Saturday, April 01, 2006
The Case for Martial Law in Iraq
Suppose the United States was faced with insurrection on the home front. Suppose we had insurgents bombing and killing and creating chaos. Suppose the police was understaffed to handle mounting attacks and the safety and security of American citizens was threatened to the extent that a breakdown in law and order was imminent. Were this the situation, would there be any hesitancy in imposing martial law, taking control of the situation and restoring law and order? Or would we stand around wringing our hands hoping local and /or state police would somehow get control of the situation and tell the country that everything is going fine , there are signs of improvement and be patient? You know the answer to this hypothetical situation but this latter response is exactly what we are doing in Iraq today.
There is a line in “Heartbreak Ridge” the movie, referring to the Korean and Vietnam Wars which depicts the ongoing status of our military’s role in world conflicts post WWII. The line spoken by Clint Eastwood is,” We may have lost the war but we won the battles.” This is exactly why our military knows they are doing a good job and yet are faced with a letdown when the war ends. They won the battles and their country lost the war. Only the politicians who start the wars ( and some wars, like in Iraq ,are justified ) are to blame for the war losses. They go into the war saying they will listen to the military and then they don’t define or insist on complete and total victory. There was no imposition of martial law in Korea nor Vietnam. There was a commander of the military operation but there was no military commander to oversee the institution of the protection and institution of individual rights after the fighting was done. The contrast with Japan and how it was handled and the ensuing success is so obvious you would think it would be a no brainer to follow that pattern. But instead of taking a lesson from history we have politicians who are so programed to try to please the majority that they ignore what it is their job to do and end up pandering to the perceived feelings of “world ”opinion. The question they should face is,” Do we want to see if we can not be seen wrong by the “world” or do we want to protect the American citizens and their country from harm?” These politicians were not elected to create an impossible image of America where all countries look upon us as strong and benign. They were elected to protect us from foreign invasion and to defend our interests in the world from acts of violence.
No matter how much reassurance is offered about our “progress’ in Iraq, this will not change the hatred and ongoing violence between the sectarian militias. Putting a regime in power that favors their sect over others is a sure recipe for further conflict and insurgency. Calling for elections to establish this power doesn’t change the resentment of those out of power. Hoping for reconciliation between the factions is like asking the Republicans to share power with the Democrats even though they won the election. Which brings up another obvious observation our politicians overlooked. If the Republicans and Democrats can’t “come together” in defending our nation, what makes them think another country will form a coalition to defend their country? Peace and security via law and order do not just happen. They must be established and maintained. So now that we are pursuing a no win policy relying on Iraqis to “come together” on their own, how do we correct this erroneous approach?
First of all our leaders need to recognize that relying on others in a country torn by rival gangs to have a revelation that our way of life is superior and ought to be emulated is a venture into la-la land. Then they need to announce that our current plan needs revision and the place to start is to reinstitute control via martial law and establishing a country where law and order thrive and is enforced. Elections are meaningless when anarchy reigns. If they must give altruistic rationale they could always say it is for the good of the Iraqi people to have law and order. Such a stance would be an undercover excuse for our overall mission of preempting terrorism for our own protection but if our politicians can’t seem to understand or articulate the truth of our mission maybe they could at least do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Finally the policy must be made clear that this is not a one time experiment but our strategy on the war on terrorist states ( i.e. those that harbor and support terrorists ) is ongoing. We need to issue a list of those nations we are suspicious of and warn them any verification will bring down the same operation on their country. We should not be content to live in a world where tin horn dictators, barbaric mullahs and jumping gun waving crowds cause us to wonder what they are up to and whether they will get weapons and use them to destroy our security and safety.
