William Sturgiss Lind,
Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism
at the Free Congress Foundation, is a native
of Cleveland, Ohio, born July 9, 1947. He
graduated magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa
from Dartmouth College in 1969 and received
a Master's Degree in History from Princeton
University in 1971. He worked as a legislative
aide for armed services for Senator Robert
Taft, Jr., of Ohio from 1973 through 1976
and held a similar position with Senator Gary
Hart of Colorado from 1977 through 1986. He
joined Free Congress Foundation in 1987.
Mr.
Lind is author of the Maneuver Warfare Handbook
(Westview Press, 1985); co-author, with Gary
Hart, of America Can Win: The Case for Military
Reform (Adler & Adler, 1986); and co-author,
with William H. Marshner, of Cultural Conservatism:
Toward a New National Agenda (Free Congress
Foundation, 1987). He has written extensively
for both popular media, including The Washington
Post, The New York Times, and Harper's, and
professional military journals, including
The Marine Corps Gazette, U.S. Naval Institute
Proceedings and Military Review.
Mr. Lind
co-authored the prescient article, "The Changing
Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation,"
which was published in The Marine Corps Gazette
in October, 1989 and which first propounded
the concept of "Fourth Generation War." Mr.
Lind and his co-authors predicted that states
would increasingly face threats not from other
states, but from non-state forces whose primary
allegiance was to their religion, ethnic group
or ideology. Following the events of September
11, 2001, the article has been credited for
its foresight by The New York Times Magazine
and The Atlantic Monthly.
Mr. Lind is co-author
with Paul M. Weyrich of the monograph: "Why
Islam is a Threat to America and The West."
He is the author of "George W. Bush's `War
on Terrorism': Faulty Strategy and Bad Tactics?"
Both were published in 2002 by the Free Congress
Foundation.
[Have an opinion on a William Lind column? Sound off in the Discussion Boards.]
Last week, the Americans in Iraq stood on the brink of not one but three
cliffs. Now, in what appears to be a sudden attack of sanity, they have
pulled back from the edge of two.
The first was the American threat to assault the holy Shiite city of Najaf
in order to "capture or kill" militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr. When the most
powerful man in Iraq, Ayatollah Sistani, said "Don't do that," the CPA in
Baghdad had the good sense to listen. Now it appeas we may hand off the
"coalition" military presence in Najaf from the (wisely) departing Spaniards
to the Brits, rather than keeping American troops camped just outside the
city gates. If that happens, it would be another smart move on our part, as
the British are rather better at dealing with the natives than we are. It
would be comforting to have adults in charge, at least at Najaf.
The second precipice was the plan to renew the assault on Fallujah. At the
end of last week, the Marines were making no secret of their preparations to
go back on the offensive and take the whole city, cost what that may. The
U.S. military's spokesman in Baghdad, Army Brigadier General Mark "Kermit"
Kimmit, sounded a bit like old Saddam himself when he said, "Whether [an
opponent] is somebody who is trying to defend their city...or somebody who's
just out to kill an American, both of those will find the full force of the
United States Marine Corps and the coalition brought down on them"
(Washington Post, April 24). That sounds like "Kill 'em all and let God
sort 'em out," which is not entirely consistent with "liberation."
Suddenly, and again wisely, we have backed off. Instead of threatening to
turn Fallujah into Stalingrad, we are once more talking to Iraqi leaders in
the city and proposing joint patrols. One of the Marines' commanders,
General Mattis, was quoted in the April 26 Post saying, "We didn't come here
to fight." That is how the Marines trained to handle Fallujah, by
de-escalation. Finally, it looks as if the CPA may allow them to do it.
In both Najaf and Fallujah, the threat is not what happens in the city. It
is what happens in the rest of Iraq, and the rest of the world, if we
continue to play the bully. Fallujah has already become for many Iraqis
what the Alamo is for Texans. Shiites have joined Sunnis in its defense.
The Sunday New York Times quoted a spokesman for the Iraqi Muslim Clerics
Association saying, "We're living in beautiful days of solidarity between
people. We need to thank our enemy, the Americans. They helped us carry
out our dream." That dream is our nightmare, an intifada against the
occupation throughout Arab Iraq. When American actions help bring that
about, it is time for a change of course.
While we have stepped back from two brinks, we remain poised on a third.
That is the current plan to turn Iraq over on June 30 to an Iraqi government
that is sovereign in name only. According to the April 26 Washington Post,
"U.S. officials made clear last week that the transitional government would
have limited powers, with no authority to write new laws and no control over
U.S. military forces that would continue to operate in Iraq. Any
"government" that cannot control foreign forces operating on its soil is not
sovereign. Worse, a situation where U.S. forces continue to police Iraq
holds America down in its present quagmire, with violence and casualties
rising.
There are two ways America can leave Iraq. The first is at the request of a
genuinely sovereign Iraqi government. What America needs is for the Iraqi
government that takes over at the end of June to ask us to reduce our troop
numbers, move the troops that remain far away from Iraqi population centers
and then, after an interval measured in months, not years, leave. That is
the best outcome we can hope for, although it means the end of the neo-con
dream of an Iraq that is a "new" satellite of both America and Israel.
The second way the war in Iraq can end is with the Americans and other
"coalition" forces driven out. Last Friday, President George W. Bush said,
"America will never be run out of Iraq by a bunch of thugs and killers."
But that is exactly what will happen if we continue fighting the Iraqi
people. It is to avoid that end to the war that we must not attack
Fallujah, Najaf, or any other Iraqi city that dares to want its freedom from
a now widely-hated occupation.
Will our present sanity attack continue, allowing the U.N. to install a
genuinely sovereign Iraqi government on June 30 and thereby give us a
graceful way out? Or will we revert to type, renew the assault on Fallujah,
perhaps try an Israeli-style "assassination by Apache" of Muqtada al-Sadr
and demand that we continue to control Iraq after the end of June?
A bon mot from the summer of 1914 again comes to mind: In Berlin, the
situation is serious but not hopeless; in Vienna, it is hopeless but not
serious. At the moment, some of our commanders in Iraq are playing Berlin,
while George W. sounds like Conrad von Hoetzendorf. Which will prevail?
The next week may tell us.
