Goals in Iraq

I have been thinking about the question of what we are doing in Iraq and how we can win, if winning has any meaning any more.

I got into a big argument with the commenters at Art Chrenkoff's blog, all of whom seem to think that the war is progressing nicely, and that we can be confident that we are beating the insurgency even without any meaningful metrics for success - or rather, with all meaningful metrics pointing the other way.

Someone asked me "how do you propose we win." Well.

Personally, I'd rather see a withdrawal, but if Bush wants toprovide a real strategy, one that could earn my respect (for his being honest, not because the strategy is a good one), it would go something like this:

(1) First, we stop talking so much about "democracy" and about Iraqis having "an independent government." Bush should plainly state: "Our goal is to get an Iraq that does not threaten us, prefereably a democratic one. But the first goal, before Iraq can truly become an independent nation, will be for us to provide security and to establish control over the country. We will curtail Iraqi's freedoms where we have to and will refrain from giving Iraq full sovereignty until we can establish a single central control of the country. So despite all of the rhetoric about democracy, we must, as in Germany and Japan, have control over the country before we turn it over."

(2) Second, we need to cordon off large areas of cities, at least one area every day, consisting of several blocks. When we do, (and we won't announce which area beforehand), we will order everyone into their houses. At that point, we will go house-to-house and remove all weapons from each house. We will also search the house for any evidence of association with insurgents. Any evidence and we send everyone in the house to jail for a few days until we can figure out what the relationship between them and the insurgency is. After a week, we let out those we think are innocent, and prosecute those whom we feel are guilty.

It goes without saying that all such searches will take places in unfriendly areas. Areas that are mostly Shiite or Kurdish will be allowed to keep their weapons.

If anyone kills a coalition soldier during these searches, their house, and everyone inside, gets blown up immediately.

(3) If disarming the populace leads to less defense against looting, etc., we will solve that by stricter martial law defense. That is, if anyone is suspected of looting something, our soldiers will tell them "STOP!" and if they don't stop they get shot immediately.

(4) If people crossing from the Syrian (or other) border are really a problem, then we should have air patrols over all relevant borders. Thee should be a few checkpoints through which movement is allowed. Anyone traveling across the border from elsewhere will be bombed immediately. Prefereably, we could also set up several lookout posts, say, every five miles across the border, and anyone attempting to cross not at the controlled checkpoints will get shot.

(5) Every month, we will surround a town entirely over the course of one night, and then the next day we will give everyone in the town a few hours to get out. They have to go out through specific checkpoints, where they will be searched for weapons or other evidence of hostility. Anyone attempting to get out not through a checkpoint wil be shot. After the deadline is up, we send troops into the town to check each house. Thsoe who stay in the town must surrender to any soldier immediately and be taken to a detention center, or they will be shot. The soldiers will go through house after house, and confiscate all weapons or weapons materials. Once this is done, the townspeople will be allowed back. Metal detectors will be used to detect buried weapons.

(6) In general, all Iraqis in dangerous areas will have their movement severely restricted.

I'm not certain that that will do it, but at least it represents a real plan.

That is all.