| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| U.S. won't quit Iraq just yet |
| 2006-11-09 |
| Does the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as U.S. Secretary of Defense, who led the war in Iraq, signal an immediate beginning of the American army's withdrawal from Iraq? The answer is no. It is more reasonable to conclude that the appointment of Robert Gates to the position will represent the start of changes in the way American forces are deployed in Iraq and the establishment of a plan with the Iraqi government for taking on greater military responsibility. It is more reasonable that following its loss in Congress and a call by many voters for a change in military policy in Iraq, the Republican Party will now focus on an effort to save the White House for U.S. President George W. Bush's political heir. In other words, the party wants to show that it will be making changes in Iraq, while taking national security responsibility for the United States' position as a world power. It is quite doubtful that the Democrats would have decided on an immediate withdrawal from Iraq had the decision been up to them. They, too, understand that a rushed pullout could end up having the U.S. lose the entire Middle East. The Democrats will continue to make it difficult for Bush and criticize him for the war in Iraq, but they will find a way to finance the army's continued presence there without humiliating the U.S. Rumsfeld's resignation will ensure that the relationship between a defense minister of his choosing and the top brass at the Pentagon, along with the senior officers in the field, will improve. Some top American commanders argued a year ago that Rumsfeld was running the war badly, and it would be better if he quit. He did win full support from Bush, but it's clear that a decision was made on whether there is another approach for refreshing the American strategy. Nonetheless, it is worth remembering that U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney shares most of Rumsfeld's views on the war. Rumsfeld's original viewpoint was that Iraq could be won with an army that was not large, but armed with the best technology and the use of speed. That's what happened in the first phase of the war, when the Iraqi army was quickly broken in the battlefield. The disagreements began afterward, when it came time for the small American force in Iraq to bring order to the country. The Iraqi army and police were dispersed, and the American army, with its relatively small amount of troops, had a tough time coping with the various militias and helping impose democracy. They were faced with the task of bringing in order, rebuilding the infrastructure, and putting Iraq back on its feet. Saddam Hussein was captured, but there were difficulties in fighting the insurgents, and the combat turned into a civil war. Despite the pressure from top military commanders, Rumsfeld refused to increase the number of American soldiers in Iraq, and the objections multiplied. Rumsfeld's deputy and most of the assistants who helped him plan the war and come up with the approach that only relatively small forces were needed, have left the Pentagon. Gates will need to bring a new generation of top officials into the Pentagon. He will understand soon that not only is the American future in Iraq at stake, but so are the plans being hatched by Iraq's neighbor, Iran. He will also understand soon that he will have to deal not only with the future of Iraq, but also, indirectly, with the future of Jordan, which could end up being surrounded by negative forces. |
| Posted by:ryuge |