How did we get to this point? We acted in our national interests, I’m convinced. As I wrote previously, I don’t question the decision to remove Saddam. It was right, appropriate and just. And our strategy of pre-emption has clearly worked, as evidenced by the fact that there have been no more terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11.

But we’ve committed some unpardonable mistakes along the way. No point in debating those – what’s done is done. But as noble as our cause is, I think we as a Nation are learning the cost of “going it alone.” In the world’s eyes, perception is reality and the US is increasingly viewed as arrogant and self-serving. A close British friend here recently told me, “it’ll be a long time before Britain goes to war with the US again.” That’s telling.

Yes, it’s lonely at the top (although Americans relish being #1) but increasingly our actions are being viewed as those of occupiers, not freedom-loving liberators. While I dismiss most of the rhetoric, I think we need to re-shape our approach to national policy and strategy.

Globalization makes the world much smaller than it used to be. And it also results in every crisis being interrelated to all other ongoing world events. Current standoffs with the remaining 2/3 of the Axis of Evil have impacts here in Iraq, or perhaps it’s more accurate to state that actions here in Iraq are impacting what’s happening in North Korea and Iran. Continuing the status quo here using our scarce resources greatly affects our ability to respond elsewhere…and that is emboldening our enemies.

So we need to change our strategy. Politics drives strategy, which drives military operations. It is therefore reasonable to expect to see changes following the mid-term Congressional elections. The timing for change might actually work out well, since the Iraqi Council of Representatives this week passed legislation to allow the formation of federal regions (known as “federalism” in these parts). This has received virtually no US media coverage, which is alarming.

This action may portend failure for the future of the Iraqi unity government, since the Sunni representatives boycotted this session. The Sunnis oppose the creation of these federal regions, which would presumably create a northern Kurdish region, a southern Shia region and western Sunni region, governed by a weak central government based in Baghdad (and within the Shia-controlled region). So the Sunnis once again view themselves as being on the outside looking in. Which will inevitably lead to continued death squads targeting innocent Shias. And the Shias will continue to respond with their own death squads, targeting innocent Sunnis. Stop the madness!

Of course, a newly formed Kurdish region (Kurdistan?) would also greatly empower the Kurdish population in the north, which would not be well received by Turkey (a NATO member). Turkey fears that an independent Kurdish region across the border would trigger unrest amongst its own Kurdish population (~20%) and rightly sees this as a threat, internally as well as along its border. This could impact Iran as well, which has its own Kurds to placate (~7%).

Although Kurdistan would present diplomatic challenges to the US, a Shia federal region in the south would be more menacing, given Iranian ambitions and current meddling in Iraq. Sorting out the government corruption and favoritism has never been more challenging, but as I stated in my first Thoughts piece, the violence will end only when the people view themselves as Iraqis first, Sunnis/Shia second. As long as religion dominates politics, there is no nationalism. And without nationalism, there is no country.

The US appears to be signaling consent to the federalist proposal, which surprises me. Iran continues to lurk behind the scenes secretly (and increasingly not so secretly), fueling the violence and turmoil. And we continue to try to give the Government of Iraq (GOI) the benefit of the doubt, but there are many occasions that make it clear that the GOI’s political aims and objectives don’t include the Sunni minority. Privately, many of us often wonder if the US picked the wrong side of what increasingly appears to be a civil war.

Of course US policy doesn’t play favorites here, at least not publicly. But the complexity plays out like a Rubik’s Cube: line up all the green squares on one side, and the other 5 sides turn to crap. And the other 5 sides include places like Afghanistan, Korea, and Iran to name a few. It’s therefore virtually impossible to balance all regions of the world simultaneously, let alone keep the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds happy and united.

So what’s the solution? I’m waiting for James Baker to finish his work and tell us all. Clearly he’s a smart guy. Until he publishes his findings, here’s my take.

First, we should focus our military efforts on securing the borders of Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces can handle the cities, but they can’t continue to take on the foreign fighters that continue to pour across the Syrian and Iranian borders. By shifting our (US) emphasis away for the cities and focusing on external threats, we’ll reduce casualties while simultaneously attacking the root cause of the problem instead of treating the symptom. Will this trigger civil war? Perhaps, but I think for all intents and purposes, we’re there already. At the very least, we’d shift the burden for prosecuting this war to the GOI, where it belongs.

The GOI would then be forced to deal with the militias. Anyone who’s seen a good western movie can relate to the role of the militias. They’re the renegade gangs that rule these towns by fear (if you don’t like westerns, remember Al Capone)? There is no law and order, except that which is provided by the militias. And the GOI has been very uneven in how it deals with this issue, publicly stating that all must be disbanded but doing little more than talking. It’s time for action.

Positioning our forces along the border (the Iranian border, in particular) would send a strong signal to Tehran that we’re watching…and waiting…and no longer consumed by internal Iraqi matters. That would provide us with the strategic agility (and resources) to reach out and touch Iranian belligerence. And with the US Navy likely closing in on the Korean peninsula, that little asshole will be held in check as well.

Does this solve all of our problems? Not necessarily, but steps like these would put some teeth back into our foreign policy. Amazingly, there are still some idealists who actually believe diplomacy can solve all of our problems – can’t we all just get along? But history has shown that without military muscle to back up actions, political goals cannot be achieved. Call me a realist.

And as we implement these changes in strategy, we need to do a better job of coalition-building. I’m not advocating sucking up to the French or Germans, but we certainly need to do a better job of stroking our true allies, such as the Brits, Aussies, Israelis and Canadians. Strengthened ties to India, Turkey, Jordan, Japan and Ukraine wouldn’t hurt either. With friends such as these, who cares what the Russians think!?

It’s clear that the time for action is now. Our favorite expression when dealing with the Iraqis is “we have watches, they have time.” Truer words have never been spoken. Time is not on our side, here or anywhere else.

I hope I’ve done an adequate job of giving you a perspective you aren’t likely to see on MSNBC or CNN. I’ve tried to be blunt and truthful, even if somewhat pessimistic at times. Our goals here in Iraq are much less lofty than they once were but that doesn’t mean we can’t leave Iraq a better place than when we found it. One thing is clear – the status quo ain’t working. We don’t need to abandon ship, just need to alter our approach. If/when we do, we’ll see that the glass really is half full…or more!

Reader support is crucial to this mission. Weekly or monthly recurring ‘subscription’ based support is the best, though all are greatly appreciated.  Recurring and one-time donations are available through PayPal or Authorize.net.

Recurring Paypal Support		One Time Paypal Support		For recurring or one-time donations through Authorize.net
(Recurring subscriptions require additional information. Please be sure to check the recurring option.)

To send a check or money order:

Michael Yon
P O Box 5553
Winter Haven, FL 33880-5553

I will continue to do my part in telling the stories that are not being told.  Readers must also do their part by keeping the cash flowing.  Cash is essential .

Thank you!
Michael