The U.S. Achieves Success in the Middle East Because of the Iraqi War

Published in Guangming
(China) on 12 November 2010
by 马晓霖 Ma Xiaolin (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Sharon Chiao. Edited by Andysheh Dadsetan..
On August 29th, Beijing Time, American President Barack Obama announced in his weekly radio addresses and on the internet that the War in Iraq is “ending.” The media assumes that this was merely a preview of Obama’s formal speech on August 31st, which revolved around the successes and failures from America’s seven plus years fighting the War in Iraq. That night, on the television program “Common Concerns,” CCTV commentator Ma Xiaolin stated that America has already succeeded in the Middle East through the War in Iraq. Because the U.S. fought a non-traditional war, it is difficult for them to have a clear time table. Further, he pointed out that, with U.S. troops still in Iraq, insurgents will not be able to pull off any significant disruptions or disorder; however, little problems will continue to persist.

When asked how he feels about Obama's opinion of the Iraqi War, Ma Xiaolin pointed out, Obama is a critic of the War in Iraq and, naturally, he would not label the War in Iraq as a “success,” though he will also not directly criticize its failure. From the U.S.’s National Strategic point of view, the seven year war was a success; it can be said that America has gained many things, but that they also lost much. Ma Xiaolin used these to explain that through the War in Iraq, the U.S. has already completely rewritten the political map of the Middle East. It has not only subverted the hated Saddam regime, but has also established a new Iraq with the U.S. as its model. In the same year the war started, the U.S. had forced Libya to give up its weapons of mass destruction. Two years later, the U.S. forced Syria to end their military presence in Lebanon. These changes are a result of the intimidation effect and deterrence posture the US had because they started the War in Iraq. Looking at this from a larger perspective, today – from Turkey to the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula in Oman; from Egypt in North Africa to the Persian Gulf – American allied countries and U.S. military bases are everywhere. Not to mention many Middle Eastern countries have signed a military cooperation treaty with America. It can also be said that the U.S. has never been in this position before, being spread out in such a large area and deeply present in the Middle East.

Ma Xiaolin believes that even though the U.S. has gained much, that they have also lost a significant amount: $700 billion (USD), more than 4000 young soldiers and nearly ten thousand disabled soldiers. The war has fueled America’s economic difficulties and is even fueling the U.S.’s economic decline. This war also caused the deaths of several million Iraqis, causing these people to suffer even more than before and causing a great blow to humanitarianism. From a humanitarian point of view, by starting this war, the U.S. has also dealt a serious blow to America’s soft power and international reputation.

Ma Xiaolin went on to discuss the notion of the War in Iraq “ending.” U.S. troops were trapped in a non-traditional style of warfare; therefore, it’s hard to say that there is a set standard to determine if the war is completely over. The U.S. subverted the Saddam regime and then established a new U.S.-styled government, but, at the same time, they faced a new war – domestic and foreign anti-American enemies that are against the current three branch Iraq political system, a system that is not internationally recognized. In this war, they, like the U.S. troops, have no set battle ground, there is no front or rear; they do not even have a general sense of the rules of war. Under these circumstances, the U.S. has no way of finding enemy leaders with whom they can negotiate a cease fire. There is no traditional enemy country, no party that surrenders or draws, they cannot sign a cease fire treaty or restore normal diplomatic relations to signify the end of the war. This type of result is difficult to achieve in Iraq, because U.S. and Iraqi governments both want to extinguish or kick out domestic rebel forces, but these forces not only want to subvert the Iraqi government, but also want to drag the U.S. into the quagmire of this war, deplete the U.S.’s resources and impede American goals at every turn. From America’s opponents’ points of view, they do not want this war to end, so it is difficult for the U.S. to officially announce the end of the war. Also from a realistic point of view, Obama wants to leave room to allow for the possibility of a large-scale return to war, thus he said that the war is “ending”, not that it has "ended".

