Citizen's Empire: The Tenth Man's Argument: Realistic Approaches to the Iraqi Security Crisis

The Tenth Man's Argument: Realistic Approaches to the Iraqi Security Crisis

The report cards are in, and the Council on Foreign Relations has understandably graded the performance of the United States harshly. The United States of America is a dominant hegemony of the likes the world has not seen since Ancient Rome. It is inexcusable for a country with such vast resources and capabilities to shirk from the responsibilities that global leadership entails. The experiences of Vietnam, should not be the guiding historical anecdote for US action oversees, and the fault rests evenly on the shoulders of us all. With our bright and fancy technological tools it is easy for us to numb ourselves away from responsibility and point to abstract constructivist theories and internet spread conspiracy fodder to separate ourselves from the actions of a tightly and increasingly interlinked world. We can ill afford to do such; however, and its high time our country pull together to bring America back to its leadership position in spectacular fashion. America needs to maintain its number one position, and it can only achieve this by continuing to do what America has always done best, dominate threw the strength of its market based economy, by reasserting democratic rule and by expanding the human rights tradition that stems from its common law based legal system. In part, success is going to be driven by a tightening of our strategies, operations and tactics, that need to be reviewed, practiced and applied with discipline. In part, success is going to be driven by closing the gap between the ideals of our founding fathers and our reality.

The United States has long been the most robust economy, but we were mislead to an extent by the belief that with free trade, our economies would optimize and our standards of living would improve. America can and should compete with fair trade agreements, and reduced barriers in terms of tariffs; but its not fair for American workers to compete with countries lacking living wage requirements, sensible environmental regulations and basic human rights protections. Free trade, unquestionably has been the most successful foreign aid policy in the history of humanity, but it has also consolidated wealth in hands that at times are working against progressive necessities. The combination of Super-Pacs and extended influence of private interest on legislation has crafted imperfect domestic laws. Clearly, America needs to take care of home and preserve its domestic strength before it can have success oversees. This is not to say that the US should turn inwards and revert to an isolationist foreign policy, such would be a horrid mistake as security toxins such as ISIS tend to hemorrhage into larger regional problems. If America takes a fall back position, our rivals will move in and fill the power vacuum.

Only American military bases were able to put an end to a millennium of European in-fighting, to keep the Korean Peninsula from violent civil war and Japan and China away from each others shores. The idea that the role of the American military in the Middle East is any different is just foolish. America can easily withstand the rate of attacks it faces in Afghanistan, and should have held Iraq with residual forces. In a rush to cut and run, preventable disaster entailed. By not holding Syria accountable to Barack Obama's line, the situation we are facing from ISIS was able to develop. This is not purely Barack Obama's fault, Congress could have easily looked beyond the morning poll data and declared war, authorizing the military action and commitment necessary to truly stabilize the region. A minimal amount of force and increased presence could go along ways to stabilizing Libya and Nigeria, containing ISIS in Iraq and preventing Afghanistan from reverting back to a terrorist safe haven. Mali, was an obvious example of a successful military operation against Al-Qaeda linked insurgency, operations of similar magnitude and scale are going to be regularly necessary in the vulnerable regions of the world across the Middle East and North Africa. These operations, do not need extravagant increases in spending, the State Department, DoD and CIA have more than ample budgets, but they need more of those funds to be spent on the tools, weapons, hardware, personnel and training to achieve security objectives and engage diplomatically with regional governments to make the governmental, economic and judicial reforms necessary to stabilize the populace and set the foundation for progressive growth.

At home, the United States cannot neglect the strength of its agricultural and heavy industries, from Steel to power tools, and continue to aggressively push for the sale of its goods in foreign markets. The United States may not have the cheapest products, but it continues to produce the highest quality goods at the best value. This gives American products a competitive position in global markets that it should continue to rigorously capitalize on. Expansions in harbors, new bigger ships such as the super-Malacca and uniform containers capable of easy movement from ship to train to truck can continue to improve economic growth, that helps both global and domestic standards of living. Industries such as mining and fishing, textiles and manufacturing create real wealth that cannot be overlooked, even in todays hi-tech economy. The energy sector is going to continue to be a behemoth; and while fossil fuels will remain pertinent for at least another twenty years, the time to begin shifting our energy infrastructure to renewable and clean resources is now. The United States of America has infrastructure to build and maintain. If there are people that are homeless, than America obviously needs to build more homes and have better policies that work to put and keep people in those homes. There are millions of neglected treatable illnesses that improved policies surrounding the medical industry can address. Education continues to be the key to opening opportunities for the next generation. Shifts in policy can put more people to work; and ensure that employers have the healthy and well-educated employs capable of driving innovation and industry. All of these issues, demand our politicians and service providers to look beyond profits, to look at policies that work to create a healthier economic eco-system that will keep our workforce healthy, educated and housed to effectively grow our volume of production and business in a sustainable, long-term forward looking plan. America needs to do more to crack down on lawlessness and work to restore the rule of law by simplifying the legal code and ending the prohibition on activities popular amongst large demographics. When you outlaw popular activities, it erodes respect for the law and pushes those individuals into worsening degrees of criminality. Part of this process of strengthening America involves broadening the concept of stakeholders and finding business and social leaders that effectively push to represent those interests with administratively feasible policy and action.

