What Are We Doing in Iraq?, Part II

Given America’s security interest in the integrity of Iraq and the need to keep Syrian- and Iranian-controlled money and terrorists out, the American priority in Iraq should be to secure the borders. The U.S. should, in fact, consider putting all 141,000 American soldiers in theater on the borders with their guns pointed out.

Given America’s security interest in the integrity of Iraq and the need to keep Syrian- and Iranian-controlled money and terrorists out, the American priority in Iraq should be to secure the borders. The U.S. should, in fact, consider putting all 141,000 American soldiers in theater on the borders with their guns pointed out.

The U.S. toppled Saddam knowing that Iraq was a financial and political sponsor of terrorism and in violation of UN Resolutions regarding WMD programs, and believing that Saddam was or would be in a position to threaten American security if sanctions were lifted. In those things, the U.S. was correct. We also discovered 27 million Iraqis brutalized by 35 years of Stalin-like repression, which resulted in 400,000 bodies in mass graves including horrible numbers of women and children. In dealing with this situation, we made erroneous assumptions that now haunt us and kill our soldiers.

We believe it was and remains true that most Iraqis were pleased to be released from Saddam and desire nothing more than opportunities for themselves and their children. Their bravery and their purple fingers awed us.

But a certain smaller number of Iraqis were fed and nourished by the regime and another certain smaller number felt entitled to revenge against the Sunni minority and rule in its stead. These smaller groups are the armed groups and they make economic and political reconstruction impossible, particularly since there is no “normal” public outcry against the violence. Regular people have spent decades keeping their heads down.

Here is the issue with the militias. In April, Ayatollah Sistani said after a meeting with then-Prime Minister-designate al-Maliki that it had “become necessary to have weapons only in the hands of government forces,” and that the government must “rebuild these forces on sound, patriotic bases so that their allegiance shall be to the homeland alone, not to any other political or other groups.” In June, al-Maliki called in The Washington Post for “a state monopoly on weapons by putting an end to militias.” But this is October, and al-Maliki told USA Today that his government will not force militias to disarm “until later this year, or early next year” and criticized the coalition for an over reliance on force. In the meantime, more than 3,000 Iraqi police officers have been dismissed on charges of corruption and dereliction of duty, and two generals of the police Special Commandos unit were dismissed for links to Shiite militias.

It was probably wrong of the U.S. to expect the new government to undertake security as if its power base was comprised of the voting citizens. It is not. The government is clearly subject to the dictates of the armed and murderous militias, and cannot or will not disarm them. To acknowledge that is not to seek to abandon Iraq, but to ask why American soldiers should continue patrolling and dying in Sadr City.

It is an already difficult mission for Americans soldiers to secure and “rebuild” Iraq while parts of the population remain at war with their government, their fellow citizens and with us. It is an impossible mission if the Iraqi government isn’t fully on our side.