« The Golden Mean | Main | In the mail: We Were One »
November 20, 2006
I'm not asking you to ask, I'm telling you to listen
Iran judges itself the victor in the Iraq war. It is now inviting Syria and Iraq to Tehran for a conference.
Iran has invited the Iraqi and Syrian presidents to Tehran for a weekend summit with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to hash out ways to cooperate in curbing the runaway violence that has taken Iraq to the verge of civil war and threatens to spread through the region, four key lawmakers told The Associated Press on Monday.Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has accepted the invitation and will fly to the Iranian capital Saturday, a close parliamentary associate said.
The Iranian diplomatic gambit appeared designed to upstage expected moves from Washington to include Syria and Iran in a wider regional effort to clamp off violence in Iraq, where more civilians have been killed in the first 20 days of November than in any other month since the AP began tallying the figures in April 2005.
The Iranian move was also a display of its increasingly muscular role in the Middle East, where it already has established deep influence over Syria and Lebanon.
"All three countries intend to hold a three-way summit among Iraq, Iran and Syria to discuss the security situation and the repercussions for stability of the region," said Ali al-Adeeb, a lawmaker of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party and a close aide to the prime minister.
Commentary
What do victors do next? They consolidate their gains. Belmont Club notes:
It was Mark Steyn who said that however evasively the Democratic party phrased it, the platform upon which they ran would be understood by its true name throughout the Middle East. George Packer, writing in the New Republic, said that now was the time to make arrangements to evacuate the thousands of Iraqis who believed in America; and that those Iraqis were even now making deals with whoever they thought would be in charge -- after the policy with the unstated name was implemented -- in order to survive.What will the conversations be like in Tehran? Hard to say, but one thing is sure: Tehran won't be asking for anything, but dictating terms instead. After the meeting, no one should be surprised at what comes next. Talabani might even change his tune as to how many US troops are needed for how long.But the Iranians can hardly contain their glee. They know what last elections meant; and so do Iraq and Syria. There may be no need to wait for the Baker report. It is being overtaken by events.
Phase One of the "Global War on Terror" is over. It has seen two vicious regimes destroyed in the Middle East. Thousands of Al Qaeda operatives have been killed or captured. A fledgling democracy grips power by its fingernails in Iraq. Iran is emboldened and is now the dominant power in the region. A new regional war looms around the periphery of Israel and another is beginning around the periphery of Somalila. Pakistan has ceded territory to the Taliban in Waziristan. The US military now has hundreds of thousands of battle-hardened veterans.
Writing in the Weekly Standard of his latest trip to Ramadi, Michael Fumento concludes thus:
People always ask how the Iraqis feel about Americans and the war in general. I respond that they just tell you what they think will prove advantageous to them, a combination of complaints and praise for Ameriki (America). Non-embedded American reporters run into the same thing. I asked one of the north Ramadi farmers through the translator if he thinks Ramadi is getting safer. He starts out with a few complaints, such as lack of water from the Euphrates for his fields because of rationing, and then tells me: "But safety is 100 percent better now that the Americans have come along." Baloney. Things got a lot more dangerous when we first came along. They may or may not be safer now than a year ago, but this guy isn't going to tell me. None of them will tell me.There are pluses and minuses. The war is not over, but the first part of it is largely ended. It might be presumptuous to end a chapter now, but the largest use of US force has been in Iraq, and that enterprise is now destined to wither away in one form or another. It's hard to know what comes next: an interlude, or Phase Two. The previous post The Golden Mean argued that those who favor attacking Iran are now largely in the wilderness. It's hard to know if there will even be a Phase Two. But for now, the last page has been turned and it will be time to wait for the sequel in whatever form it takes.Soldiers also give different accounts of the extent of progress in Ramadi. A Cougar driver told me nothing had changed since his last deployment, yet the very fact that he was driving into Ramadi in a convoy of just four trucks indicated otherwise. Another told me Ramadi is now "a thousand times better." Ultimately each was simply another blind man feeling his part of the elephant. With my three embeds in Anbar, I'd like to believe I've felt quite a few parts of the elephant.
Depressed? No. Thinking we won't eventually win? Not at all. Just being realistic. They don't call it a "long war" for nothing.
Posted by Chester at November 20, 2006 1:39 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theadventuresofchester.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/1023
Comments
Oh, I think we'll win... but the price we will eventually have to pay for victory is spiraling upwards as we live on credit today.
All because somebody from the "wrong party" was in office, we're not going to be allowed to pay the bill now and save millions of our own later.
Posted by: Big D at November 20, 2006 6:38 PM
So Phase One is over. What will the next phase consit of??
Of all the punditry I hear, none of them make any predictions of what will happen should we cut and run. . . . . . . er. . .. conduct phased withdrawal. . . er. . . redeploy the troops.
