As the American election nears, Wingless takes a closer look at Obama and his plans for Iraq. Some of my readers have commented they dislike the “3 hour marathon reads” so I’m splitting this up into multiple parts. First Part:
Obama’s Iraq Plan VS. Recent History

Barak Obama believes the USA is fighting the “wrong war” in Iraq. He wants the USA and it’s coalition of nations to withdraw from Iraq immediately. Through his “phased withdrawal”, Obama believes that he can successfully ‘leave Iraq to the Iraqis’ with neither humanitarian disaster nor the emergence of another terrorist haven.

The Junior Senator’s plan is nothing if not audacious. If it succeeds then I will applaud however I am extremely skeptical. I believe the best predictor to judge such a proposal against is that of recent history. As everyone’s favorite bald-man likes to say “the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior”. Although I doubt Dr. Phil was referring to scenario of such magnitude it does, nevertheless, apply.

Obama’s Strategy in his own words:

Obama’s plan offers the best prospect for lasting stability in Iraq. A phased withdrawal will encourage Iraqis to take the lead in securing their own country and making political compromises, while the responsible pace of redeployment called for by Obama’s plan offers more than enough time for Iraqi leaders to get their own house in order. As our forces redeploy, Obama will make sure we engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society—in and out of government—to forge compromises on oil revenue sharing, the equitable provision of services, federalism, the status of disputed territories, new elections, aid to displaced Iraqis, and the reform of Iraqi security forces.

It all sounds quite plausible. You leave, thereby ending the grievance of the ‘insurgents’; and you diplomatically engage, thereby increasing indigenous responsibility and control. If it all didn’t sound so familiar I’d call it a “novel approach that just might work”. Of course, to those of us watching the Middle East attentively Obama’s plan is all too familiar. It’s a rehash of Israel’s ”disengagement” from Gaza, not to mention its similarity to the withdrawal from Lebanon.

Obama’s ‘withdrawal’ is identical to the reworked Sharon/Olmert ‘disengagement’. Sharon’s proposal came at a time when Israel had lost hope of real peace with the Arabs. Israel had left much of the West Bank after the Oslo accords, only to be forced back as the Arabs used the lull in security to sneak into Israel and blow up buses. Similarly, no amount of withdrawal or aid to the PA would quell the fire that sizzled within Gaza. Negotiations & diplomacy had gone on for nearly a decade with Israel offering everything and the kitchen sink. The bulk of Israeli’s had bravely embraced peace, but after 10 years of increased bloodshed they finally had to concede defeat. Instead of making things better it made them far worse! “Withdrawal & Negotiation” turned rocks into guns; guns into rockets; gunmen into suicide bombers. Israelis were dying in far greater numbers and they were dying for the first time inside Israel’s borders.

Like Iraq, there was a sense that Gaza would be a static front, a festering war of attrition were armies did not advance but instead accumulated body counts. Like Iraq, the populace questioned why their sons, fathers, neighbours, brothers and friends were dying in an area so far removed from the everyday life of the common citizen.

Sharon’s plan was a novel one. It’s pretext was that there was no viable means of making peace, especially in Hamas controlled Gaza. Like Obama, Sharon wanted to get his men out of harms way and he ordered the complete withdrawal of Gaza. At the same time, Mahmoud Abbas’ PA was strengthened & encouraged to take control. Just as Obama promises to put pressure on the Iraqi government, tremendous pressure was put upon Abbas. Every shade of carrot & stick was tried from diplomatic pressure (from USA, EU & Israel), withholding of funds, to aid & unprecedented prisoner release.

Several years on we can now look to Gaza as a crystal ball into Obama’s Iraq.

MORE TERROR:

When Israel left Hamas did not see it as a good-will gesture, they saw it as a retreat and declared victory.

Sami Abu Zuhri, the Hamas spokesman proclaimed: “It’s not a withdrawal, it’s an escape.”

Opinion polls conducted by [Khalil] Shikaki’s Palestinian Center for Policy Survey and Resarch over the past two years have consistently indicated that three-quarters of the Palestinian public views the disengagement as a victory for violence.

