By Craig S. Byrnes
A National Intelligence Estimate released in the beginning of February offers a gloomy portrayal of the coming months in Iraq. The article, “Quick Highlights of the National Intelligence Estimate Report,” by Jonathan Karl, a writer with ABC News, addresses the “Civil War” issue, the worsening situation, consequences of a rapid withdrawal of U.S, troops and the lethal meddling of Iran inside Iraq. Success in Iraq is detrimental to the stability of the entire Middle East region, as well as, being a key vital interest to the United States in terms of power, national security, international credibility and natural resources, any plunge into chaos must be prevented. It is important to pay close attention to the current situation because it is directly related to U.S. national defense policy. Globalized Terrorism—pioneered from across the globe in a cave—regards the United States as the “Great Satan” making it a target of necessity for Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and other terrorist groups who despise the west. The success of the American Forces in Iraq must be of pristine certainty. What happens here is likely to decisively shape the policy of a future administration for better or worse.
Karl begins by addressing the characterization of the situation in Iraq as a ‘Civil War’. Citing the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) he says the term only describes some key elements of the conflict, and he points out that a key judgment of the NIE is the term ‘civil war’ “does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq.” While an appropriate descriptor for “the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, the sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian motivation, and population displacements,” it does not encompass Shia on Shia violence, AQI and Sunni Insurgent attacks on Coalition forces or widespread criminally motivated violence—in the opinion of the Intelligence Community.
It is Karl’s assessment that the already bloody situation could get much worse. He points out Sunni defection from the government, or assassinations of important political and religious leaders, could throw the creeping decline into a chaotic plunge causing drastic humanitarian consequences, political consequences and severe security setbacks. This is another area where the article cites a risk of the conflict seeping over the rather porous Iraqi borders into neighboring states thus destabilizing the region.
Karl also summarizes key judgments on the controversial issue of U.S. troop withdrawal stating there would be “catastrophic consequence” for such action. He shares the belief of the intelligence community—in the NIE—that the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), “would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution.” Another source of concern—should the U.S. forces withdraw—is the threat of neighboring countries openly contributing to the discord, in all probability bringing about an unacceptably large number of civilian casualties and involuntary displacement of the population. Especially if as the NIE points out—according to Karl—Turkey were to launch a military incursion into the country. Concluding his remarks on the consequences of hasty departure, he conveys the Intelligence Communities belief that Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) would use the Al-Anbar province as their home base of operations. It is from this safe-haven AQI would plan and launch attacks in and outside of Iraq, leading to more instability in the region.
Karl also mentions one of the final key assessments of the NIE concerns Iranian involvement within Iraq, and more particularly their providing “lethal support” for Shia groups causing the conflicts to intensify like gas thrown on a fire. Karl ends the summary citing the intelligence report as saying this Iraqi neighbor is “not likely to be a major driver of violence,” in the coming months due in part to the self-sustaining nature of the sectarian conflict, however any further explanation of this judgment remains classified in the 90-page National Intelligence Estimate distributed to senior administration individuals and select members of Congress.
Analysis
According to the Key Judgments portion of the Estimate, “Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq.” It also notes if coalition forces were to hastily withdraw during the next 12 to 18 months the result would be escalation in sectarian conflict, the ISF is unlikely to survive, and AQI would launch increasing attacks in Iraq and abroad from their Al-Anbar stronghold. Not one consequence of withdrawal is an acceptable outcome anyway you look at. The anarchic chaos would ignite the entire Middle East, it would severely weaken the United States on the international stage, and it would be a critical breach in U.S. National Security, placing innocent Americans in harms way around the globe. Oil markets would become destabilized and the price of oil would skyrocket. Oil is a vital interest to the United States and the majority of the world community, and it is therefore an obligation for Coalition forces to maintain as much stability as possible in the region. Despite this obvious necessity for action by the only hyperpower in the world on behalf of those who cannot, the House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution similar to one confirmed in the Senate in the last few weeks, “Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.” This wasteful resolution (H.Con.Res.63) was sponsored by Rep. Ike Skelton of Mo. Along with 5 cosponsors including Ms. Pelosi. A New York Times article titled “Senate Rejects Renewed Effort to Debate Iraq,” By CARL HULSE and JEFF ZELENY on February 17, 2007 talks about the Senate’s rejection of the House Resolution, but cites 3rd ranking Democrat Charles E. Schumer of New York as saying, “We will be relentless . . . There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment, all forcing this body to do what it has not done in the previous three years: debate and discuss Iraq.” This behavior and rhetoric by power drunk lawmakers flaws the policy making process, and further endangers the security of the American people. Instead of concerning themselves with issues at hand, they are blinded by an astonishing amount of hate for the President of the United States, driving them to foolishly disrespect the Presidency, provide much fodder for terrorist propaganda machines and ultimately discredit this country in they eyes of the world. "This was his [President Bush] decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy," said 2008 Presidential candidate and democratic Senator from New York Hillary Rodham Clinton, in an Associated Press article January 28, 2007 entitled “Hillary Resents Bush Iraq Strategy.” Ms. Clinton was making her way through Iowa during this time campaigning to be the first woman President of the United States. Resentment is not conducive to peace or success. While the political divide continues—fueled by the far-fetched conception that the mid-term elections were a mandate for the democrats against President Bush and the war in Iraq—the data within the NIE seems to be largely overlooked, distrusted and even misused for political gain.
