Win the War Now

Rand Report : The United States should focus its political, security and economic efforts in Iraq toward the single goal of reducing sectarian strife and other violence, but should also start planning now for the possibility that these efforts will not succeed, according to a RAND Corporation study released this week.

The report recommends the United States reassess its efforts in Iraq, concluding that the single biggest issue in Iraq is the daily violence faced by the nation's population. That violence is now caused primarily by sectarian fighting, rather than from insurgents or criminal violence, according to researchers.

PDF version. Rand, the "original think tank" lists 5 solutions in this report U.S. Policy Options for Iraq.

1. Use overwhelming force to pacify the country and prevent further fighting.
2. Pick and support one or more “winners” of the civil war and help them gain control of Iraq, thus ending the conflict.
3. Help to partition Iraq into three separate states.
4. Leave Iraq and wait for one or more victors to emerge.
5. Maintain current efforts by seeking to broker a deal to reduce violence while Coalition troops focus on combating the insurgency and supporting the central government.

In February 2003 my sons were sitting, had been for months, on the Iraq border, waiting for UN approval to wage war. I knew with or without UN blessing the US was going to war. My daughter, granddaughter, and I froze our buns in rain and sleet holding signs. There was maybe 20 other protestors every week. I knew we would see a Vietnam repeat of break it, profitmonger it, leave it, let the peons pay for it.

Americans in 2002/2003 were not looking at the long-term effect of waging war and today they're not looking at the long-term effect of quitting war.

But lets look at options the think tank above offers. Number 5, current effort, is obviously not working. I don't believe the US mis-planned this war. Mr. and Ms. Average American may be dense, easily distracted, stupid - but the ruling class planners are not. If the US loses in Iraq - that was the plan – and suggests the design all along was to economically break the bank, similar to the collapse of the "evil" Soviet empire. Who benefits with the fall of American empire?

Leave and wait for "victors" to emerge (#4) could be a serious problem as the "victors" are going to be overtly or covertly armed and supported by other players on the chess board. China, Russia, Saudi, Iran, US, Latin America; everyone with a fork ready for a piece of the pie. You must consider the consequences of an Iraq government backed by other non-friendly global players. If you think those players will be more benign in Iraq than the US - then you need to think again. Or maybe you believe pseudobenevolent leaders like Hugo Chavez will rush to aid Iraq, nevermind that $50-72 per barrel war profit makes Hugo what he is today.

Number 3, partition into 3 separate states. Divide and conquer. According to Rand researchers the majority of Iraqi want a unified country. The US could wage a smaller war/occupation for decades or "generational war" as Condi put it, until Iraq, and/or perhaps more of the Middle East is carved into weaker, manageable units, a horrendous price for the people but long-term dividends for the profiteers.

Number 2, "pick and support one or more “winners” of the civil war and help them gain control of Iraq, thus ending the conflict" … This solution is #4 made simple, and with the guarantee that the US wins control of Iraq without other players stepping in to support their choice of "victor." It also would require "support" by means of massive armament and/or air strikes. Basically it's pick and support one side from a comfortable distance and let them kill off the opposition (method used often by US). But again, other players will pick and support a side. Just another war by proxy.

The current anti-war movement isn't looking at the long-term. The "peace movement" says end the war now but give no details on the aftermath of this strategy. Face it people, the long-term effect of winning or losing, or abandoning this war is not going to be simple, easy, or pretty. Most, if not all, of the same peace folks are okay with US trooping around in Africa, even beg Washington for intervention in Africa - that war is presented as humanitarian righteous aid and on the surface appears to be of smaller scale, or by proxy.

The majority of America is not "anti-war" – it's the packaging. Americans won't play if their team can't kickass quick and hold up a trophy. Americans need their war in a drive-through window. A Big Mac, a Whopper. It will still smell like a crotchburger but with the right wrapper Americans will swear it's delicious.

The majority of America's anti-war movement is not about saving lives – it's a platform for phonies like Markos and Huffington, a collection plate for blowhard bloggers, another book deal for pandering liberal and conservative writers. The movement does nothing more than maneuver potential progressive phonies into future position. The '60s gave us John "Toss Medals" Kerry, Daniel "Leaking All the Way to the Bank" Ellsberg, Tom "Progressive Democrats of America" Hayden, Jane "Staying Fit & Still Against War" Fonda, etc.

One of 3 things happen to radicals: They die young. They voluntarily fade away. They serve the established system while pretending not to.

Today there are no radicals, there are popularity contests. The movement's leader thinks a hunger strike is 3 days, no Cindy, that's fasting. Peace movement leader says she will camp out until Bush meets with her, then travels the world, puts a for sale sign on Camp Casey, quits the movement, returns to the movement, announces she wants to hold office in the same corrupt system she's been bull-horning. That's not leadership – that's PTSD.

My choice of the 5 Rand options would have to be number 1 - overwhelming force to pacify and stop the fighting. Stop the war profiteering (tax it) and corruption (hard prison time) at home. Rebuild Iraq and return it to Iraqis. Overwhelming force would likely require at least 600,000 troops patrolling Iraq, but it would have the capacity to disarm all sects and combatants in Iraq and keep the peace until Iraqis eventually form a unified government. Such a force would likely require a military draft at home.

The first called to serve should be family members of politicians, congress and the corporatocracy. All while instituting some immediate serious changes at home: term limits, campaign finance reform, US policy toward Israel, stop corporate global "destitution by design" - by any means necessary.

But – America ain't gonna do it that way.