The Latest on the Surge in Iraq

© Dr. Gary D. Lemmons, March 30, 2008

There can be no doubt that the "Surge" in American forces that was begun last year had a positive effect on the situation in Iraq.  The increase in American military personnel provided the resources to quell much of the insurgency that had belabored that struggling country.  In particular, the move served as an incentive to entice the Shiite leader, Mugtada al-Sadr, to order his militia fighters to enter into a quasi-ceasefire with the regular Iraqi forces and with the United States military.  Unfortunately, this ceasefire seems to be over, as al-Sadr had given orders that his minions are NOT to obey Iraqi government orders to disarm.  Indeed, hostilities seem to have resumed and American planes are now bombing selected targets in support of the Iraqi Army.

The most troubling part of this is that al-Sadr is NOT a part of Al-Qaeda.  He is one of many Iraqi, who is Shiite, one of the two major sects of Islam (the other being Sunni), and he is determined to effect one of the more fanatic interpretations of the Muslim religion on the country.  What is extremely frightening is that the Iraqi government, under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, is dominated by Shiites, too.  So we have conflict, not only between Shiite and Sunni, but Shiite and Shiite!

The sad part of all of this is that, had it been handled differently, the Iraqi situation could have been so much better!

When George Bush determined to go to war against Saddam Hussein, he and, then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld began to plan for the invasion.  American generals recommended that an invasion and occupying force of between 250,000 and 300,000 troops be deployed to the area. Army Chief of Staff, General Eric K. Shinseki, speculated that it would take "several hundreds of thousands of troops" to control a post-war Iraq.  Shinseki was encouraged into retirement by Rumsfeld within three months after the start of the Iraq War.

Rumsfeld believed that a "lean, mean, fighting machine" army of about 150,000, using "Shock and Awe" strategy, could defeat the Iraqi Army.  He was correct about that.  He then believed that the Iraqi people would rush into the arms of their liberators and form a "Mr. Rogers Neighborhood" of good little Iraqi and live happily ever after.  In that perception, Rumsfeld was a fool.

What should have happened at the end of the major combat phase of the Iraqi war is that some 300,000 American, British, and other coalition force troops should have been deployed to Iraq.  President Bush should have appointed a military commander as "Viceroy" to rule and govern the country until such time as the people, themselves, could have been ready to have shouldered the responsibility.  This model would have been similar to the one followed by the United States in Japan after World War II, when General Douglas McArthur served in such a capacity.

A smart and savvy American "Viceroy" with sufficient American military power could have established institutions, protected the resurrection of the economy, restored needed services (electricity, water, health care, schools, etc), and quelled the insurgency that arose.  More importantly, he could have brought the Iraqi people along in the development of a democratic government for a post-Saddam Iraq.

George Bush's term as President is drawing to a close.  It will fall to some other President to sort out the morass that is now the Iraq War.  We, as a nation, never seem to learn that we should always seek to elect leaders with foresight and vision.  Instead, we seem to thrive on sending into office those that reflect our own narrow prejudices and pre-conceptions.

I am not excited about the current three candidates that we have vying for the Presidency; however, after eight years of one "educated beyond his intelligence", I sure hope we elect the one that will exercise a little common sense. 

I am not holding my breath, though!