Going Forward and Winning The War In Iraq

With the death of al-Zarqawi this week, pundits from all over the world are debating the issue of whether or not his death will placate the beast in Iraq. Will it stem the violence there? Most seem to say that in the short term there will be an uptick in violence, others say that it will have no effect at all, yet others say that a serious blow was in fact served. The truth remains to be played out as to which one is correct, but here’s The Eagle’s solution going forward……

1. Strike while the iron is hot. We have to roll up the rest of the al-Zarqawi crew, and get the rest of those foreign insurgents in body bags. Since the raid that killed the scumbag, 56 other raids have been conducted by Iraqi and American forces thanks to the treasure trove of intelligence that the al-Zarqawi raid yielded. Not only does this have to continue, but other terror groups must now fear that "eyes and ears" are indeed watching them. Increased cooperation with friendly Sunnis now seems to be working. It must continue.


2. Baghdad has to be secured. If this new government is to have credibility, they have to be able to move around freely OUTSIDE the Green Zone. Right now, they cannot. Since Baghdad contains nearly one-fourth of the Iraqi population, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and his cabinet must be able to move freely throughout the city if for no other reason than psychological reasons. Here the Eagle breaks with the president a bit and thinks that for a limited time MORE troops be sent in to achieve this objective..


3. The Saddam loyalists now provide the biggest percentage of the insurgency. Once and for all, they must be dealt with. Certain Sunni provinces are still hot zones after all this time, and after securing Baghdad, this must be the next priority. The installation of an independant Sunni as Defense Misister should go a long way in solving this terrible problem.


4. The Shiite militia must be disarmed immediately after Baghdad is secured as a show to the Sunnis that they will be protected. This may prove to be the most volatile issue of all. For the past two years, armed Shia militia and their death squads have been a major issue, and after the securing of Baghdad their usefulness ( if there ever was any ) is gone.


5. The oil pipelines must be secured and oil must flow in order to bring into the country badly needed capital. Here local tribes who extort money and criminals who divert supplies must be addressed and corruption be put under control.


6. The crack-pot fundamentalists imams must be marginalized. Take your choice as to how, but I was reading somewhere that people are now being threatened because they use ice, and the Prophet didn't use ice. Did he use guns, I wonder?


7. The security forces must continue to be nurtured, and the all important mid-level officer corps expanded as it matures. Going hand in hand with this, corruption must be weeded out here too. This may be easier said that done. Mid-level officers don't grow on trees, and this will happen only after the passage of time and the gaining of experience.


8. The Court system must be over-hauled and the issue of the Rule of Law versus Islamic theology must be addressed. This perhaps will be the greatest stumbling block of all as the country matures. However, IF this profoundly important piece of the puzzle can be solved, then the president's vision of a true democracy is well on it's way to becoming a reality......and certainly isn't "over the horizon" as some say.


At this point, only the will of the American people can make us "lose" this war. We are on the cusp of victory here, and slowly it is starting to dawn on the rest of us.


Posted by Sicilian Eagle at June 10, 2006 3:17 PM
Comments
Comment #156300

We must stand up and be heard. Those who oppose all that is good never shut up.
We must let the leaders of this country know that we are behind them in the push to TOTALLY demolish the forces of terror. Never let the enemy up, kill them and we’ll put our foot on the throat of all those who witness it.
It seems crazy but I have to remind the leftists that this is WAR. We must remember, it’s WAR.

Posted by: coonyjay at June 10, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #156302

I’m not sure if you are correct that we’re “on the cusp of victory,” but I sure hope you are. I agree 100% with your solutions (although, let’s face it, some of them are out of our control). You make a good case that we should table the “let’s pull out” talk for a bit to see exactly what effect this has. But at the risk of being labeled a pinko-left wing-traitor-commie (versus the the extreme-radical centrist that I am), I want to ask you a question…

The main complaint against the Bush administration’s execution of this war (or at least the most valid one in my book) is not that the “we’ll be greeted as liberators” prediction but the seeming failure to be prepared in case we were not viewed thusly. What I think is missing from your otherwise strong post is your thoughts on what to do if you’re wrong. Many people agree that this is the best opportunity we’ve had to knock the wind out of the insurgency’s sails, so what does that mean for our future efforts if it turns out to make no difference in the stability of the country or the number or young American boys coming home maimed or in body bags?

