Page 2 of
3 Surge and destroy in
Iraq By Michael Schwartz
allies, and the stationing of a
second aircraft-carrier task force in the Persian
Gulf (with possibly two more on the way). And the
US and foreign media have been carrying a constant
stream of reports about possible US or Israeli air
attacks on Iran itself.
Bush
administration accusations of Iranian
"interference" in the Iraqi political and military
situation are particularly ironic, and not just
because the idea of the US accusing anyone else of
"outside
interference" in Iraq is so
absurd. The added irony derives from the
administration's most dramatic claim - that the
Iranians are supplying the insurgency with a new
type of improvised explosive device (IED) that can
pierce armor.
There is plenty of debate
over the accuracy of this charge, but if the
Iranians are supplying sophisticated IEDs, it's to
the Shi'ite insurgents (even the US military
admits to that); and the US is not (currently)
fighting the Shi'ite insurgents, it's fighting
Sunni insurgents, who hate Iran just as much as -
possibly more than - the US. However, this
accusation is most often stripped of this critical
"detail" in the media (especially on television
news). Therefore, the impression is left that a
large proportion of American casualties are
somehow being caused by Iranian technology. That,
too, is absurd.
The same can be said about
most other Bush administration claims against
Iran, including those about that country's
possible nuclear-weapons program. The latest US
intelligence reports indicate that the Iranians
could develop a bomb in perhaps five to 10 years,
hardly the sort of immediate threat that might
provide a handy justification for an attack on
Iran's nuclear facilities.
But the fact
that these accusations are so spindly only adds to
fears that the administration is constructing a
web of lies, half-truths, and cherry-picked
intelligence to justify an already-planned attack
- just as its top officials did four years ago in
the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
There
are, unfortunately, plenty of indications that the
US might indeed be preparing to attack Iran or
have the Israelis do it. The presence of two
aircraft-carrier battle groups is but the most
visible (with a third and even a fourth one
rumored to be en route); the appointment of the
first US Navy man, Admiral William J Fallon, to
head Centcom - and he has a background in naval
aviation at that - is another; and the recent
reports of behind-the-scenes protests over a
possible air assault on Iran from top military
officers (including unprecedented threats of
high-level resignations) are all tangible signs of
serious intent.
But many similar
indications were present last spring and no attack
occurred, presumably because saner heads inside
the Bush administration prevailed. This reflects
the fact that, even from the point of view of many
of those who embrace the goal of US pre-eminence
in the Middle East (which might indeed call for
reversing the upward trajectory of Iranian
regional power), such an attack might well appear
to be counterproductive.
Instead of
stabilizing the situation in Iraq and reducing
Iranian leverage in the region, it would likely
destabilize Iraq further (because Iran's Shi'ite
allies there would certainly respond forcefully
and violently), and it might even undermine the
viability of Saudi Arabia (because Shi'ite
rebellions could spread to the oil-rich areas of
that country). Most significant, instead of
dislodging the Iranian regime, a US attack, no
matter how powerful, would probably entrench it -
and at a terrible cost. Instead of restoring US
credibility as an indomitable military presence in
the Middle East, the failure of such an attack
would further undermine it (as Israel's fruitless
attack on Lebanon did for it last summer).
The logic of the situation suggests that
all this is saber-rattling - an attempt to use the
threat of war to wrest concessions from the
Iranians. But we are dealing with the Bush
administration, which has a habit of pursuing
"counterproductive" policies. We must carefully
watch the events of the coming months,
particularly the current talk about actual
negotiations between the administration and the
Iranian regime. This one could tip either way.
Attacking the Sunni
insurgents: What might happen sooner or
later in Shi'ite neighborhoods is already the
reality in Sunni communities and cities. For the
most part, the new strategy in Sunni areas of
Baghdad is the same old strategy, seen not only in
major battles such as those of Fallujah and Tal
Afar, but in various neighborhoods of such cities
as Ramadi, Mosul or Samarra. There is, however, a
new twist: the Americans now intend to keep troops
at fortified mini-bases in many of Baghdad's Sunni
neighborhoods - supposedly to establish long-term
stability and facilitate reconstruction - after
(and sometimes even before) they are "cleared of
insurgents". The small forward bases - really
glorified police stations - will be placed in the
middle of Baghdad "hot spots".
The first
prong of this new policy is doomed. No area in
Baghdad, or for that matter in Iraq, has been
successfully pacified in this manner. That
includes Fallujah and Tal Afar, where this very
strategy has been applied and has failed. About
1,000 American soldiers, supplemented by Iraqi
(Shi'ite) troops, have been in Fallujah for 27
months since the city was "cleared" (that is,
largely destroyed). They have established a
particularly harsh form of martial law and yet the
insurgency in the city, without ever
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