While discussing the great withdrawal of U.S. combat troops, Ma Xiaolin pointed out that the statement about the U.S. evacuating their combat troops should be corrected. U.S. troops appear to be withdrawing; however, in actuality combat troops are not being completely withdrawn. 50,000 soldiers still remain, and they have three main tasks: first, to combat terrorists; second, to help the reconstruction of the provincial government; and third, to train Iraqi security forces. On the topic of fighting terrorism, anti-terrorism forces in any country cannot fight unarmed: they must be combat-ready. Moreover, in Iraq there are a great number of private security personnel, about 2,700. Reportedly after U.S. troops evacuate, the number of private security personnel will increase to 6,000-7,000. The French media reports that America will hire 60,000 foreigners to help the Iraqi’s maintain order in Iraq. Also the U.S. still has 90 plus military bases in Iraq, as well as large quantities of weaponry and equipment. Not to mention an American general has already stated that, if needed, they may at any time return to Iraq. From this perspective, sometime in the near future – at least within the first year – the U.S. will still be playing a major role in maintaining order. Although the 700,000 Iraqi security forces – which have been continuously growing for the past seven years – are taking on a bigger role, the U.S. withdrawing their combat troops will give the Iraqis even more opportunities.

In the end Ma Xiaolin believes that Iraq will need to rely on its own people to maintain order. If the Shias and Sunnis, Arabs and Kurds can maintain a posture of level-headedness - can avoid splitting the country in two, avoid civil war, withstand domestic and foreign attempts to subvert the new government, and not cause Iraq to sink into greater civil strife – then they should be able to achieve their goal. Iraqi’s generally do not like war and they despise the disorder and destruction. And even though they do not like Americans, they do not want to go back to the time of Saddam’s reign. Therefore, if the Iraqi government takes charge and Iraqi forces assume responsibility for protecting their country and people, then the situation in Iraq will improve. What we can be certain of is that major civil war in Iraq is unlikely to occur. However, smaller conflicts, bombings, attacks etc. will continue to cause disorder for many years to come.


美通过伊拉克战争已在中东得手

北京时间29日,美国总统奥巴马发表每周广播和互联网讲话,称伊拉克战争“正在结束”,被媒体认为是31日正式讲话的预演。围绕美国7年多的伊拉克战争成败得失,央视评论员马晓霖在当天晚间的《共同关注》节目中盘点说,美国通过伊拉克战争已经在中东得手,由于面对一场不规则非传统战争,很难有明确的战争结束时间表,并指出,驻伊美军撤尤未撤,当地的敌对力量很难掀起大浪,但是,小乱不断的局面还将持续。

  在被问及如何看待奥巴马没有给伊拉克战争定性时,马晓霖指出,奥巴马作为伊拉克战争的批评者,当然不会把这场战争肯定为“成功”的战争,但是,也不会直接批评它的失败。从美国的国家战略层面来讲,7年的伊拉克战争还是成功的,应该说美国得到了不少东西,尽管它也失去很多。马晓霖就此解释说,通过伊拉克战争,美国已经完全改写了中东政治版图,它不仅颠覆其仇视的萨达姆政权,而且完全按照美国设定的样式建立了一个新的伊拉克。美国在伊拉克战争爆发的当年,就迫使利比亚放弃大规模杀伤性武器。2年后,美国又迫使叙利亚结束在黎巴嫩的军事存在。这些变化正是美国发动伊拉克战争的威慑态势和恐吓效应导致的结果。放大观察范围看,今天,从土耳其到阿拉伯半岛南端的阿曼,从非洲北部的埃及到波斯湾水域,到处是美国的同盟国或准同盟国,到处是美国的军事基地,很多中东国家都同美国签订了军事合作条约。应该说,美国从来没有像现在这样,非常大面积地,非常深入地存在于中东。

  马晓霖认为,虽然美国得到很多,失去的也不少:使美国损失7000亿美元的战争开支,4000多名无辜青年士兵生命,近万人的伤残,加剧了美国经济的困境,甚至有人分析说,这场战争加剧了美国的经济衰退。这场战争也导致十几万伊拉克人伤亡,使这个国家遭受前所未有的民族灾难,造成人道主义层面的巨大伤害。从道义层面来讲,美国发动这场战争,也严重地损害了美国的软势力,使美国的国际声誉大大受损。