This perceived ‘win over a super-power’ raised Hamas prestige (similar to Hezbollah when Israel left Lebanon) and encouraged young men throughout Gaza to join this newly “legitimized threat to Israel”.  Rather than taking away their grievance, the withdrawal emboldened them, made them feel strong & confident. It gave a legitimacy to their brutal tactics for in war, the greatest legitimizer of any tactic is victory. Instead of making Abbas look good, it made him look weak. Hamas now controlled 100% of Gaza while Abbas controlled pockets of Judea & Samaria. Abbas ruled through cooperation with Israel while Hamas was seen as defeating Israel. This is a perfect analogy for how Iraq’s insurgents & government will fair with the Iraqi populace should the Marines hastly retreat.

INCREASED VIOLENCE:

Hamas moved into the buffer zones that the IDF had previously kept in order to keep the Kassam Rockets out of range of Israeli cities & towns. From these positions, without any threat from the IDF, Hamas has launched between 3000 and 7000 rockets (estimates vary) upon Sderot. Suicide bombings have not stopped, on the contrary, Hamas tries to sneak them into Israel almost daily.

As for the minorities within Gaza, they are probably the greatest, if the most ignored, victims of the disengagement. As Hamas is an Islamist group, all those who do no follow their brand of Islam are fair game. Christians are routinely targetted in Gaza. Their schools, shops and Churches have been vandalized and attacked. Christians have been murdered and some new terror groups have popped up whose chief aim is to make life hard for the “infidel” living under Hamas rule.

TERRORIST HAVEN:

Gaza became a terrorist haven, a Club Med for the over bearded Jihadi. Masked gunmen roam the streets, loudspeakers spew out anti-Jewish vitroil & the schools are nothing more than prep schools for the aspiring Jihadi. Today Gaza boasts various terror groups that recruit & operate in open view with the blessing of the government and lawmakers. Even more troubling is the fact that these groups have began to reconcile, putting aside their idealogical differences and working together in the pursuit of Jihad. In past months we have seen joint operations between Muslim Brotherhood aligned Hamas & the various Salafi Al Qaeda groups within Gaza.
These groups include:

• Huda [Guidance] Army Organization (attack Christians & Churches),
• Al Qaeda linked: Fatah al-Islam (worldwide plots inc. German train & Lebanon bombings),
• Jaysh al-Ummah
• Al Qaeda linked: Army of Islam (aka: Brigades of Tawheed and Jihad, Kidnappers of Alan Johnston)

Gaza is a perfect analogy for Iraq. Without America enforcing a total zero-tolerance ban on terror organizations they will flourish. History has shown us repeatedly that the only way to stop terror is to engage it. The success of the recent American “surge” only reaffirms the fact that increased engagement decreases the effectiveness of terrorists and makes areas safer. 

When terrorists have to constantly watch their backs and defend themselves then they have less ability & time to conduct “operations” against innocents. It really is that simple – there are only 24 hours in a day, keep the terrorist busy and on his toes and he will not have time to plot and plan. Keep him under stress and pressure and he will make mistakes. Disrupt his supply lines, compromise his communication, and force him to sleep with one eye open – these are the only means that have been proven to disrupt the destructive nature of the terror element.

Bill Clinton’s reign showed the world what the “hear no evil, see no evil” approach achieves. Under Clinton the world was lulled into complacency, sure they attacked the Cole, sure they conducted a defacto attacks on American soil but those happened in far away places, they happened “on television”. Because Al Qaeda was allowed to plan in peace & safety, because they could travel & communicate freely they were able to pull off 9/11.

History has shown us that disengagement or “leave them be” approaches fail, and those failure equal many dead Americans. The recent surge shows us that the opposite of disengagement, increased engagement lowers the amount of dead civilians & Americans.

History again has shown us that military intervention works – since Bush’s war on terror began nobody can say that the terrorists are “better off”. They are on-the-run and do not have the ability to communicate, transfer funds or move freely, thus since 9/11 Americans have been safe.

This brings me to the next point:
Responsibility.

NEXT TIME ON WINGLESS : OBAMA’S IRAQ CONTINUES, FOCUSING ON AMERICA’S RESPONSIBILITY

Trackposted to No Apology, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Mark My Words, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Dollar Traveler, Shadowscope, DragonLady’s World, , Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Cao’s Blog, , NN&V, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Pet’s Garden Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, third world county, Political Byline, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Right Voices, and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.