Let Iran Fight al Qaeda in Iraq So We Don't Have To

"Don't try to storm the doors, wait until they open." The 9/11 hijackers took recognizance flights on commercial airlines prior to 9/11/2001 and determined that about 15 minutes into each flight the cockpit door was opened either by one of the cockpit crew or by a stewardess. So the plan was to get into the cockpit when one of the crew opened the door. (from History Channel show re 9/11 Commission report)

In a way, the same strategy of taking full advantage of its enemy's weakness is being employed in Iraq on a much larger scale. When the U.S. bungled their occupation of Iraq and allowed the country to unravel and deteriorate into chaos, "al Qaeda" saw their chance to get a foothold in the country. And now the Bush administration in a classic example of turning one's failure into an asset, is using the "al Qaeda" presence in Iraq as an excuse to remain there indefinitely. And also seemingly an excuse to ignore the real problems and issues that are helping to prolong the chaos. “Al Qaeda” is only a small part of the problem in Iraq.

The Republicans are still talking about winning in Iraq. Today on FOX News Newt Gringrich said: "If we were to lose in Iraq it would be a disaster." Well we have lost and it is a disaster. And I think the main reason we lost was because not only did we not have a plan for the occupation, we did not have a plan for the real war. Bush kept saying that the war in Iraq was part of the war on terrorism. But obviously the war in Iraq for the United States and it's coalition from the beginning was a war against Iraqis who did not want us in Iraq. What was our real reason for invading Iraq? Were we fighting in hopes of controlling Iraqi oil? Were we fighting in hopes of creating a U.S. satellite state that we could use as a base to invade Iran? (Didn't they think that the Shi'as in Iraq might not like us invading another Shi'a country?) Or maybe just preventing Iran from exerting influence over Iraq? Whatever it was, the excuse that we were fighting the war on terror, Saddam and WMD now seems catastrophically pitiful.

We need to begin to interpret the war in Iraq in a more realistic context. One problem is that like Vietnam the U.S. cannot always tell who is on their side and who is the enemy. And the problem is even worse in Iraq because there is more than one side. In Vietnam there was just the North Vietnamese. In Iraq there are the radical Sunnis, the radical Shi'a and to a lesser extent "Al Qaeda" and various factions of those groups who are not only fighting us but one another.

The Bush Admin is still using the excuse that they are fighting "al Qaeda" in Iraq and once they get "al Qaeda" under control then it will be safe environment for the Iraqi's to develop their government. "Al Qaeda" is not the problem! The problem is the Sunni and Shia don't get along and don't trust one another primarily because under Saddam the Sunnis oppressed the Shi'a. To put it simplistically the Shi'a are afraid the Sunnis and their Ba'ath party will once again take control of Iraq and the Sunnis are afraid that they might be victims of retribution if the Shi'a are in power. This is the main reason for the current political stalemate and inaction of the elected government in Iraq. This stalemate is not going to be affected by our fighting a war on terror in Iraq. Terrorism is not the real issue in Iraq, the issue now is how to bring the warring factions together. I don't think the U.S. has enough (or any) good will left with the people of Iraq to be of any use in making this reconciliation occur.

We have lost in our attempt to bring Iraq under our influence. We have to accept that it is not going to happen. I think that at least we need to redeploy as John Murtha suggested almost 2 years ago, to bases outside Iraq and only intervene if it becomes necessary. Necessary, at this point, to do what I'm not sure. I could say to prevent ethnic cleansing but that's already happened. I could say to protect the country's infrastructure but that has already been severely compromised if not destroyed in Baghdad, Fallujah and elsewhere. I'm not sure that there's much left to save the Iraqi's from that we haven't already allowed to happen. The excuse often used for our remaining is to prevent the chaos that will occur if we leave. Chaos has already happened. We have not only been unable to stop chaos we have caused chaos.

Fallujah is a sad example of our not only ignoring the chaos we have caused but also having the gall to call it an example of our "success". In 2004 the U.S. bombed Fallujah destroying at least 10,000 of the city's 39,000 homes and at least two-thirds of the city's 300,000 inhabitants were forced to leave. Last week General Petraeus walked through Fallujah with CBS' Katie Couric and she asked him: "You say Fallujah is a real success story. What turned it around?" How could a city of app. 300,000 people roughly the size of Cincinnati being bombed to the point where half the city was left without electricity and running water and one quarter of homes destroyed be deemed a success? After the war officially "ended" in March of 2003 Fallujah was largely unscathed. If we had managed to secure the town before we destroyed it in our quest to rout out "al Qaeda" and in the process kill thousands of its residents I think we might have been allowed to call it a success story. I respect General Petraeus but I think the glare of TV lights and camera have compromised his ability to access reality honestly.

On CNN today Rick Barton of the Center for Strategic & International Studies who assisted the Iraq Study Group said in regard to the Iraq War that we need to acknowledge the "stalemate in Washington and the dead end in Iraq." Or it works vice versa just as well -- the stalemate in Iraq and the dead end in Washington.

We need to accept the fact that we have lost in Iraq and that our continued involvement there is not going to make the situation better. We invaded Iraq and managed to destabilize the country. We are not going to be able to re-stabilize the country without destroying it as we destroyed Fallujah. At this point I'm not sure that any chaos that is created by our leaving can be that much worse than the chaos that we have already created.

Newt Gringrich also said today that "Iraq is less dangerous than in 2001." I'm not sure how in any way Iraq is less dangerous now. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens have been killed since we invaded their country in 2003, many more than would have died if Saddam were allowed to remain in power. Shi'as may be in some ways better off politically but they are in more danger now than when Saddam was in power.

Will our leaving force the government of Iraq to turn to Iran for support? Probably. But then they can fight "al Qaeda" in Iraq so we don't have to.