National Intelligence Estimates are the single most authoritative written judgments on issues concerning National Security, and are issued by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) with the support of the National Intelligence Council (NIC). According to the DNI, this estimate holds coordinated judgments of the Intelligence Community “regarding the likely course of future events.” The key goal of the NIE and the NIC is to “provide policymakers with the best unvarnished and unbiased information,” offering depth and accuracy to intelligence analysis. Key leaders within the U.S. government who discredit the document and the entire Intelligence Community do so in haste without fully appreciating the scope of the world we live in. A truly clear and present danger is that of future policy limiting and so weakening the ability of the government to carryout the means necessary to avoid a cruel end to our freedom. Our elected officials are put in place to do a job on behalf of the people because they are better suited—and most times more educated—than the majority of the population. When considering policy crucial to the survival and existence of the state it would be prudent to explain to the American people the consequences of pulling out of Iraq at present time, and to avoid focusing on the motivations of entering the war in the first place. In any job an employee is more attractive for accepting responsibility and letting conflict or hardships build character and add to their experience, allowing them to do the job better as they travel through time and I would submit anything less than this is malarkey at the level of public official.
Looking past these inevitable imperfections one certain truth remains: America is left with the choice to succeed or fail in Iraq. When Media begins to connect the current conflict with the Vietnam War era it applies a blemished perspective to the mind of the receiver. A preconceived notion that any war fought against insurgencies is doomed before it begins is simply false. According to Donald Stoker, a professor of strategy and policy for the U.S. Naval War College’s Monterey Program, in a January 2007 online article, “The cold, hard truth about the Bush administration’s strategy of “surging” additional U.S. forces into Iraq is that it could work. Insurgencies are rarely as strong or successful as the public has come to believe.” Stoker also mentions it normally takes 8 to 11 years to successfully fight an insurgency, but as a result of U.S. failure to maintain security in cleared regions, the impatience of congress and its constituents to allow troops the time needed to secure victory and the failure of the Iraqi government to step up to the plate it may be a daunting task. “One tragedy of the Iraq war may be that the administration’s new strategy came too late to avert a rare, decisive insurgent victory,” said Stoker.
During uncommon times of peril such as these it becomes necessary to at times accept the face of war and unleash hell on your enemy. “At junctures of high conflict short of war, the side better able to cope with the potential consequences of raising the stakes has the advantage,” according to Paul Nitze on page six of “Is SALT II a Fair Deal for the United States” published in 1979 by the Washington, D.C. Committee on the Present Danger. “The other side is the one under greater pressure to scramble for a peaceful way out—to have the advantage at the utmost level of violence helps at every lesser level.” So I believe it prudent for the American people to set aside their aversion to all out violence, as one nation under God, and remind the world what a hyperpower can do. Words flow like water down a waterfall splashing into the chaotic pool of death filled with the blood of innocents, and these same words have only served as a lubricant increasing the flow of bodies into the abyss. Peace is the calm after a storm, a gift which cannot be given by any man, only earned through overcoming intense adversity. The degree of which determines the scope of peace. For reasons beyond the scope of this analysis—including Nuclear provocation, supplying arms to fuel sectarian conflict and the murder of more than 150 American soldiers—there is no question ground zero should be Iranian interests around the globe and immediate regime change of the sitting President Ahmadinejad. Wars are only unpopular when you are losing. The enemy should rightly fear the U.S. to the point of deterrence, and when they miscalculate such fear by blatantly pursuing nuclear arms, threatening annihilation of Israel and brazenly interfering in wars they were not invited to in an attempt to make a mockery of the United States government while securing their own interests in the region should face complete destruction after repeated attempts for diplomatic solutions have failed.
All in all, the National Intelligence Estimate provides key data for understanding the cost of victory and the cost of failure. Jonathan Karl does an first-rate job keying in on the most important areas of the summary; the inadequacy of “Civil War” as an accurate depiction of the current situation within Iraq, the catastrophic consequences of U.S. withdrawal—including the AQI achieving a strong hold in the Al-Anbar Province—and the lethal meddling of Iran within the borders of Iraq and beyond. The next step is properly educating politicians and the American people on the real issues at hand in this deep rooted conflict. After the realization of the seriousness of the situation, exercising extreme blunt force to ensure swift, decisive and supreme victory will be the only rational course of action to remain a free people in an oppressed anarchic world.
“Quick Highlights of the National Intelligence Estimate Report” By Jonathan Karl. February 02, 2007 ABC News Online
“A Divided House Denounces Plan for More Troops”. By Jeff Zeleny and Michael Luo. February 17, 2007 The New York Times
“Car Bombs Kill 7 amid Iraq Crackdown”. By Kim Gamel. Associated Press.
“Clinton: Iraq War Bush’s Responsibility”. By Mike Glover Associated Press January 28, 2007
H. Con. Res. 63—Concurrent Resolution full text
[National Intelligence Estimate] Prospects for Iraq’s Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead. January 2007
“On to the Hard Part on Iraq”. Editorial. The New York Times, February 17, 2007.
“The Worldwide Threat 2004: Challenges in a Changing Global Context
Testimony of Director of Central Intelligence
George J. Tenet
March 9, 2004
“Vast Change since the Cold War”. By Roger Cohen (International Herald Tribune). February 17, 2007, The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.
There are many other general sources available upon request if need arises.
0 comments:
Post a Comment