 These
articles and commentaries are provided courtesy
of DefenseWatch, the official magazine
for Soldiers For The Truth (SFTT), a grass-roots
educational organization started by a small
group of concerned veterans and citizens to
inform the public, the Congress, and the media
on the decline in readiness of our armed forces.
Inspired by the outspoken idealism of retired
Colonel
David Hackworth, SFTT aims to give our
service people, veterans, and retirees a clear
voice with the media, Congress, the public
and their services.
Related Links:
Article
Archive
Military
Opinions
Military
Base Guide
Hot
Discussions
Have an opinion on this commentary? Sound
off.
DefenseWatch
Website
Get
Breaking Military News Alerts
|
|
|
|
December 29, 2004
[Have an opinion about the views expressed in this article? Sound
off in the Hot Issues with Defensewatch Forum.]
By Michael S. Woodson
First of Two Parts
Somewhere in Iraq,
a father is reasoning with his son. Wait it out. Your family needs
you. I am too old to save you if things go wrong. Your brother is
dead. We don't want to lose you too. Allah will do what Allah wills.
Losing your life won't improve Allah.
And yet the young need to be needed, don't they? They need to be important. So, with suspicion and distrust, the young man refuses to look at his dad and goes out into the midday sun to die. A different father, akin to U.S. dads who live too vicariously through their sons' glory, may strap the explosives to the boy.
Wherever it comes from, the need to matter is so strong that New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman recently observed that suicide bombers in Iraq were shredding themselves anonymously, a sign of deep dedication to resist. When young men see their fellows die and their elders lose control to foreigners, by pride and prejudice they are radicalized to destructive purpose.
Somewhere in America, a young man says to his father that he can't let others serve and stay out of it himself. Democracy is too important, and we are finally doing something about the Middle East problem we have all heard about for so long. I want to be one of the best, he may think, and it will be a career step. His dad says nothing. He remembers his own experience and is conflicted. His dad knows that once in Iraq, his boy's experience is unpredictable. Likely his son's predictions will fall apart.
The idea of fighting for democratic evangelism is no different than Iraqis fighting in the name of Allah, believing the odd idea that Allah needs an earthly defense. Another farce is the notion that democracy will die if it is not spread forcefully. If Allah is God, will he not work things out? If democracy is the natural yearning for all to be free, will it not emerge of its own accord? Communism was once intended as egalitarian, but when it turned to a forced governing mode, it turned totalitarian. We must avoid that.
I had resigned to the notion that no good exits from Iraq remain. However, the bombing of the Mosul camp's mess hall made me reconsider. What can I do? I can think. I can write. We want to show excellent generalship per Sun Tzu, i.e. to win the current battle with minimal swordplay and to avoid further shattering the country of Iraq. This requires sound strategic thinking that respects our military's capability and best use.
The answer, I believe, lies in separating the would-be civil warriors of Iraq into their own respective nations internally, while forming a neutral petroleum trust state over the northern region. It would make more sense to partition Iraq into four distinct nations, for Shi'ites, Sunnis, Kurds, and a neutral zone. They must be allowed the right to self-determination as homogeneous peoples before pushing them together. Let them be the ones to write "in order to form a more perfect union" should they realize that it makes sense to do so.
|
The alternatives? Civil war, or the job of beating the Shi'ite,
Sunni and Kurdish identity out of the next two generations of Iraqis
to make them live in peace in the boundaries originally set by the
British. We cannot change the external bounds, but we can change
the internal ones to give the regional majorities a proportionate
stake and freedom of fear of a central government tyrannized by
a minority or majority of their rivals.
The reality check? We need overwhelming force to quickly gain control
over all of Iraq. Then we must draw demographically intelligent
national lines with dictatorial military fiat. There is no other
way to do it. We would need to seal off the three regions with concentrated
force, and then quit their interiors. We would have to concentrate
control over the highways, byways, borders and hinterlands. Most
importantly, the only other concentration of vigilant power would
be on the northern oil fields, pipelines and facilities.
Our forces, once done securing the establishment of three Iraqi
nations, would then mass to quickly build a neutral Iraqi confederation
administering Iraqi petroleum activity. This neutral nation would
be an Iraqi Switzerland of sorts.
Like Switzerland's neutral role in world affairs and finance, this
neutral Iraqi confederation would do similarly for Iraq, specializing
in petroleum production, banking and financial distribution of proportionate
mineral wealth to each of the Iraqi nations, keeping a statutory
percentage for its operations.
We would require elections within each new nation: Sunni, Kurd and
Shi'ite. We should arrest, try and publicly execute anyone using
violence to slow the pace to free elections in any one nation. Once
elections were over, each internal Iraqi nation could build its
own defense force and receive a share of oil revenues from the "Swiss
Iraq" according to a formula combining population supported, demonstrated
immigration policy enforcement, square mileage to govern, non-petroleum
resources, resource potential, and non-petroleum service sectors.
The neutral petroleum trust nation, centering in the Kirkuk area,
would be governed by equal numbers of representatives of each Iraqi
nation. However, an Arab chief executive from a nation outside Iraq
with no conflict of interest with or investment in any one Iraq
nation would be nominated by a panel of Arab nations whose own security
or economy depends on Iraq's stability. Security would be provided
by a rotating U.N.-NATO multinational military force with a strong
Arab component.
The neutral nation would be run, populated and manned by equal numbers
of Iraqis from each region of Iraq, including its own. It would
employ regional locals. It could take on a New Berlin air, or a
Swiss sectional structure. In this neutral service state, perhaps
displaced Palestinians could play a significant role and or a university
be established to enhance Arab economic advancement.
The Tigris-Euphrates rivers and Persian Gulf area should be controlled
by a quad-national river authority and coast guard. Baghdad could
also follow a sectional city model under confederation governance.
The status quo is untenable. We must restart the positive strategy
process and move on. I hope others may pose better ideas than mine,
and soon. Our citizen troops are in harm's way, and we must help
our government define their exit strategy with mission specificity.
Next: A, exit strategy built on truth.
Michael Woodson is a Contributing Editor
of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at singingmountains@yahoo.com.
Please send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.
All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not
necessarily reflect those of Military.com.
|
