Travel provides a metaphor for purpose. If you do not know your destination, you will never learn whether you got there. Indeed, you will not even be able to figure out which direction to go.
If you do not know your destination, you will not be able to decide whether one route is better than another. You will not be able to review your decision after you started.
Let us apply this metaphor to United States actions in Iraq.
What was the ultimate destination? Fairly clearly, the goal was to enable Americans to feel safer in October 2041 than they did in October 2001. Various individuals may have had differing goals, but the country as a whole thought of the invasion and war as a step in its conflict against Al Qaeda.
While there were some who thought that Iraq and Al Qaeda were connected, I doubt that any in the US government as a whole or in its military thought that. Instead, as I said earlier, I think that the destination in the short run was to enable the United States to intimidate the governments of other countries, so they would cause their secret police to cooperate more closely with the US; and in the long run, to change Middle Eastern countries' cultures enough to make them safe to the United States.
If so, this means that as intermediate stops, the United States decided to provide order to Iraq. It would accompany its imposition of order with law, and the laws would provide for new institutions in the distribution of landed and manufacturing power. Eventually, Iraqis would come to believe they could seek justice successfully. Moreover, the United States would believe that because of the reforms, the arrangements would be harmless to it.
Finally, the US presumed that as a strong rather than as a weak nation, Iraq would choose democracy as a governing style, since it provides not only for a peaceful resolution of disputes, but greater adaptability than other forms of government.
Of course, democratic governments can deadlock. They can fail to provide a mechanism for the peaceful settlement of critical social disputes and fail to provide what is perceived as justice. This happened in Italy and Germany between the First and Second World Wars.
But the sequence of order, law, justice, and democracy is powerful, and I think this was the reasoning that convinced the US government as a whole, including its legislators, and its military.
Sadly, the United States government did not lay out its goals clearly. I do not know whether the United States government as a whole did think this way.
However, in his speech of 2004 May 24, US President Bush did suggest as an ultimate goal
So let us presume that was and is the ultimate goal of the United States. The next question is the success of the current actions.
A mnemonic is `OOTPAR':
This is longer than the traditional `OODA' mnemonic, Orient, Observe, Decide, Act, and emphasizes the need to consider alternatives.
First, orient yourself: Iraq is between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It possesses a huge amount of oil. Iraq has with three major and many minor ethnic groups. A minority, the Sunni's, have suppressed the majority group, the Shi'ites. They want revenge. The modernizing dictatorship of the past half century has promoted nationalism; however, clans and religious organizations provide safety and control power. The Shi'ites share their religion with the Iranians, which whom Iraq fought a long and bloody war. The Iranians fear a powerful Iraq. The Saudi Arabian government rivals Iraq and has fought a war with it. Al Qaeda is trying to overthrow the corrupt and unrepresentative Saudi Arabian monarchy.
Second, observe: after being prevented from continuing to occupy Kuwait, which would have given it controlling power over the world's fossil fuel, the Iraqi government managed to put down a major revolt and carry on. As far as can be determined by an outsider, the Iraqi government had nothing to do with Al Qaeda's program of attacking the United States in order to reduce US support for the Saudi Arabian monarchy.
Third, think: although Iraq was not involved in the Islamic fundamentalist desire to replace current Arab dictatorships, such as that in Saudi Arabia, with a religious theocracy, the country is central to Middle Eastern oil production and was weak.
Fourth, plan alternatives for reaching the long term goal of US safety. Here are four:
I do not think that any United States government could have successfully followed Plan `D' and did nothing, even if it presented the action as a Christian `turn the other cheek'.
Nor do I think that any United States government would follow Plan `B' and appease various governments. This was the previous policy of the United States. It failed. The dictatorships continued, the societies remained `Immobile', and anti-corruption, anti-infidel religious fundamentalists gained adherence.
This is why I think that the United States government as a whole decided to follow Plan `A', to intimidate governments, in conjunction with Plan `C', to create an appealing alternative, so the enemies of the United States would lose support.
From the point of view of the United States, these destinations are way points on the route to its final destination, its definition of victory, which, as far as I can see, is to feel safer in October 2041 than in October 2001.
Fifth, act to reach these intermediate destinations.
Sixth, review the action.
Some say that the United States has already accomplished its mission. The United States has defeated Saddam Hussein, regardless of purported statements by some of his former generals, and has transferred power to a new Iraqi government. Others say that the actions continue. Regardless, a review is appropriate.
The first question is whether the United States was successful in intimidating nearby governments? The inspection and disarmament of Libya stands as evidence that the US was successful, although some say that Libya was attempting to make a deal with the United States and Europe anyhow.
However, the continuing conflict with Iran over its nuclear weapons program tells us that in this case the US failed. By refusing to follow up on the offers it made in November 2003, the Iranian government shows that it believes it can negotiate a deal more beneficial to itself.
The second question is whether the United States was successful in offering an attractive alternative. It is evident that the United States failed from the beginning. It did not bring enough occupation troops into Iraq to provide order, which is the highest priority responsibility of any government.
The Chief of Staff of the United States Army was right in saying before the war that more troops would be needed. As a result, Iraq has changed from a weak state to a failed state.
The United States government did not understand that the number of troops needed to defeat a weak Iraqi army in a conventional war would be fewer than the number needed to provide order in an assymetrical war during an occupation. Some say that this confusion was the result of a huge success by the Iranian secret police, who inspired Chalabi to sucker senior members of the Bush Administration. At that time members of the Bush Administration supported Chalabi and his associates.
There are other questions. For example, was the demobilization of the old Iraqi army a smart move for the United States? Or did it mean the US stopped paying and monitoring those who might cause trouble for it? But these are enough.
Return to: Notions
Or return to: Rattlesnake Home Page