"V" is for...?

For the past several years I have been trying to understand the meaning of the word "victory" in Iraq as used by many American politicians.  Leading up to and in the early days of the Iraq invasion, "victory" meant the destruction of Iraq's WMDs and regime change in that country.  No WMDs were found but regime change occurred with the removal from power of Saddam Hussein.  This prompted President Bush to proclaim his infamous "Mission Accomplished" statement some four years ago.  As time passed, violence in Iraq grew by leaps and bounds.  Iraqi museum treasures were looted and thousands upon thousands of Americans and Iraqis were killed and seriously maimed.  One of the basic reasons for all of this violence was the decision by the United States to disband the Iraq army and Baath political party, two entities that could have brought some stability to the country.  Violence continued unabated until the so-called "surge" was implemented.  In addition to adding more troops into Iraq, the surge also involved paying millions of dollars every month to Sunni tribal leaders to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq.  There was also a voluntary stand-down in violence by the Shiite militia under Moqtada(spelling?).

During the presidential campaign, Senator McCain has taken credit for the "surge" and says our troops will be victorious and will return home with honor.  Some feel that McCain is re-fighting the Vietnam War, a war in which he was involved.  Many conservatives in America, presumably including McCain, believe we lost the war in Vietnam because of politicians.  These conservatives have little appreciation for and knowledge of Asia in the immediate post-World War 2 era.  This was a time when western colonialism was coming to an end.  Great Britain gave India her independence, the United States did the same for the Philippines, and France was forced to abandon its hold on Indo-China.  The United States, fearing that all of South and Southeast Asia would succumb to Communism, the "domino theory", took over for the French in Indo-China.  This was an un-winnable war, which we belatedly realized.  However, McCain and his ilk felt they were betrayed in the 1970s and want to make sure that the same thing will not happen again in Iraq.  Once again, these people have no appreciation for the realities of the Mid East.

Barack Obama has given John McCain wide latitude in not questioning his foreign policy expertise, rightly believing the economy will decide the election.  McCain and his handlers are continually using the word "victory".  This word now means establishing a stable democracy in Iraq which will become our Mid East ally in the struggle against international terrorism.  Really?  John McCain's campaign manager said on Meet the Press a few weeks ago that "victory" would occur when Iraq's borders were secure.  But weren't they secure before the invasion?  On this same Meet the Press program, Tom Brokaw highlighted an interview General Petraeus had given to an English newspaper in which he stated that the word "victory" should not be used when talking about Iraq.  Five minutes later, McCain's campaign manager attacked Obama for not once using the word "victory" during the previous debate.

But from whence comes McCain's foreign policy expertise?  Is it from the time he was shot down over Vietnam and became a POW for many years?  His knowledge of Iraq and the Mid East is abysmally lacking.  He has no knowledge of the history, culture and religion of the area.  I would posit the following future scenario for Iraq.  Whether we leave in one month, one year, or ten years, heavy violence will occur after we leave.  McCain has displayed no understanding of the Shia-Sunni religious differences.  I don't believe he knows one group from the other.  These sects violently hate each other because of their different beliefs about Mohammed's successor.  The Hatfields and McCoys feud and the North-South bitterness during the American Civil War are like arguments about "who called shotgun" compared to the Sunni-Shiite struggle.  John McCain called Joe Biden's suggestion of a three-member federation in Iraq "cockamamie" during the last debate, although many Mid East scholars consider it an idea worth exploring.  The idea is to have three autonomous regions (Shiite, Sunni, Kurd) under a central Iraqi government.  Maybe it will not work but it should not be dismissed as "cockamamie".  After we leave Iraq, these three entities will be in place there, each with its own agenda.  The Shiites will demand pre-eminence because they are the largest group and feel they were persecuted under Saddam Hussein, a Sunni.  The Sunnis are reluctant to give up the power they enjoyed under Saddam.  The Kurds, who many experts say have a stronger and better-equipped army than the central government, want the city of Kirkuk and its oil riches, a situation to which the Shiites and Sunni are adamantly opposed.  Another complicating factor is Turkey which has had its differences with the Iraqi Kurds over the years.

Where does all of this end?  I envision a popular Iraqi army officer, probably Shiite, eventually taking over, much as Saddam Hussein did many years ago.  Hopefully there will be more freedom for the Iraqis than in the past but a strong hand will be required to keep these three divergent groups in line, for better or for worse.