February 1, 2006)
- Out-of-state students help system's status (October 24, 2006)
- Burger Boat Co. contract latest sign of troubled system (February 8, 2006)
- Bush opposition needs backbone (October 31, 2006)
- Cartoon uproar bad for Islam, West (February 16, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Democrats lack specific strategy (February 1, 2007)
- Troop funding shouldn't be jeopardized (April 10, 2007)
- Democrats play dangerous game (November 20, 2007)
- '08 hopefuls test political climate (November 15, 2006)
- Bush opposition needs backbone (October 31, 2006)
by Mike Skelly
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
As one of the central issues that helped to decide the outcome of the 2006 mid-term elections, the war in Iraq faces the possibility of imminent change like almost no other issue today. Many predict that with the Democrats taking Congress, their pre-election calls for timetables and withdrawals may soon come to fruition, thus creating a convenient end to a debacle that has plagued the United States for the last three years. Yet, even though the war was entered under specious premises and lacked from the onset a comprehensive strategy for managing post-Saddam Iraq, these facts do not relieve the U.S. of its moral obligation to ensure that Iraq returns to some semblance of normality.
While the Iraq war has undoubtedly been politicized and will undoubtedly stay that way, expedient political outcomes should not become the defining objective regarding strategy. It is necessary to realize that as long as the United States has troops committed in the region, politicians should not create untenable parameters that unjustifiably limit troop action for the sake of gaining political capital. It is essential that Congress and foreign policy objectives take into account the needs and realities of troop conditions in Iraq before making hasty decisions.
The wisdom in the proposition that the U.S. listen to its military commanders in order to make informed foreign policy decisions is self-evident, yet its actual practice has been lacking at best. One of the most circulated news stories of last week was Gen. John Abizaid's testimony before Congress that current troop levels were insufficient to adequately manage an occupation in Iraq. What is unique about his testimony is not the amount of attention it received, but its similarity to a testimony in 2003 by then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki.
In his original statement, Gen. Shinseki estimated that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to secure post-war Iraq, a figure that was called "wildly off the mark" by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. The Pentagon claimed at the time that 100,000 troops would be a sufficient force, an estimate that time and experience has since disproved. After his testimony, Gen. Shinseki was promptly removed from his post and forced into retirement, an example that shows the unwillingness of the administration and political officials to seriously consider external viewpoints regarding Iraq strategy.
The mid-term elections serve as a de facto turning point in Iraq strategy, with Democrats now controlling oversight responsibility. More importantly, they are in a position to express contrary opinions combined with the power to enforce them. While the Bush administration's continued failure in Iraq is what surely propelled some to victory, standing opposed to all current policies would not be the best choice for new congressmen to take.
In order to restore Iraq to a modicum of stability, there must be a comprehensive and robust infrastructure present in Iraq, consisting of a relatively stable democratic process and trustworthy and capable security forces. For this to occur, the military must be granted the resources to stabilize the country, which would allow for the basic formations of the requisite events to cement itself. What many politicians fear is the commitment of more troops to the region, which increases the risk to American soldiers and also appears to extend the length of the occupation. But while this might not be the most favorable outcome, if it is what the military perceives as the most opportune use of resources, politicians must respond to it with the necessary due diligence and open minds.
During this new Congress, it is imperative that politicians make informed decisions and be aware of what the operational repercussions will be. While "victory" in Iraq may no longer be a possibility and current strategy in Iraq is proving fruitless, for the U.S. to abandon Iraq in this state would only create more serious and widespread problems down the road.
Mike Skelly (meskelly@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in finance and political science.
Anonymous (November 21, 2006 @ 7:15am):
Yeah, if we leave then Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria will have to deal with it. Who could ever imagine countries in the same region dealing with regional problems?
The United States should only be in Iraq to guard the oil derricks. We really don't give a damn about their fledgling democracy, we just love them for their black gold.
Anonymous (November 21, 2006 @ 10:19am):
And what's wrong with oil? Don't complain about "blood for oil" unless you've never been in a car. We should leave Iraq, and let them kill each other off. Then do the same to Iran, then N. Korea.
Anonymous (November 21, 2006 @ 12:38pm):
What oil? I don't see any oil coming to the US.
Anonymous (November 21, 2006 @ 12:54pm):
Who's complaining about blood for oil? I was suggesting that we need to at least stay for the sake of the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world.
I think blood for oil is a good trade, in fact. I actually love wasting oil so much that I leave my car running in the driveway all night. That way I never have to worry about sitting on cold seats; brrr, I don't even want to think about that unfortunate scenario.
Anonymous (November 21, 2006 @ 1:31pm):
More and more I think that it was a mistake to go to war with Saddam. We should have left him in Kuwait and then let him take Saudi Arabia. He'd be taking care of the "Iran problem" - they'd never have nukes during his watch. He'd be pumping oil like crazy and the price would half what it is - or less. Hard cheese for the people of the Middle East but the USA would be better off.
Too bad we didn't use all that money to build pebble bed nuclear plants and free ourselves from any dependence on imported energy.
No 9-11 on this timeline either because OBL would still be our buddy.
I don't see this ending well no matter what is done (of the things politically possible anyway).
Anonymous (November 21, 2006 @ 3:28pm):
Blood for oil is a necessary, if distasteful, trade-off. Oil dependency doesn't mean we may have to drive less someday. It means that if the oil supplying countries ever conspire to cut us off, what little oil we could get our hands on would be so prohibitively expensive as to be meaningless.
Too expensive to drive to the store for milk. Too expensive to make lipstick and sweat pants out of to look good on the drive. Too expensive to make plastic cartons for the milk. Too expensive to ship the milk across the country in time to prevent spoilage. Too expensive to fuel a military to defend that shipment. Too expensive to burn for electricity or heat. You get the picture. We are oil addicts and eventually we're going to get sick.
Our way of life would literally come to a screeching halt if our oil supply were compromised, and then we're looking at third world conditions for a long time while we get our act together. So yeah, blood for oil or third world country, your call.