In Iraq, particularly as a political matter, one can hardly blame Barack Obama for pursuing the most minimalist of policies in Iraq. The irony of most American's agreeing with him that going to Iraq in the first place and not wanting to go back in, is in stark contrast with America's increasing disapproval of his foreign policy. War fatigue is part of it, but I suggest that America is tired of war because our government has neglected its own populace. American's are viciously strong and in many regions across the United States dependence on government is considered shameful within the rugged individualist mores that contributed to pioneering success in earlier eras. Now, its somewhat ridiculous, that in the modern era, with over 7 billion people on earth, where major cities have millions of people, that such ideological adversity to government assistance and centralized planning can continue to be popular. Legally, America can do more to leave room for individual liberty and personal responsibility by bolstering privacy laws, making emergency housing reforms and records maintenance, but as citizens our duties to the polity and our binding contracts with government as citizens should be increasingly spoken to, as clear plans to reduce suburban sprawl and commuter mileage are enacted. Our marketization and commodification of everything and everyone is fundamentally flawed, and while the efficacy makes degrees of marketization and commodification inevitable, our Government continues to need improved social programs that approach humans as such and according to our understanding of human and individual needs.

As America sees its government working more effectively to help the domestic populace, it will also have increased confidence in its ability to work effectively in foreign affairs. While clearing space for the Shi'ites and Sunnis to blow off steam and constructively push for reforms that increase regional autonomies, the country of Iraq can be held together in a confederation lead by Baghdad. The blatant sectarian manner by which Al-Malaki governed precipitated these realities. Unfortunately, it may be too late and as a result expectations need to be set accordingly. What is clear is that the problems festering from a failed Syrian policy and pre-mature evacuation from Iraq have caused these systemic horrors.

As much bad blood as there has traditionally been between Iran and the United States, as a country, Iran has all of the pseudo-institutions of a functioning democracy and despite its oddly closed paternalism and geo-strategic adversity to American and Israeli interests, it is a far more stable state and can be a source for regional strength. Recent overtures for collaboration, can be an opportunity for improving relations with not only Iran, but also Russia. If America works with these groups, we can have a stronger hand to be sure that they don't adopt unnecessarily oppressive policies that target moderate opposition groups. The United States should be very weary of crossing Saudi Arabia, and while its clear that some of the many Saudi princes are indirectly funding ISIS, that is not to say that the Saudi crown is heavily invested in their success, and in fact, may be threatened by the formation of a Caliphate that would usurp authority from the House of Saud and could potentially go on to cannibalize the sponsoring princes and their sources of revenue.

It is my opinion, that there is a delicate balance to be struck, that the conversation needs to move beyond what we could have done differently and towards what we need to do now. I have taken note of the fact, that while we all too often are told that Saddam had no chemical weapons, that he was bluffing as to their progress in an effort to deter Iran, Syria most certainly had chemical weapons and used them recently, Saddam had them and used them against the Kurds in conflicts with Iran, and had a nuclear reactor that Israelis blew up. The Baathist link may give a clue as to the source of Assad's chemical weapons arsenal, it may be that Saddam shipped them to Assad in the run up to Operation Enduring Freedom. While the doves worked hard to trump the success of diplomacy in brokering a deal with Assad to reduce his arsenals, his heavy fisted suppression of moderate Sunni elements radicalized the populace to its current state, which evolved from a movement looking for democratic reforms and the end of Assad's totalitarian rule in Syria to one that is hell bent on restoring the Caliphate and imposing Sharia Law. The heavy handed, sectarian based policies of Al-Malaki had a similar effect on moderate Sunni tribes of Iraq, now they are in a position where the functionality of ISIS, providing basic government services and the ability to push back the oppressive pressure of the Iraqi military, has won itself at least partial popular support. The United States of America, can certainly benefit from seeing a better balance of influence between Sunnis and Shi'ites, and the role of our cooperating partners in Saudi Arabia in the Sunni regions of Iraq can still become a positive, the question is how can the political and military energy behind the success of ISIS be controlled and pushed toward a more moderate and sensible position? The wallets of Saudi princes is the answer, but for such to work, increasing conditions on funding need to be applied and monitored as America provides support in stabilizing Shi'ite regions and keeping the Sunnis out in exchange for conditions relating to Iran's nuclear program, support for militants in Gaza and Lebanon, and a change of rhetoric from all parties relating to America's overall role in the region.