Posted by: adverbal at June 10, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #156306

adverbal

I have always thought this a battle of wills..ours…the Iraqi insurgents’,and our politicial opponents here in America.

Which is why I decided to post a few articles.

The Iraqis can’t defeat us militarily.We can lose only if we lose the will to fight.The problem has been that nation building (let’s be frank…that’s what we are doing) takes time…and here we started from scratch.

As I said before…many many mistakes were made…but the assessment that we would be greeted with open arms ranks right up..it showed how poor our intelligence and military planning had become.

I think all that has changed.

We have the absolute best fighting force in the world,the most experienced fighters,and now,finally,an intelligence service that has thrown off the Cold War mantle and is now headed finally in the right direction.

We won’t lose.

Now,absolutely,every effort has to be made to kill OBL and his number two.If that were to occur,then all of a sudden we are ahead of the curve.

The administration,finally,is heading in the right direction.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 10, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #156310

SE,

We’ve turned so many corners in this war, it almost seems we’re going around in circles.

How bout we get the basic services up and running 24/7?

One would think that would go a long way toward pulling more of the population in favor of the government.
And seeing that “Taj Majal” embassy we’ve built hasn’t helped either.

Posted by: Rocky at June 10, 2006 5:08 PM
Comment #156314

Rocky

You are absolutely correct..chasing our tail like a dog..no question…but now I think we have it figured out.

About the embassy….make no mistake…that embassy will service the entire area..and I fear will become even more important as this show-down with Iran approaches.

The best thing about this Defense guy..this former general in Saddam’s army who was imprisioned for 7 years by Saddam…is that he has no love lost for the Iranians….that’s key…

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 10, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #156316

SE

We did get a small amount of help from GITMO. Three inmates committed suicide. It must have been fear of a 500# bomb. At any rate they get to join their comrade in hades and we won’t have to worry about them going back to kill more American servicemen or innocent Iraqi’s.

Posted by: tomh at June 10, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #156330

tomh:

Interesting you think the Gitmo Detainees are all guilty. Its already proven that the vast majority of them are innocent.

Is it your contention that ALL of the Gitmo Detainees are guilty? Including the released British Detainees?

Posted by: Aldous at June 10, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #156333

SE,

My point about the embassy is that it is highly visible to the folks that still don’t have electricity and water service 24/7, and it is being built/rebuilt (as is the entire “green zone”), with imported concrete/cement, a commodity that was Iraq’s #2 export before Saddam was overthrown.

I’m not grousing, I’m just pointing out that we need to get our priorities a little more aligned on the “rebuilding” process if we want more of the Iraqi people to support our being there.

Posted by: Rocky at June 10, 2006 6:32 PM
Comment #156340

SE:

What a brilliant plan!!! I can’t believe noone’s thought of it!!!

We could use your approach in our country too!!!
1. Remove all subsidies in Agriculture.
2. Remove all pork barrel projects.
3. Remove all Lobbyists.

See? That’s my plan for the USA. Now when do you think my plan will be done?

Posted by: Aldous at June 10, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #156341

Rocky
Agreed.It’s sinful that they have electricity..what 8 hrs a day….same with water.These are things that win hearts and minds…plus..of corse…jobs…

They should do a WPA project there and for every Shia they hire,they hire a Sunni…let them work,eat and sleep together…

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 10, 2006 7:06 PM
Comment #156343

Aldous

Who proved they were innocent? Who proved they were guilty?

They were in a situation that required our military to hold them until the proper elements can deal with them, which are in the legal system as we type.

Posted by: tomh at June 10, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #156358

Yeah, I agree guys. Lets kill everyone. There isn’t a problem out there that can’t be solved by the end of a gun.

If we don’t kill them all, we are defeatists.

Posted by: i love war at June 10, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #156363

tomh:

Heh. You you acknowledge that they are not all guilty. How humane of you. Too bad you favor indefinite imprisonment for innocent people.

