Inglis Position:
Americans won the first two phases of the war in Iraq. The third phase will not be aided significantly by an American surge and can only be won by the Iraqi people. In phase one, we overran the country and took out a national security threat to the United States and the world. We won. In the second phase, we took on the insurgents and disrupted terrorist networks. We bought some time and prevented attacks on our homeland. That’s a win. Now we’re in phase three, a civil war that will end only when the Iraqi people decide they want to live in a unified, pluralistic and peaceful Iraq.
No amount of American military might can make them choose to build a nation for themselves. Nation building is not and should not be made the business of the American military. The United States can coax the Iraqis to build a nation for themselves by laying out a timetable for key decisions. One of those decisions is the fair division of oil money among the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. Another key decision is the re-inclusion of Sunnis in the government, thereby overcoming our mistake of de-Baathification. It is our right as the Iraqi protectors and our obligation to our servicemen and women to insist on a timetable for these decisions. If the Iraqis make progress, we should continue to protect them. If they fail to reach these milestones, we should leave. We have given Iraqis the conditions under which freedom can take root. They must nurture the seed and water it with their own sweat and blood. Political freedom is not free. It cannot be given; it can only be earned.
Questions
Should the US have a surge in forces?
Proponent’s position:
- The Administration and some Pentagon officials argue that unless the sectarian violence, particularly in Baghdad, is brought under control, any progress in Iraq will be impossible. They believe that a surge in troop levels is necessary to subdue the insurgency and bring stability to Baghdad. Once security has been attained, the U.S. military can then concentrate on accelerating the recruitment and training of Iraqi security forces and the turnover of more territory to the Iraqis.
Opponent’s position:
- The Joint Chiefs have stated that as long as the American presence is growing, the Iraqis will never take responsibility for their own security. They also complain that the surge seems to involve only military personnel, and that U.S. government agencies better suited for reorganizing political and economic systems haven’t been given a more prominent role. As an alternative to a troop surge, agencies such as the Departments State, Justice, and Energy should send experts and advisers to help the Iraqis pull themselves together.
- The second argument is that America ’s military capacity is already overstretched and we do not have the troops to sustain a substantial increase in our presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to other possible threats around the world.
Inglis position:
“In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that when a people are subjected to despotism, ‘It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their security.” I would emphasize the phrase, “It is their duty.” While a troop surge may provide temporary security, no amount of American military might can force the Iraqi people to seek national reconciliation and strive towards achieving the milestones that should be set – like a fair division of oil money and steps to overcome the mistake of de-Baathification.
Should the US establish timetable and deadlines for troop withdrawal and Iraqi milestone achievements?
Proponent’s Position:
- Analysts such as Thomas L. Friedman believe that we have two choices in Iraq – “Either we commit the resources to entirely rebuild the place over a decade, for which there is little support, or we tell everyone that we will be out within 10 months, or sooner, and we'll deal with the consequences from afar. We need to start the timer -- today, now… As long as we're in Iraq, Iraq implodes, and we absorb a lot of the pain. The minute we leave, Iraq explodes -- or at least no one can be sure it won't -- and that is a real threat to the Iraqi factions and neighbors [ Iran and Syria]. Only that threat will give us leverage. Yes, it would be a sad end to our involvement there. But everything Iraq's leaders have done so far suggests that a united, democratic and pluralistic Iraq is their second choice. Tribal politics is still their first choice.”
Opponent’s Position:
- The primary argument against phased withdrawal with deadlines has been that such a step would result in increased violence, fragmentation, and an escalation of the ‘civil war.’ Others believe that establishing timetables for troop withdrawal is a defeatist, “cut and run” position and that we should not leave before we have achieved ‘victory’ in Iraq.
Inglis Position:
I do not support a timetable for withdrawal because it tells our enemies too much. I strongly support a timetable for progress in Iraq-- a series of milestones that the Iraqi leadership should meet in order to advance national reconciliation.
Should the US negotiate with Iran & Syria?
Proponent’s position:
- Proponents of this plan believe we need to work with Iran, because Iran leads a regional alliance that includes several Shiite militias in Iraq. Likewise, Syria exerts great influence over factions of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq.
Opponent’s position:
- Some Middle East experts have pointed out that because of the escalating sectarian fighting between Shiites and Sunnis and the Democratic victories in the midterm election, the U.S. will be sitting down at the table in weakness. These experts fear that Iran may demand U.S. acquiescence on its nuclear programs and acceptance of Tehran’s role as the new regional hegemony.
- Others have noted the Syria and Iran ties to leading supporters of terrorist interests, and that we should never negotiate with terrorists.
- Also, some doubt that Iran and Syria could wield the kind of influence needed to halt the sectarian fighting. Iran could lean on the Shiite militias in Iraq, but there is no guarantee that they would listen. Although they are supplied militarily by Iran, Iraqi Shiites ultimately have their own agendas and aspirations. Syria’s influence in Iraq is much smaller than Iran’s. The number of Sunni fighters crossing Syrian territory into Iran has dropped off significantly in the past two years, so its ability to influence violence is questionable.
Inglis position:
We should attempt to engage in diplomatic discussions with Syria and Iran. Their geographical, ideological, and political influences over Iraq are too important to ignore. Under no circumstance should we entertain extreme, or accept unreasonable, terms for their assistance. President Reagan (as did his predecessors) engaged the Soviets in negotiations. President Kennedy was wise to say, "We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate."
Who are the players?
Moctada Al Sadr
- A Shiite cleric, he commands strong support in the Sadr City ghetto in Baghdad, formerly called Saddam City.
- In October 2006, he made public appearances with the current president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, raising controversy over his influence in the new government.
- In June 2003, he raised a resistance movement dubbed the "al-Mahdi Army" estimated to number several thousand. This insurgent force is making a bid for power in Iraq.
Baathists
- The Arab Socialist Baath Party was founded in 1947 as a radical, secular, Arab nationalist political party.
- It functioned as a pan-Arab party with branches in different Arab countries, but was strongest in Syria and Iraq, coming to power in both countries in 1963.
- Saddam Hussein was a Baathist.
Sunni vs. Shiite
- Sunni and Shiites are two branches of the Islam religion that share most religious tenets. The difference between the two groups can be traced to the beginning of the Muslim religion. The two groups differ over who was meant to be the rightful successor to Mohammad and therefore the leader of the Islamic state. Shiites believed that person should be a relative of Mohammed. Sunnis believed that the elders should meet and select the most qualified person from the community as a whole.
- The majority of the world’s Muslim population follows the Sunni branch of Islam, and approximately 10-15% of all Muslims follow the Shiite branch.
- Shiite populations live in a number of countries, but they constitute a majority in Iran, Iraq, Bahrain and Azerbaijan. There are also significant Shiite populations in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen.
- Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are/were Sunni Muslims.
Kurds
- The Kurds are an ethnic group who consider themselves to be indigenous to a region often referred to as Kurdistan, an area which includes adjacent parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. Ethnically related to other Iranian people groups, they speak Kurdish, an Indo-European language of the Iranian branch. Historically, the Kurds have continuously sought self-determination. Estimated at about 35 million people, the Kurds make up the largest ethnic group in the world who do not have a nation-state of their own.