WHY THE U.S. WON'T "WIN" IN IRAQ

When it comes to the Iraq war, all Americans would like to see a positive outcome for the U.S., and for our troops to be able to come home sooner than later. But some people, including the Bush Administration and many Republican leaders, conflate the Iraq War with the "War on Terror". They insist that the U.S. must "win" in Iraq because it is so critical, central in fact, to our national security interests.

Indeed, the war against Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism is critical to all nations, including the Islamic world.

The Western World must unite against the Islamic threat and take it seriously. Islamism, Islamo-fascism, radical Islam, Muslim extremism -- whatever you wish to call it, it's all the same -- may be the greatest threat to our generation. The belief in a divine commandment to murder is a grave threat to the rest of the world, and will remain so for decades to come. It is this century's greatest foe, perhaps worse than Communism was in the 20th century. That's because Islamism has a religious, as opposed to a political, motivation and inspiration. It will challenge humanity and will require the non-Islamic world to unite in a massive coordinated effort. The West must compel the Islamic world to control the spread of its own cancer.

But the Iraq War is not part of that effort. The Iraq war is a sectarian conflict that pits Iraqi against fellow Iraqi. And if the U.S. is to "win" in the traditional sense, then the Iraqi people must be viewed as the enemy and their nation must be destroyed. And that is clearly not on the agenda.

The problem with Iraq is that no one is defining what exactly "winning" is. We keep hearing the same tired rhetoric; "When the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." When will that be? Right now there are 300,000 U.S.-trained Iraqi Security Forces on the ground. That's more than twice the 144,000 American troops stationed in Iraq. Combined with the British military presence, there are more than 450,000 coalition forces, and still they can't enforce or restore law and order. They cannot keep the Sunnis and Shiites from killing each other because they cannot keep them from hating each other.

The Bush Administration naively failed to foresee the mess we're in right now. They lacked critical judgment and ignored the advice of experts. They thought they could easily install a democratic government after toppling Saddam, and that from there things would go smoothly. But perhaps their biggest mistake, among many, was underestimating the hatred Iraqis have for one another. What's going on now isn't a fight between the U.S. and Islamic extremists as much as it is a civil war between three competing groups all vying for power and control - the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. The Sunnis are the minority - about 20% of the population - and yet they ruled for about 30 years under Saddam. It would be as if black people ruled and oppressed whites in America. Now the tables have been turned and the Sunnis are faced with the loss of power. Meanwhile, the majority Shiites (about 60% of the population) have been liberated and are taking revenge for decades of abuse and subjugation.

Make no mistake, the U.S. is caught in the middle of a civil war. None of the Iraqis want foreign fighters, or jihadists, in their country, and they'll kill or expel them in their own time. And all military reports indicate that foreigners are a very small percentage of fighters anyway.

Historically, wars have been won by crushing a country and its people. Overwhelming military might is used to force the enemy to submit. In WWII, the Germans and British both bombed civilian targets (London and Berlin) relentlessly, and the U.S. dropped atomic weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There were tens of thousands of civilian deaths. But we're trying to avoid killing civilians in Iraq. And we're also trying to rebuild their country, so we can't simultaneously attempt to destroy it.

Furthermore, "winning" in Iraq would necessitate choosing sides between the Sunnis and the Shiites - the principal warring parties - and helping one to crush the other. But neither is a friend to the U.S., and we won't pick sides. They both see us as an obstruction to killing one another, and as an occupying force - rightfully so. Our troops are trying to police their country, which is something our military is not good at. Our soldiers are trained to kill, and that is something they're quite skilled at. The Iraqi police, who should be responsible for such duties, are crooked and duplicitous. They are sectarian in nature, and instead of enforcing the law they are in fact the killers themselves.

The simple fact is that the U.S. military presence in Iraq has emboldened the Sunnis and stiffened their resolve to fight the Shiites. They know that our military, to some degree, is keeping the Shiite majority in check. And yet the Sunnis hate the U.S. more than any other group because we upset their apple cart and unceremoniously tossed them from power.

The two groups remain determined to take out their long-held hostilities and hatred on one another, and the U.S. has found itself in the untenable position of trying to pacify them and keep them from killing each other. It isn't working and never will. The Iraqis have to exhaust their thirst for blood and death and find their own solutions. They need to take responsibility for themselves and their future. Right now their country is far too divided to find any sort of unity or common ground -- other than the fact that they don't like the U.S. And our military presence is simply distracting them from exercising the totality of their animus against one another. Our troops are caught between them, right in the line of fire. The sects will continue fighting to the bitter end, whatever and whenever that is.

So this war is unlike any other we've ever been involved in, because the rules are all entirely different. Unless we commit to destroying Iraq and killing even larger numbers of its civilian population - which we would be condemned for and will never do - I don't see how we "win". Because that's what it would take to crush the numerous sectarian militias - and that would be so politically and humanitarianly controversial that no one will advocate it. Therefore, there will be no conventional victory in Iraq.

Yes, there may be consequences to leaving Iraq, but remaining entrenched there is getting us nowhere. No outcome in this conflict will be perfect, or as advertised. President Bush ignited the fuse in Iraq and now it's blowing up in his face. Saddam, Iran's natural adversary, has been removed. That's not good. While Saddam was once viewed as an obstacle to regional peace and security, ironically both appear to be worse off now.

But while there will be no "victory" in the traditional war-fighting sense, there can be a negotiated peace. But that will squarely involve both Iran and Syria, two thirds of Bush's proclaimed "Axis of Evil". That suggestion has already been made by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group - endorsed by Bush and headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton - and it will likely be part of their official recommendation when it is publicly released in January. And if it is, that will be a very bitter pill for the president to swallow.

Call it humble pie, or eating crow if you like, but the taste will be quite the same.

Copyright © 2006 Sean M. Kennedy. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.