« Prev Page

We’re Fighting the Wrong War

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

This is why Republican rhetoric about Iraq is also somewhat unhinged. John McCain deserves credit for supporting the surge. But the notion, articulated by many Republicans, that if we just stay the course a bit longer we will achieve "victory" is loopy. Iraq is seen—and will be for years—by the rest of the Middle East as a cautionary tale and not a model.

"Our initial goals in Iraq—WMD, democratic transformation—are impossible," says Biddle. "What remains is a negative objective, stopping the war from spilling over, within Iraq but also outside it." It's similar to the challenge the Clinton administration confronted in the Balkans in the 1990s—where the mission was to end a civil war and keep the peace.

The problem with such a mission is that it requires lots of troops. By most estimates, peacekeeping in Iraq would take more foreign troops than are there right now. While it is all well and good to say that the United States should not be policing a civil war, the fact is that we are, and were we to leave, it would likely start up again. This is not the war that we signed up for and it is not really about fighting Al Qaeda, but it is the reality.

The most intelligent strategy for the United States now is a combined political and military one. If we are to engage in peacekeeping, the operation needs to be internationally recognized, sanctioned and supported—as it was in Bosnia. We should call an international conference on Iraq and get the support of other countries—crucially Iraq's neighbors—for this new mission. There should then be a joint international push to get the Iraqis to make the kinds of political deals that will turn the ceasefires into lasting peace. Over the next year if the violence continues to decline, countries like India, Poland and South Africa could be persuaded to relieve American troops. With sustained and focused efforts, over time, American forces could draw down substantially. The mission could then become what it was always billed as, a genuinely international effort to assist the Iraqi people in founding a new nation.

« Prev Page

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: pawinda @ 01/26/2008 2:34:32 AM

Respected Mr. Fareed Zakria, with due respect , I happen to read one of your article"IN THE DARK HOURS". This was regarding a wave of unprecedented Terror in PAKISTAN. The answer to your innocent Qurry is very simple, PAKITANIS ARE AT WAR WITH U.S.A. It is an open war with closed eyes of entire Muslims.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: klebrun @ 01/25/2008 2:10:06 PM

The death toll for the Iraq war, which we did not need to fight, is grossly understated. Besides massive Iraqi deaths, it does not take into account the additional deaths of Americans who are being denied health care coverage because of the cost of the war in Iraq - expected to cost well over a trillion dollars before we are finished.

For example, with an estimated 45 million uninsured Americans and an estimated one trillion dollars, the money spent on the Iraq war would average $22,222 per person, enough to pay almost ten years of health coverage for every uninsured person.

The average mortality rate in the U.S. by 2007 estimates is 8.26 per 1,000 population, or 371,700 deaths per year for a population of 45 million. The Kaiser Commission report, published in 2006, estimates the death rate for uninsured could be reduced by 10-15%. (1)

???Research has consistently shown that the lack of insurance ultimately compromises persons??? health because they are less likely to receive preventive care, are more likely to be hospitalized for avoidable health problems, and are more likely to be diagnosed in the late stages of disease. Having insurance
improves health overall and could reduce mortality rates for the uninsured by 10 to 15%.???

That amounts to a reduction in premature deaths ranging from approximately 37,000 to 55,000 per year for the uninsured population. So, each year we are condemning to death, for lack of insurance, a population that approaches the deaths caused by the nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima that ended the war with Japan.

(1) http://www.illinoiscovered.com/assets/cover_7451.pdf
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: impartialobserver @ 01/24/2008 10:08:09 PM

The occupation was illegal, unadvised, unfounded and just plain wrong. America has done more damage to Iraq than they could ever hope to undo, and the country has turned into a battleground. Even if the American Government did this on an altruistic impulse, which I think is a ludicrous claim, they had no right to trespass Iraq's sovereignty. I am not from Iraq, and I can't imagine what it's like having foreign troops enter your country to overthrow a dictator the American Government itself supported for so many years. What nationalist pride do the Iraqis have left now? All those martyred Iraqi civilians: what did they deserve to die like this while we all are safe and secure, and have nothing to fear from non-existant weapons of mass destruction? What is the world coming to? Why are we humans so deaf to the screams of those innocent Iraqis? We compromised our own humanity when we failed to stop this madness and loss of precious human lives. This is no Iraqi or American or Muslim or Christian or Jewish loss- it is a human loss, and I hope we are not too blind to see through our different appearances and understand the difficulties that humans face today.