While the United States is capable of military domination, it is the least of our regional goals, for it is much more important for us to provide a stabilizing and impartial arbitrating role, that facilitates economic and political developments conducive to regional peace and prosperity. The unfortunate truth is, however, that the American military domination of the Surge, thus far has proved the most effective means of advancing these ends. If we agree that it is factually accurate that the heavier American military foot print of the Surge has thus far been the best means of stabilizing the region, we are still very unclear as to where the appropriate reduction in troops needs to be as security is improved to hold gains. Recent lessons of Iraq as a matter of military science show that while the Surge stabilized Iraq, the gains were quickly vanquished with American departure. For future conflicts, particularly in Afghanistan, residual forces need to be substantial enough that they can continue to push the local security forces to effectively continue operations and back them up when overwhelmed. I'm a long time supporter and continue to support Barack Obama, but it seems he used the failure to secure immunity agreements from Al-Malaki as an excuse to get out of Iraq, a decision that was foolhardy and with firmer adamance could have been avoided. Iranian influence, is the culprit behind Al-Malaki's earlier decision. Clearly, leaving the region to its own, is a dangerously reckless security policy that guarantees the continued growth of international terrorist organizations increasingly capable of producing and procuring WMDs and conducting operations within Europe and the United States. Power departures create vacuums, and if America leaves the region, Iran will sweep in rapidly. Republican controlled Congress bears the blame for the disaster in Syria threw their failure to authorize the usage of force when Barack Obama initially requested it. For political purposes, the republicans sought to push Obama to launch strikes without the Congressional approval he felt necessary in light of self interested Russian and Chinese Security council votes. Had America acted more aggressively, together and void of partisan lines, it could have facilitated the fall of Assad while bolstering the position of moderate rebels, effectively forming a new unity government in Syria that would include the technocracy of Assad's old regime and moderate rebel leaders, capable of defeating Al-Nursa and ISIS on the battlefield while restoring law and order. With Assad effectively turning over all of his chemical weapons; ousting Assad may be a political no-go now. Concessions to the Sunni population from Baghdad and Damascus, including increased regional autonomy can avert all out civil war and the total disintegration of Iraq. The challenge then becomes, how to cool animosity and frustration with those two capitals, and instead build competent semi-autonomous governing entities willing and capable of preventing the formation of terrorist safe havens and jihadi training camps. Vicious oppression on the part of national armies has only exacerbated such threats, pushing moderates to radical extremes.

Nuclear talks with Iran are still very much on the near horizon and ongoing, and the sponsorship and support of Iran for Bashar Assad in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and Al-Malaki in Iraq create a multitude of security threats that stretch into Bahrain and Qatar where the US has significant military presence. While the State Department is pursuing a policy of keeping the issues separate, it is hard to argue that such is truly possible. The United States needs to negotiate from a position of strength, the threat of ISIS and the tools to combat them can be used to increase leverage. With the last chemical weapons of Syria reportedly being handed over, a Nuclear agreement with Iran to the liking of non-proliferation activists can open opportunities for strategic and meaningful cooperation in dealing with Al-Qaeda, Al-Nursa and ISIS. After all, Iran participated constructively in the early phases of operations in Afghanistan.

For these final paragraphs, let us explore the position of the tenth man whose role is to vehemently argue the alternative position of the majority in an effort to avoid follies of group think. What if minimal engagement and limited air support is all wrong. Air support with out on ground intel is going to result in high civilian casualties, undermining broader strategic goals and increasing resentment towards the US. 300 technical advisors is a frighteningly small group that will largely be at the mercy of a host we have little reason to trust. To preserve its prestige, the US needs to act decisively as global leader. What if the United States should use the development of ISIS to justify dramatically increasing their military presence, getting back into Iraq and into Syria. If America acted decisively in both, with 75,000 troops in Syria and substantial forces in Iraq it could surround Iran, increasing its ability to not only get a paper agreement from Iran, but effectively either destroy its nuclear reactors or intimidate them into making the more stringent reductions requested. Iran and Rouhani can promise to keep enrichment levels below weapons grade, but with so many nuclear reactors, ensuring compliance with commitments is going to be a difficult, if not an impossible task.

Increasing our military presence could also work to forcefully curtail the operations of Hezbollah in Lebanon and across the region while strengthening the image of America in both Israel and in the Arab Peninsula. It could shift its approach and effectively defeat the enemy in Iraq and make no qualms about holding the region with military bases, managing the economy permanently, pointing to the disaster of our previous departure as our just cause to stay. It may in fact be more ethical for us to do such, and while it goes against our anti-colonialist impulses America may in fact be exceptional, and it may be able to more responsibly provide for the well being of the populations then their own broken forms of democracy hampered by deep sectarian and religious rivalries that nationalist movements are only moderately effective at curtailing. The United States government could then use the war to tighten its management of the domestic economy, indulging in a military industrial complex that can work to increase real wealth. The United States should simultaneously increase its role in Libya and Nigeria, to strategically secure the long-term affordability of forward positioning in the region, advancing North African development and effectively combatting Ansar Al-Sharia and Boko Haram in what we should embrace as a long term conflict with radical portions of the Islamic world. Conflict with Islamic Jihadis is inevitable, so why pretend otherwise. Comparisons to Vietnam are off the mark, the appropriate historical lesson surrounds Chamberlain's efforts to appease Hitler in the run up to World War II. While we may not want to fight, we may have no other option.

Trending Now

United States