ISGR- Consequences of Continued Decline in Iraq

The phrase "continued decline" is a euphemism for the Bush administration policy of " staying the course". The predicted consequences of a continuing deterioration are dire. The predictions also raise more questions.

The report suggests the possible reemergence of a strongman to rule Iraq, if conditions continue to worsen. Wasn't this Saddam's role? Apparently, the Baath party dominance was the government that Iraq deserved. Given the Iraqi society, is there any reason to suspect that American imposed democracy will be successful? The argument can be made that the form and substance a democracy takes is a function of the society it governs and must conform to that society in order to work.

The report suggests that a broader regional war is possible as a result of neighboring states protecting their interests from chaos in Iraq. The adjective "broader" seems redundant, as any regional war would necessarily be broader than the current conflict, which is contained in Iraq.

Actually, 'war' is not a term used frequently in the report to describe the situation in Iraq. Some talking heads have complained that the report doesn't refer to the situation in Iraq as a 'civil war'. Those who want to use the term "civil war" do so, I believe, to be contrary to the Bush administration, which doesn't want to use it. War, as far as American involvement goes, is a loose description of what is really an occupation with armed resistance. The 'war' ended when Saddam's army disintegrated and Bush declared, "Mission Accomplished".

Now, rather than fighting against Iraq's army, we are described as trying to develop it into an effective force. But, for what purpose: self-defense against internal enemies, deterrence of external enemies, or both? Care had better be taken that the Iraqi army doesn't turn against its foreign occupier. Perhaps that is why the U.S. Congress has been reluctant to fully fund the effort to re-arm Iraq. And, perhaps, that is why the Bush administration is not giving greater priority to the effort to train the Iraqi army. Don't you wish the American people were told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? So help us God.

We can still claim that we are fighting a war on terror, but we have to admit that we are not winning. And, when you are not winning, you are losing. The report states that a consequence of continued decline will be more terrorism, and that our failure will be a recruiting bonus for Al qaeda. But, since we aren't winning, hasn't Al Qaeda already achieved this advantage? Another question, why would Al Qaeda have to wait on expelling Americans from Iraq to spread "... the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq."? Is it believable that we have them tied down in Iraq, and if so, are we fighting a war of attrition that we can never win, because we are out-numbered in that part of the world?

The report states that further descent into chaos hurts our global standing and polarizes Americans. In my opinion, these effects have occurred already and couldn't get much worse. The report also claims that, if Iraqis continue to see us as occupiers, we could be our own worst enemy in a liberated land. Aren't we already?

The Report states that it seems implausible for the Iraqi people to somehow awaken to their plight and wrest themselves from the plunge to chaos, because the people and their leaders have been slow to demonstrate the capacity or will to act. This statement seems to be the justification for the U.S. to develop a solution to the Iraq problem. Next, a look at the recommended course of action.