Bringing the Troops Home

We have been successful at Nation Building in the past. The shining examples are Germany and Japan. Nation Building is in reality, another less violent continuation of warfare. The intention is to establish a new government that has political and especially economic ties to the American and/or at least the western sphere of influence. So long as they continue to have economic dependence upon us, we can easily exert political influence upon them with occupation and intrusion in their political structure with some degree of willing acceptance on their part. In these two well-known examples given, we had the additional help of the “Cold War” with the Soviet Union. We occupied these countries and intruded upon; actually redesigned their political structures. At the same time we established ourselves as their saviors, protecting them from the Communist menace.

We have occupied these countries for two generations and people under 60 or 70 years old have no memory of life before occupation. Although we are still there, most remnants of animosity have subsided and they understand our motives for what they are. They have only recently felt secure enough to openly oppose the United States in the world’s public opinion arena. In particular the Germans will soon know who they are.

Without getting into matters concerning the Third Reich, suffice it to say that Germany was a Christian nation. The Allies, with the exception of Russia were of the same general religious persuasion. Europe was devastated. The people were a tired and defeated lot. Moreover, their fear of Russian retribution was real. We had all the favorable circumstances we could have hoped for, to establish and direct the government and culture of a new nation in any structure we deemed prudent.

Japan’s circumstances were somewhat different. Japan’s people were also tired. They had been at war for many years. Two nuclear bombs had brought mind-boggling devastation and fear. The Emperor was also their religious leader and was considered to be a direct descendant of the Sun God. His defeat and surrender was a humiliation for the religion as well as for the nation. The Japanese considered themselves to be racially superior and distinct. These circumstances gave great cause for concern that the occupation would be difficult, with protracted animosity and resistance. The Americans had almost nothing in common with these people.

As it happened, the people of Japan had great respect for the Emperor and the government. They were habitually submissive and obedient to those in authority. When the government accepted occupation, the people generally acquiesced. We forced a democratic government upon them while allowing them to retain their cultural business structures pretty much intact. Their political structures were allowed to evolve whenever possible, instead of being quickly replaced. They quickly adapted to international trade, becoming an economic powerhouse, and their government evolved within democratically acceptable parameters. They are only now beginning to assert themselves as an independent nation.

Apparently Iraq is another unique situation. Nation Building is the stated intent of this administration. Was this the reason for the war all along? To begin with, many people are confused as the actual causative factors of the war. How and what circumstances caused this war to come about? What were the real reasons? Did we need to show the world something? What was behind President Bush’s reasoning?

In the eyes of the American general public there is mostly just disappointment in the integrity of the Bush Administration concerning that Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) question. Saddam didn’t have them. As to the question of the reason for the invasion of Iraq, minutes of official British government meetings, known as the Downing Street memos leave little to doubt that WMD was not a causative factor in the decision for invasion. This is not to say that President Bush is not on a campaign to actively discourage countries from developing nuclear weapons. It’s only that we know that this was not the case in Iraq.

Of course, nothing is as simple and direct as the views presented within a short article such as this. Many political considerations and complicated interactions come into play. But the basic driving forces of international violence are easily understood if they can be identified. In a democracy such as ours, it is politically unwise to “go public” with motivations that may be unsavory to the palate of the general population. Whatever the agenda for deception, it was poorly planned and in hindsight, the public is disappointed, knowing it was hoodwinked. Our faith in a stated truth is based on our confidence in the source. Understanding and veracity should be based solely on observation with this Administration. ‘Watch my hands, not my mouth.’

In any case we are in Iraq. We are told that now we have responsibilities and can’t just walk away. We made a mess and we will have to help to clean it up. Are we looking to leave or are we preparing to stay? Building military bases and airfields would indicate an infrastructure to support a long term or continuous occupation.

The neo-conservative view that regime change was a viable choice, considering the necessity to stabilize the Middle East and induce the surrounding Islamic nations to be friendlier toward us, is hardly defensible. Firstly, the establishment of the nature of any dangerous instability in the region is not clearly set forth. Secondly, the surrounding nations with a similar cultural view are not going to be friendlier to us because we invade their neighbors and occupy them. Perhaps it was thought that we could interject sufficient intimidation in the area to quell the imagined discord in the neighborhood as we established our physical presence. Whatever the nebulous arguments put forth for public consumption, they are without relevance to the reasoning behind the invasion.

