Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedConfict in Iraq: Surrender is not an option, nor is defeat
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Disagree | 36% | 87 votes | Total: 245 votes | |
| Agree | 64% | 158 votes |
Disagree
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesOf course surrender is an option, surrender is always an option. Defeat on the other hand is a consequence, not an option. No one chooses to be defeated, defeat occurs as a result of failures during the execution of the campaign. While surrender is an option, it is not accepted to be the most palatable option available.
In the case of the conflict in Iraq the rules that generally govern the terms of surrender and defeat do not fit the traditional sense of those military terms. There is in fact no one to surrender to or be defeated by. There are no front lines, there are no clear enemy factions and there is no clear chain of command within the perceived opponent.
We must also take into account exactly what it means to be defeated or to surrender. There must be a military objective that we are striving towards that we fail to achieve. To date any military objectives in the conflict has been ambiguous at best and seem to change with the shifting sands of the desert. The Bush administration has failed to articulate precisely what the United States' mission in the region is. As a result, we can not be defeated simply because we can not fail to obtain an objective. Conversely, despite the President's best intentions, we can not declare victory either, because we have no clear definition of our goals.
An additional consideration to add to the mix is the fact that the conflict has gone from an offensive charge by the United States to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction, to a police action. Now our soldiers are in place simply to preserve, or at the very least achieve the peace and ready the native Iraqi's to govern themselves. We are acting in a support role to the current Iraqi ruling party in what amounts to a civil war within the country. Under these considerations we are not the active military entity in the country, we are no more than a support crutch for the Iraqi's. Therefore any defeat would be on their hands not ours. We can simply pull our support out tomorrow and consider our responsibilities fulfilled. But would this constitute a surrender?
If there is to be any type of surrender, it should be the Bush administration surrendering to reason. Clearly the war has dragged on far longer than it ever should have. Poor leadership, a lack of an overall operational plan and private vendetta's and agenda's on the part of our current administration have left us mired in the quagmire that is a modern day Viet Nam. The Bush administration should surrender to the will of the American people and stop murdering our armed forces in the Iraqi civil war for their own personal gain.
Surrender is an option. But it is only an option if you do so before you are defeated. Bushe's military conquests in the middle east, and extension of his fathers conquests before him, have been defeated. We have gained nothing from the war. We have done more harm in the name of fighting global terrorism than good. We have left the Iraqi's in a vulnerable and precarious position in the region. We are even now inflaming the Iranian government with more unprovoked verbal attacks, and we continue to threaten to destabilize an already volatile situation. If pulling our troops out of the region is considered surrendering, then by all means, wave the white flag and start saving American lives rather than throwing them away.
Learn more about this author, Joseph Whalen.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Agree
For the United States to even consider surrendering to a grossly inferior power such as Iraq is ridiculous. The Iraqi government cannot control its own citizens. The three different factions in the country, the Sunnis, the Shia and the Curds are fighting each other. Everyone is fighting the Americans who are busy trying to prop up the government, restore peace and repair the infrastructure of the country. If even a small fraction of the American forces decided to surrender, the government would be thrown into a panic. Officials rely on American support to sustain their government in power. Government officials would probably refuse to acknowledge the surrendering troops.
Nor is defeat an option. The Iraqi military is poorly equipped, poorly trained, and infiltrated with insurgents and traitors. Its ability to defeat a healthy American kindergarten class during recess is questionable. The notion that it could defeat American fighting forces is laughable.
Is there a third option of which America could take advantage to end the conflict in Iraq? Of course, but it would involve politicians having to admit that they made mistakes and this is something they are loathe to do.
The war would be brought to a quick conclusion if the President were to call a news conference tomorrow, and tell the world that American intelligence was wrong when it reported that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. He would then have to apologize for the destruction caused and the lives lost since the invasion, reminding the Iraqi people that, at least, they were no longer under the thumb of the dictator, Sadam Hussein.
The president would then pledge to reimburse government of Iraq for the repair of homes and infrastructure damaged or destroyed during the fighting. Government officials would receive this money as soon as the last American was out of Iraq. Then, in an orderly manner, the troops could begin to withdraw.
What would be the results of this strategy? Most importantly, America's young men and women would be brought home quickly, safe and sound. The Iraqi government, anxious for the money, would facilitate the withdrawal of the American forces. The insurgents, anxious to be rid of at least one enemy would probably hold their peace until the Americans had left. It would be costly for the American coffers, but less costly than carrying on a pointless war indefinitely.
The Iraqis would finally be forced to take full responsibility for their own peacekeeping and policing services. Their present government would either stand or fall according to the wishes and actions of the people of Iraq. This is how it should be. After all, it is the business of the Iraqi people, and of no one else.
Neither surrender nor defeat are options to end the conflict in Iraq. Will the third option be chosen? No, the war will drag on and on, more young soldiers will be killed, the economy will be savaged, the environment will be damaged , and the world will be dragged ever closer to global depression and perhaps military Armageddon... all because arrogant politicians will not admit to an error.
Next January, a new President will take office in Washington. Dare we hope for meaningful change? Dare we hope that the next leader will have enough humility, enough regard for the welfare of the common people to take the third option? We can only hope and pray that such will be the case. In the meantime, we must wait and count the body bags as they return home, even as the people in Iraq are similarly engaged in counting theirs.
Learn more about this author, Carolyn Tytler.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- War in Iraq
- Are Republican leaders pulling away from their support of the War in Iraq?
- The Pentagon reports rising violence throughout Iraq: Who's to blame?
- Does the US have a moral obligation to stay in Iraq until peace is secured?
- Should Bush relent on Iraq and announce a plan for troop withdrawals?
- Should America withdraw from Iraq if we are asked to?
- Should the US Congress speed funding for more armor-protected vehicles to save soldiers' lives in Iraq?