  在谈到奥巴马说伊拉克战争“正在结束”这个措辞时,马晓霖分析说,美国在伊拉克陷入一场非传统战争,很难说有一种标准来标识战争的彻底结束。美国颠覆萨达姆政权,建立新的所谓美式政权,但是,同时它面临着新的战争——敌人就是由境内外反美,反伊拉克现政府力量构成的第三支力量,这支力量不是一个国际法主体,它同美国在伊拉克的交战,没有具体的战场,没有前方、后方,甚至没有一般意义上战争游戏规则,在这种情况下,美国很难找到确切的交战对象来商谈停战问题,而不像传统的交战国家,或者一方战败投降,或者双方打个平手,通过签订停战协议,或者恢复正常外交关系划上明显的战争休止符。但是,这种结果在伊拉克很难实现,因为美国和伊拉克政府想扑灭境内的反抗势力,或者赶走他们,但是反抗势力不仅要颠覆伊拉克政府,而且要把美国拖进伊拉克战争泥潭,实现消耗美国、拖垮美国的目的。从美国对手的意图看,并不想结束这场战争,所以美国也很难能够真正宣布结束战争。另外,从现实层面而言,奥巴马也想留有余地,为美军随时大规模返回战场留下一个缺口,所以他说战争“正在结束”,并不是已经结束。

  在评论美国从伊拉克撤出战斗部队这个大举动时,马晓霖指出,应该纠正美军战斗部队撤离的说法,美军是貌似撤走,实际的战斗部队并没有撤走,仍留有5万军人,这5万军人有三大任务,第一就是反恐,第二是帮助省级政府的重建工作,第三是训练伊拉克的安全部队。谈及反恐,任何一个国家的部队靠赤手空拳是不可能反恐的,它必然是战斗部队。其次,伊拉克现在有大量美国民间保安公司人员,其数目是2700人,据说美军战斗部队撤离之后,将扩增到6000至7000 人,甚至法国媒体报道说,美国将为当地从境外雇佣6万人协助维持治安。另外,美国在伊拉克还有90多个军事基地,以及大量装备武器,而且美国将领已经声明,随时会根据需要返回伊拉克。从这个方面来讲,在未来一段时间内,起码在一年内,美军还扮演重要的治安角色。另外,伊拉克也有70万的安全部队,也在7 年的磨合中不断的成长,越来越担当主要的角色,美军战斗部队的这种撤出,给他们更多的机会。

  马晓霖最后认为,伊拉克的治安说到底靠伊拉克人自己解决,只要伊斯兰教的什叶派和逊尼派,阿拉伯人和库尔德人这两大宗派、种族之间能保持清醒的思考,避免使国家陷入分裂,陷入内战,境内外试图颠覆伊拉克新政权,试图使伊拉克陷入更大内乱的势力,就不会达到目的,因为伊拉克人民普遍反对战争,也对战乱十分厌倦,他们虽然不喜欢美国人,但是也不愿意再回到萨达姆时期。因此,只要伊拉克政府尽快组建起来,伊拉克武装力量尽快承担起使命,伊拉克的形势会继续好转。可以肯定的是,未来的伊拉克大的战乱不太可能发生,但是,小的冲突,爆炸和袭击等导致的混乱局面还会持续若干年。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

El Salvador: The Game of Chess between the US and Venezuela Continues

Germany: We Should Take Advantage of Trump’s Vacuum*

Guatemala: Fanaticism and Intolerance

Venezuela: China: Authoritarianism Unites, Democracy Divides

Spain: Charlie Kirk and the Awful People Celebrating His Death

Topics

Spain: Charlie Kirk and the Awful People Celebrating His Death

Germany: Trump Declares War on Cities

Japan: US Signing of Japan Tariffs: Reject Self-Righteousness and Fulfill Agreement

Russia: Trump the Multipolarist*

Turkey: Blood and Fury: Killing of Charlie Kirk, Escalating US Political Violence

Thailand: Brazil and the US: Same Crime, Different Fate

Singapore: The Assassination of Charlie Kirk Leaves America at a Turning Point

Germany: When Push Comes to Shove, Europe Stands Alone*

Related Articles

Germany: It’s Not Europe’s Fault

Spain: State Capitalism in the US

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump

India: Will New US Envoy Help to Repair Ties under Threat?

France: Global South: Trump Is Playing into China’s Hands