Posted by: Aldous at June 10, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #156380

SE, seems the problem is still the same , that is, we are half way into fighting a “war”. Perhaps #1 on your list should be to get rid of W and his cronies or Have more election cycles during war time or just pay off Haliburton so we can complete the effort. We either let the military go at it with full force or forget about it and get out. This half stepping, undermanning the effort is still not working.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 10, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #156393

Why do we need a plan? Mission Accomplished!

Posted by: Dave at June 10, 2006 11:22 PM
Comment #156397

Aldous
I acknowledged neither guilt or innocence. The question is since we do not know their names or circumstances that got them to GITMO, neither you nor I can declare their innocence or guilt.

Posted by: tomh at June 10, 2006 11:45 PM
Comment #156399

What War?

-Congress is the ONLY entity entitled to declare war. I can quite remember when they declared war.

Maybe because they NEVER DID!

Do you really think we are winning the “War” on terror?

If you do, you are blinded by your retardedness!

Posted by: Joe Mamma at June 11, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #156402

Yeah Rocky, an embassy. There’s also this:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional Republicans killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country, a lawmaker and congressional aides said on Friday.

The $94.5 billion emergency spending bill, which includes $65.8 billion to continue waging wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, is expected to be approved by Congress next week and sent to
President George W. Bush for signing into law.

As originally passed by the House of Representatives, the
Pentagon would have been prohibited from spending any of the funds for entering into a military basing rights agreement with Iraq.

A similar amendment passed by the Senate said the Pentagon could not use the next round of war funding to “establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq, or to exercise United States control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq.”

The Bush administration has said it does not want to place any artificial timelines on a U.S. presence in Iraq and that it wants to begin withdrawing troops when Iraqi security forces are better able to protect the country. But it has not ruled out permanent bases in Iraq.

While the Pentagon does not necessarily plan to use any of the emergency funds to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq, congressional Democrats wanted Congress to be on record against such a long-term military arrangement.

Doing so, they argued, could help overcome Middle East fears that the United States intended to control the region militarily, at least in part to oversee foreign oil reserves.

“The perception that the U.S. intends to occupy Iraq indefinitely is fueling the insurgency and making our troops more vulnerable,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (news, bio, voting record), a California Democrat who won House approval of her amendment on permanent bases.

“The House and Senate went on record opposing permanent bases, but now the Republicans are trying to sneak them back in the middle of the night,” Lee said.

Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, authored the Senate language.

Senate aides said Republican staffers removed the provisions from the bills before House and Senate negotiators convened this week in a late-night work session to write a compromise spending bill.

Wisconsin Rep. David Obey (news, bio, voting record), the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, tried to reinsert the language, but it was opposed by Rep. Jim Kolbe (news, bio, voting record), the Arizona Republican responsible for foreign affairs portions of the spending bill.

Next week, the House is scheduled to have a wide-ranging debate about the Iraq war at which time Democrats are likely to raise this issue again.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 11, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #156404

So Congress has just approved another $65Bil to continue to fight the “War” in Iraq. But the Repubs took out the amendment that would not allow permanent US bases in Iraq. Now why do you suppose they decided to take that amendment out of the bill? If W’s intentions were honorable as he claims, and this isnt about oil, but is about freedom for the people of Iraq, why would we need permanent bases in Iraq?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 11, 2006 12:13 AM
Comment #156438

womanmarine

The article you posted was a politicial ploy and that’s it. Similar to the gay marriage proposal. Similar to the resolution passed ofter Jack Murtha first opened his mouth. That’s it.
By the way,do you think al Zawari would be pushing up daiseys right now if we took Jack’s advice back then?

Aldous
You kill me,I swear.The list I posted is really a compendium of everything that I have read these last three months, or close to it. Most of the items on the list are ongoing. Now, they have to happen.
These guys in Gitmo were battlefield thugs. They have no Geneva protection. Some of them are the worst of the worst.

Dave
Sometimes I think that Dems actually crindge when something good happens there.This war trancends politics. Some day you will realize that,I think.

j2t2
Get used to this:A Republican will be in the White House in ‘08. Even if a dem gets in the White House,say,Hillarily,we will not have a unilateral withdrawal. Besides,by the election in ‘08,most of the issues I cited will be long solved.Two years and a half is an eternity in war.