Primary to the neo-conservative view is that of expanding our hegemony and maintaining a high degree of respect, or fear of it (an old Roman principle). Just as President Bush speaks of “using his political capital”, many neo-conservatives intend that we use our military and economic power, to eliminate or permanently constrain any potentially adversarial governments as quickly as they are identified. In their view, we should aggressively pursue our Empire Building with economic warfare and military intimidation. Iraq may have been just an opportunistic target to build military bases and permanent airfields with a view to extending our influence and dominance. How long might we be there?

An alternative, or perhaps parallel train of thought, within the construct of this kind of thinking leads us to another scenario of opportunity, very high on the list of probability. That is OIL! The United States uses far more oil than anyone else in the world. In a few short years, the standard of living in many countries will be determined by their access to oil. If at that time by some quirk of fortune, we just happened to be occupying the country with the second largest oil reserves in the world and have a controlling influence within their government, we will have acquired an easy and dependable access to a continuous supply of oil. To perpetuate the position of aggressively expanding our hegemonic power, it is only logical that if we can do it, we should! This may have been primary in the basic logic behind the invasion. How long might we be there?

Keep in mind that these are not a defeated people. Many of the Iraqi people were happy to see our troops and had no fear of them. They expected that Saddam Hussein would be removed and the Americans would leave, just as they had before. When they realized that we were staying, they knew that we were no longer merely rooting out WMD’s and liberating the people. The insurgency gained momentum with the speculation of occupation. In the eyes of many, we have now become the invaders and conquerors intent on destroying the fabric of their culture.

Large segments of the population have become obtuse and belligerent, even supporting the insurgents. Most cannot determine the type of government they want, but they know they would like for us to leave. The reasoning and response of the Iraqi people toward this newly installed government will be a determining factor in our near-term success. Near-term success is vital to the Bush Administration. Long-term success is not in question and will be managed. With some near term success, we could send some troops back home. In fact, the ability to return some troops back home would be considered success and would be proclaimed so. The Administration could calm the resistance to the war on the home front. Bush could lose Republican support soon, if this issue appears to be unmanageable during the next election campaign.

It may well be Bush’s view that we can coax the various factions to be chummy for the sake of their country; an appeal to their patriotism. They generally have little or no allegiance to their country, only to their religious sect. Possibly the same appeal to avoid the carnage of a civil war will affect those with a humanitarian inclination. Of course, we would have to stay to keep the peace if rival factions started civil war.

Unfortunately, whatever we think has little material value in the short run if the participants in the new government or the religious factions cannot agree. Many Iraqi’s see this new government as a Christian or secularly structured government with no moral participation or oversight. It is not in their tradition. How long will they tolerate this “elected government”, assembled and protected by their conquerors? Changing a culture can take a long time. Unique circumstances do not seem to be in our favor this time. How long might we be there?

Or, it may be that as in the past, we have every intention to stay, indefinitely!

Assuming that we do not become engaged in another conflict with Iran, North Korea, or some other adventurous opportunity, and we can attain some small near-term success in Iraq, some of the troops should be coming home in the near future. Will there be a movement of Regulars from other areas to replace the National Guard troops? Or will the troop count in Iraq be reduced? Can enlistment rates be enhanced to provide more troops in a few months? It doesn’t seem probable that the United Nations or other countries will supply troops to replace ours.

The administration regularly talks of the large numbers of Iraqi troops soon to be available to replace our own. But few are well trained or dependable. We are looking at another year at best unless we just “graduate” enough to send some troops home.

It has been suggested that if the troop numbers in Iraq cannot be reduced, then a rotation could begin with National Guardsmen back home being recalled to replace those coming home. Republicans cannot let this happen. The backlash would be too great. There is even some talk of reinstituting the draft to avoid this scenario.

The troops will be coming home. The question is when? Others will have to replace them because the Bush Administration intends to be in Iraq for a very long time.