This is all that is necessary to turn this latest stalemate into victory. When playing chess and you see a stalemate developing you protect your resources, plan a strategy for victory or you relent with the fact that a stalemate is all you are capable of achieving. We do not have to settle for another stalemate in Iraq ( and declare a limited “victory” ). No one looks on the peace “achieved” in Vietnam or Korea as conclusive victory. And it was all because we did not finish the job. We were fuzzy going in and we knew not how to handle the end game. We need the power utilized we have demonstrated to control the outcome. This cannot happen without a period to establish law and order. And the mechanism to do this is martial law.
There is a line in “Heartbreak Ridge” the movie, referring to the Korean and Vietnam Wars which depicts the ongoing status of our military’s role in world conflicts post WWII. The line spoken by Clint Eastwood is,” We may have lost the war but we won the battles.” This is exactly why our military knows they are doing a good job and yet are faced with a letdown when the war ends. They won the battles and their country lost the war. Only the politicians who start the wars ( and some wars, like in Iraq ,are justified ) are to blame for the war losses. They go into the war saying they will listen to the military and then they don’t define or insist on complete and total victory. There was no imposition of martial law in Korea nor Vietnam. There was a commander of the military operation but there was no military commander to oversee the institution of the protection and institution of individual rights after the fighting was done. The contrast with Japan and how it was handled and the ensuing success is so obvious you would think it would be a no brainer to follow that pattern. But instead of taking a lesson from history we have politicians who are so programed to try to please the majority that they ignore what it is their job to do and end up pandering to the perceived feelings of “world ”opinion. The question they should face is,” Do we want to see if we can not be seen wrong by the “world” or do we want to protect the American citizens and their country from harm?” These politicians were not elected to create an impossible image of America where all countries look upon us as strong and benign. They were elected to protect us from foreign invasion and to defend our interests in the world from acts of violence.
No matter how much reassurance is offered about our “progress’ in Iraq, this will not change the hatred and ongoing violence between the sectarian militias. Putting a regime in power that favors their sect over others is a sure recipe for further conflict and insurgency. Calling for elections to establish this power doesn’t change the resentment of those out of power. Hoping for reconciliation between the factions is like asking the Republicans to share power with the Democrats even though they won the election. Which brings up another obvious observation our politicians overlooked. If the Republicans and Democrats can’t “come together” in defending our nation, what makes them think another country will form a coalition to defend their country? Peace and security via law and order do not just happen. They must be established and maintained. So now that we are pursuing a no win policy relying on Iraqis to “come together” on their own, how do we correct this erroneous approach?
First of all our leaders need to recognize that relying on others in a country torn by rival gangs to have a revelation that our way of life is superior and ought to be emulated is a venture into la-la land. Then they need to announce that our current plan needs revision and the place to start is to reinstitute control via martial law and establishing a country where law and order thrive and is enforced. Elections are meaningless when anarchy reigns. If they must give altruistic rationale they could always say it is for the good of the Iraqi people to have law and order. Such a stance would be an undercover excuse for our overall mission of preempting terrorism for our own protection but if our politicians can’t seem to understand or articulate the truth of our mission maybe they could at least do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Finally the policy must be made clear that this is not a one time experiment but our strategy on the war on terrorist states ( i.e. those that harbor and support terrorists ) is ongoing. We need to issue a list of those nations we are suspicious of and warn them any verification will bring down the same operation on their country. We should not be content to live in a world where tin horn dictators, barbaric mullahs and jumping gun waving crowds cause us to wonder what they are up to and whether they will get weapons and use them to destroy our security and safety.
This is all that is necessary to turn this latest stalemate into victory. When playing chess and you see a stalemate developing you protect your resources, plan a strategy for victory or you relent with the fact that a stalemate is all you are capable of achieving. We do not have to settle for another stalemate in Iraq ( and declare a limited “victory” ). No one looks on the peace “achieved” in Vietnam or Korea as conclusive victory. And it was all because we did not finish the job. We were fuzzy going in and we knew not how to handle the end game. We need the power utilized we have demonstrated to control the outcome. This cannot happen without a period to establish law and order. And the mechanism to do this is martial law.
