I hate to do the unthinkable and actually move us back toward the original purpose of this thread but just ran across this story (linked @ bottom of post) in the NY Times. Seems that Sen. Levin and Sen. Warner who both head the powerful Armed Services Committee are expressing public doubts about the Maliki gov't in Iraq. This comes on the heals of the Pollock/O'Hanlon report which gave positive comments about the US military efforts but who also voiced the same concerns about the Maliki gov't and especially on the numerous interview shows they've been on of late.
Even though I've come to disagree with the
"political" side of foreign policy that lead to the Iraq invasion, it is clear that the surge is meeting with success. Ironic that numerous months ago I posted a link to the Rand Corp. study on troop levels needed to be successful basis on analysis of similar efforts from post WW2 Germany and Japan through Afghanistan and Iraq. Here's that link:
http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2003/burden.html
That analysis already suggested that early troop level efforts were way to short and that Rumsfeld plan of "Nationbuilding on the Cheap" was only going to fail. This was also why numerous generals were making comments questioning troop levels under Rumsfeld's policy as they had a good grasp of history and what did and didn't work. Petreus knew this and knew the historical data and I do believe his report next month will overall be a positive one as it pertains to the military effort itself. The military can't control the lack of effort on the part of Maliki and that IMO is clearly on the heads of those leading the political policy efforts. Bush, Cheney, Rice or whoever, they are open game for critism but IMO the military is not in that equation at all. Military doesn't make policy, they only implement as it pertains to their area of operations and influence. IMO, if this does become in the end a failure (that's not decided yet either so don't get excited) then like Vietnam, I do think the blame rest squarely on the Bush adminstration as it also does for LBJ and Nixon in regards to Vietnam. In both cases the military was awesome and never given the chance to win but that's another story too. Maybe Petraus is changing that outcome in our day.
Here are a couple of links to the Rand Corp's website with the first being an overview of Nationbuilding efforts from post WW2 til our current times in the mideast theater. It also defines Nationbuilding in what I think is a pretty good and fair definition so the reader knows the point of referrence going in. They defind it as:
We define nation-building as "the use of armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy."
Notice the use of the term "aftermath of a conflict". That means after the ending of hostile fighting associated with a type of declared warfare effort. Bush has caught hell for standing on the deck of that aircraft carrier and in essense claiming we had won. If you understand from wonkspeak how certain things are definded, then he really was correct in declaring victory. Besides at the time, the mandate was to remove Saddam from power and that truly was done, there's no denying that at all. But now came the nationbuilding part where the military was used again and that hasn't gone so well. This movie folks is a 2 parter so don't think for a moment your are watching one long movie. That's not the case at all. The first was purely military and now we are watching the political part. This is the same as Germany and Japan where we beat them on the battlefield and then afterwards rebuilt them (nationbuilding) into allies if you will and we still to this day maintain an occupational presence in both countries. If successful in Iraq, I dare say 60 years from now we'll still be there too.
The first article comes from the perspective that US Nationbuilding is not optional but a must from the belief we are the lone superpower in the world.
http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2003/nation1.html
This 2nd link is to a much larger work on the issue of Nation Building entitled, America's Role in Nationbuilding/From Germany to Iraq. You can purchase the book or they have it at the link in PDF format chapter by chapter. There is also an executive summary of the book posted which pretty much covers it all but what I found interesting was it in some sense predicted the troop surge success even before it ever began.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1753/
Both links also discuss the pros and cons of miltilateral and bilateral approaches to these kind of situations. From what I read, it seems to support Bush's bilateral invasion of Iraq to some degree but it seems to suggest that once the purely military invasion process is complete and the occupation and actual nationbulding process begins, a multilateral approach should be used as it tends to lend to better results. At least that's the understanding I came away with. I believe a number of democrats including Joe Biden have heavily advocated this post invasion/post Saddam removal from power multilateral approach for some time now. Another element of Biden's approach is to revisit the post WW1 settlement that erased the tribal partitions of this region when this area became a British Protectorate and also became one nation known today as Iraq. Biden feels there is cause to consider reversing what the British did and go back to what the area was under Ottoman rule as it pertians to land boundries. This causes nervousness as it could lead to questioning the Belfour Declaration and subsequent history and policy from it, but it may become a necessary evil in the end to figure out just what is a solution to this mideast region. Biden IMO gets credit for even thinking what in some circles is the unthinkable but someone has to step up and start the discussion no matter how distasteful it may seem.
JMO.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/w...95b69fc4d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
.
