L. Paul Bremer III, the head of the Coalition Provisional
Authority in Iraq, 2003-4, in his response to the New York
Times editorial “Mission Still Not Accomplished”
(March 20), wrote, “I take strong exception to your
assertion that I ‘overrode’ President Bush’s national security team
on disbanding the Iraqi Army.” Bremer attempts to shift
responsibility for this disbanding to the “process leading to this
decision.” He might be correct in pointing out that all the
civilian and military personnel he mentions “had ample opportunity”
to change his draft order before it was issued on May 23, 2003, but
his letter makes it clear that the draft was based on his own
assumptions, which he still considers valid.
He writes, “There was no Iraqi Army left to disband after the
fall of Baghdad in 2003. Given the role the army had played in
Saddam Hussein’s tyranny, recalling it would been both impractical
and a major political mistake.” The truth of the matter was that
the Iraqi Army was defeated and did not have to be disbanded.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and commissioned officers
and their families were left without any financial means of
support, free to enlist into the ranks of insurgency supported by
al Qaeda and Iran. This decision turned out to become the prescript
for violence and the prolonged tragedy in Iraq. In fact, Bremer’s
advocacy for the disbanding of the Iraqi Army, instead of enlisting
it to support our troops, was “both impractical and a major
political mistake.”
Hopefully, such a mistake will be avoided if and when it comes
to deal with Iran. The latest eruption of fighting between the
Shiite militia (Mahdi Army) of Muqtada al-Sadr and the Iraqi Army,
directed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, threatens to undo the
relative quiet that was achieved since the June 2007 surge. So far
the Iraqi Army has stood its ground without significant American
help. But because of Iranian rockets and roadside bombs pouring
into Basra and Baghdad, the outcome of the fighting, which
President Bush has called “a defining moment,” is not certain. It
is hard to imagine how the Iraqi Army can prevail if the flow of
Iranian arms is not stopped.
In a radio address before embarking on his January 2008 visit to
the Middle East, President Bush stated that his major goal during
this visit was to develop a security plan with our Middle East
allies to counter Iran’s “aggressive ambitions.” Defense Secretary
Robert Gates stated that Iran must come clean with a detailed
accounting of not only its nuclear program, but also its delivery
of weapons that kill American troops in Iraq and foment violence by
financing Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups. During his
one-day visit in Kuwait on January 11, President Bush said:
“Iran’s role in fomenting violence has been exposed. Iranian
agents are in our custody and we are learning more about how Iran
has supported extremist groups with training and lethal aid.”
On April 10, in the wake of Gen. David H. Petraeus and
Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker’s congressional testimony, President
Bush stated:
“If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a
peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. If Iran makes the
wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests and our
troops and our Iraqi partners.”
If President Bush’s ultimatum will not work, he will need to
act. It is a duty of an American President to protect our troops
and the missions he sends them to carry out. President Bush will
deliver a powerful message to the Iranian people and their army by
hitting only the bases of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who are
stirring mayhem in Iraq. This message will go a long way to change
the regime in Iran and to ensure reconciliation between the Shiite
and Sunni population.
The surge is working. The Sunni insurgents are now siding with
our troops. Shiite tribes have also begun to side with us. The
Iraqi Army has confronted the Shiite militias in Baghdad and Basra
without significant American assistance. Meanwhile, recent
elections in Iran indicate that opposition to Ahmadinejad is
growing. President Bush might be a lame duck in terms of the time
he has left in office, but he is not a crippled hawk so long as he
remains Commander-in-Chief. Bush should use the time he is left in
office to pursue his policy of stabilizing Iraq and affecting
regime change in Iran.