Posted by: sicililian eagle at June 11, 2006 6:56 AM
Comment #156459

Dear Mr. Eagle. Let’s hope your predictions prove to be correct. I will offer another scenario. Al Qaeda will replace their fallen leader, and the attacks will continue unabated. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out, don’t you agree?

Peace, cml

Posted by: cml at June 11, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #156500

cml

Rest assured that Al Qaeda will have a replacement lined up pronto. The snake grows its head back here. However, we seem to have the initiave, and should strike to roll them up while they are recovering from this blow.

This was a positive thing that occurred

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 11, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #156569

j2t2,
why impugn GW and some other politicians of underhanded motives about bases in Iraq. Do you have any problems with the fact that the USA has had “permanent” bases in Europe and many other places for over 60 years. It just might be that the Iraqi government would LIKE the US to stay a while longer even after we get the violence under control. That makes sense to me, if you look at the other countries in the area, few of which I would like to have for a neighbor. How about you?

Posted by: fred at June 11, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #156651

fred- I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see us staying here. For instance, the Sunnis, who were clamoring to run us out are now asking us to stay, probably to enforce the representative government we promised and to make sure they don’t end up having done to them what they did when they were in power.

Once the Iraqi government and army gets thier act together, they can shoulder more and more of the load and allow us to gradually pull out. However, we probably will maintain at least a division on a semi-permanent basis to back up the Iraqi army. This also makes a convienient club to work against the Iranians and Syrians. Both these nations have, at the very least by allowing foriegn fighters into Iraq unchecked, harmed Iraqis. I doubt the Iraqis will look to take action against them anytime soon, but I doubt that Syria or Iran has any desire to get into a shooting match with us. Despite the difficulties we’ve had in the occupation of Iraq, we still have no peer competitor in terms of running divisions against divisions.

The death of Zarqawi and the subsequent raids brought about by the intelligence we gathered has dealt a serious blow to their network. The fact that they went out and made a video of beheadings probably proves this, they are desperate to retain their image. The government of Iraq may have a golden opportunity here to capitalize on the probable chaos in the Al Quaeda network in Iraq right now to establish credibility and show progress.

Posted by: 1LT B at June 12, 2006 1:56 AM
Comment #156677

Hi 1 LT B,
I fully share your view of the situation. It has, unfortunately, too many parallels, for me, with the post-WWII situation in Europe. At the time we were more than pleased to know that a bunch of American and some British divisions were staying on the continent, just in case. And it was a good thing they did, as you well remember, when the Berlin corridor flap exploded. Where would we have been with no credible European defense capability. We’d all be speaking Russian today and I wouldn’t be talking to you right now.
So our President and all you good guys are doing very much the right thing. Keep up the good work, it’s very much appreciated!
Fred

Posted by: fred at June 12, 2006 10:02 AM
Comment #156840

Joe Mamma:

Remember, the enemy also gets to declare war..and they did.

I was VERY disappointed when congress (due to harping on the left) failed to explicitly state the declaration of war. However, the resolutions (plural) that congress did pass are an effective declaration of war. After all, the constitution doesn’t spell out any specific wording that such a declaration must take. Follow the money. If congress appropriates the money for a war, its a war!

Posted by: Martian at June 12, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #156921

Uh, SE, I think your recommendations assume that the US runs Iraq. Doesn’t that put the lie to the idea that they now have their own country? Don’t we become the new Saddam if we dictate to them what they will do, under threat of violence?

Posted by: Mental Wimp at June 12, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #156923

Martian

What country are we at war with, again? Is it Iraq? Or is it Afghanistan? Iran, maybe? Geez, remind me, would you?

Posted by: Mental Wimp at June 12, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #157529
Dave Sometimes I think that Dems actually crindge when something good happens there.This war trancends politics. Some day you will realize that,I think. Posted by: sicililian eagle at June 11, 2006 06:56 AM
SE,

a)That “cringe” you feel is what David Remer had a name for when you think someone else is thinking what you think. We hope for the best, but this Administration has provided nothing but the worst.

b)This so-called war was all about politics and never about “terror”. When you realize that it will be a good day.

Posted by: Dave at June 14, 2006 8:33 AM
Post a comment