There are three basic things to consider. One, what will happen in Iraq? Two, what will happen in the region? And what will happen on a global basis?
One; Many, many more Iraqis will die as sectarian violence, civil war, and ethnic cleansing will commense soon after we are out of country. Looking at various area civil wars will give an idea of how many will die. Lebanon, a much smaller country 150,000. Algeria, 650,000. Afghanistan, 1 to 2 million. So we can deduct that anywhere from half a million to two million will die in Iraq, probably to higher side. And thats if the war remains an internal struggle.
Two; The Iranians will control much of Iraq outside of the Kurdish area and parts of Anbar province. This will greatly strenghten and enrich the mad mullahs, the puppet masters behind most of all the terrorists in the world. The Kurds will declare independance and instigate liberation movements in Turkey, thus destabilizing an ally and the lone longstanding Muslim democracy in the world.
The Turks will be compelled to contain this movement and maybe have a war with the new Kurdistan. Kurdish populations in both Syria and Iran may join in and widen this battle front.
The Saudis may try to take some of Anbar province as a buffer zone with the Iranian-controlled areas. Hopefully, it will not lead to a war between the two but who can say?
And Iran will be unimpeded on its path to attaining nukes. How long will the Syrians, the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and others take to aquire their own nukes as a balance? Will Israel feel compelled to intervene? How long can a nuked-up MidEast survive?
Three: One of the most immediate and troubling possibilties is what will the foreign Jihadies in Iraq do after we withdraw? will they go home and live in peace or will they continue the Jihad elsewhere. And where would they most likely go. My prediction is that they will be greatly encouraged by a defeat of the Great Satan in Iraq and then immediately carry the war to Afghanistan. Violence and death rates in Afghanistan will excalate rapidly. How long would the US electorate tolerate such events? Would they demand a withdrawal of all US forces? If the US were forced to pull out, how long would NATO remain?
If we withdraw, Afghanistan would rapidly collapse. This would again strenghjten the jihadis who would then set the sights on Pakistan where Musharaf is a weak ruler already. And if Pakistan falls, the jihaids then gain an immediate nuclear arsenal of 150 to 200 bombs with the missiles to launch them.
There is indeed a lot of conjecture and assumptions in this scenario. But of only half of it comes to pass, withdrawing from Iraq will be dissasterous.
What confuses me most is back where I started. . . why is no one discussing the possible ramifications of such a policy?
Posted by: thewiz at November 20, 2006 10:05 PM
It will be a defensive struggle...Western Civ beating back the advancing Red Crescent on its periphery except in Africa which will fall like dominos.
Posted by: whit at November 20, 2006 10:57 PM
From 9/11 to the present has been the *Push*, if we withdraw or redeploy, next will come the *Shuve* and the really, really big fireworks in the ME.
When the new 14 Iraqi divisions come in to play and are given heavy armament, will they put down the insurgents or drive our troops out? Have we been training the army that will defeat us? Talabani will have the answer to those questions when he returns from Iran.
Why the six months deadline? Whatever time it takes to work out the solution should be allowed. Time in war is not the same as in peace where people are more flexible.
What I see as the *end game* is the destruction of Iran's military capability and a continuing of smaller hostilities in neighboring countries against the Islamofashists. When those countries see what happens to Iran they are going to be far more accomodating.
Posted by: JimboNC at November 21, 2006 12:59 AM
From 9/11 to the present has been the *Push*, if we withdraw or redeploy, next will come the *Shuve* and the really, really big fireworks in the ME.
When the new 14 Iraqi divisions come in to play and are given heavy armament, will they put down the insurgents or drive our troops out? Have we been training the army that will defeat us? Talabani will have the answer to those questions when he returns from Iran.
Why the six months deadline? Whatever time it takes to work out the solution should be allowed. Time in war is not the same as in peace where people are more flexible.
What I see as the *end game* is the destruction of Iran's military capability and a continuing of smaller hostilities in neighboring countries against the Islamofashists. When those countries see what happens to Iran they are going to be far more accomodating.
Posted by: JimboNC at November 21, 2006 1:00 AM
Thanks Chester, still color me depressed. Last weekend I watched 300 of my neighbors here in Calif. punch and trample each other, just for a chance to spend $600.00 on a PS-3. I have little faith left in America's will to win this war.
Posted by: Ryoushi at November 21, 2006 10:03 AM
Ryoushi
Just tell your 300 Calif. neighbors that Al-Sadar has 50 PS-3s under his Mosque and maybe they will trample him to death.
Posted by: Wild Bill at November 21, 2006 2:22 PM
Eerst Europa Doelstellingen: De Ci2i Verzekering (Ci2i) zal het nummer een gebrandmerkte pan Europese commoditized online verzekeringsmakelaar door 2010 zijn.
Posted by: Alice Mike at November 24, 2006 1:36 AM