On this special Boxing Day, just 13 days away from the first-in-the-galaxy primary day of reckoning, I visited the Blue Hampshire bloggers site to check out the latest endorsement chatter and in particular, talk about the eye-opening sucker punch delivered by the Concord Monior on Mitt Romeny earlier this week. The anti-endorsement body slam on candidates was one used to see regularly (and with enjoyable hysteria value) by the Union Leader when William J. Loeb was running the show. But I guess we have entered a new era of anti-advocacy. You can read more here.
Earlier this year I met retired Army Gen. John Johns who talked to the Portsmouth Herald editorial board during a tour of retired generals critical of the Iraq war and how it was dangerously undermining our long-term military capabilities. I've talked and corresponded with Gen. Johns a few times since then and he has come out in support of Democratic hopeful and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and campaigned with him recently. Johns sent me this letter recently to make the foreign policy case for Richardson especially in regards to the aftermath of the Bush debacle in Iraq.
Dear Mike,
It was good talking to you on the teleconference a few weeks ago. I have fond memories of our meeting earlier this year with your editorial Board and have thought of how events have unfolded since then, especially the debate over the results of the “surge.” The purpose of this note is to update you on my thoughts on the Iraq situation and secondly, to comment on my recent appearance with Governor Bill Richardson in New Hampshire, in case you were aware of that
Personally, I believe it is premature to take comfort in the fact that violence has been reduced in Iraq. As I have said all along about General Petraeus and his team of advisors, they are first class and their COIN doctrine is on target. Nevertheless, I still believe it is far too little and too late to change the course of events that we have unleashed in Iraq.
There is little doubt that the increase in troops in Baghdad has provided increased security; however, a great deal of the reduction, it seems to me, is the result of factors other than the increase of troops. First and perhaps foremost, is the brutal sectarian cleansing that had divided Baghdad into enclaves that separates the warring religious parties. The half million or so Christians, of course, are largely gone out of country and the Sunnis and Shiites walled off from each other. While this has reduced the friction between the groups, I’m not sure it is advantageous for the goal of developing national unity.
The change in strategy in Anbar Province, where we are now working with tribal chiefs to arm and train their militias, preceded the surge and is rather independent of that action. While this provides a temporary benefit to us, and I am in favor of this change, it will make national unity more difficult. It may be that some are correct in saying that the partition of Iraq into semi-autonomous sections is a reality and we should junk the idea of a unified Iraq. Again, that may provide short-term benefits in reducing violence and U.S. casualties, but what does it do in promoting national unity. As I read it, we have decided to arm and train the Sunni militia to rid the insurgency of Al Qaeda elements and at least buy the cooperation of the Sunni tribal chiefs. As you can read in the daily news commentary, the Iraqi central government is not happy about that and sees the Sunni militia as future enemies.
I am not convinced that the partition idea is wise in the long run. Look at the situation in the north involving the Turks and Kurds. We trumpet the Kurdish region as a beacon of stability, etc. it seems to me that we have created a monster by whetting the appetite of Kurds in Turkey, Syria, and Iran to join with their Iraqi brethren in creating a greater Kurdistan. If we think we saw brutal repression of Iraqi Kurdish insurgents by Saddam, wait until the Turks, Iranians and Syrians deal with Kurdish insurgents who want to join that greater Kurdistan. Add to that dynamic our presence in the Kurdish area, trying to balance our relations with Turkey and the Kurds, and you have a recipe for chaos in the region.
I have just read in the 19 December 2007 Washington Post the latest Battle Update Assessment provided General Petraeus. The report clearly says all segments of the Iraqi people blame us for their problems and want us out. If you have not read that report, I recommend you do so. The post article is by Karen DeYoung.
Frankly, I don’t know how we can extricate ourselves from this quandary with anything resembling success. I haven’t changed my overall view that we need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, and yet do it in a responsible way. I believe the Bush strategy is merely kicking the can down the road so as to hand the problem over to the next administration. That is the reason that I have been working with Governor Bill Richardson in refining his position and appeared with him in Iowa and briefly in New Hampshire at one event. As I told you and your staff, I am an Independent and offer my views to any candidate who wants to listen. I have offered to appear with Jo Ann Emerson, (R) Missouri and will do so with any candidate that lets me give my candid views without following “talking points’ provided by staff. I will not tailor my talk to fit a specific candidate. Bill Richardson has honored that position.
I appeared with Bill Richardson because his plan is the closest to offering a way out of any of the candidates. As I understand him, he pledges to have all U.S. forces out of Iraq within a year of his presidency. The notion that he is being irresponsible is nonsense.
The first point is that Richardson has stated his desire to remove all troops from Iraq, but not necessarily from the region. That would leave troops along the Kurdish/Turkey border if Turkey agreed and would have them available if needed in Iraq, but also would have their presence act as a deterrent in any Kurdish/Turkey problem. Other troops in say Kuwait would act as a strike force if necessary into Iraq. This of course would be done having a multi-national force in Iraq.
The second point about Richardson’s plan is that he would engage in vigorous diplomacy to get regional powers and the major powers involved in bringing stability to the region. This is described by some, especially the neocon hawks who got us in this quagmire and who insist on unilateralism, as being naïve. I would point out that Richardson’s plan closely follows the two major steps recommended by the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group; withdraw all combat forces and use diplomacy to internationalize the solution to the problem.
For those who say it is idealistic to think we can form an international coalition and create a multi-national peace-keeping force to fill the void as we remove our troops, I say we have no other choice. Every country in the world has a vital national interest in stabilizing the region and the notion that we can keep an occupation force there for the indefinite future is a path to greater disaster than we now face.
I agree with the Richardson approach in principle and that is why I have volunteered to be part of his military team. The only slight difference I have with him is that I would not rule out leaving some U.S. forces in Iraq to provide logistical support to a multi-national force if such a force cannot provide its own support. I believe he is flexible enough to make that adjustment if needed. It would be best if we could pull out all U.S. forces and the sooner the better.
I liked what Bill Clinton said about having him and G.H.W. Bush go on a trip throughout the world to convince the world that there is a new era of America working with the international community. I would include Brent Scowcroft, Chuck Hagel, Tony Zinni, and Colin Powell, as well as others who are respected for their belief in working through international institutions. I believe Bill Richardson should be involved in such an effort; I would certainly give him that portfolio if he is chosen as a running mate.
Again, I appreciate the courtesy that you accorded me earlier this year by affording me the opportunity to meet with your editorial Board. I wanted you to know that I still consider my efforts on foreign policy to be non-partisan and that my appearances with Governor Richardson offered me the opportunity to express my views candidly. I do find him refreshingly candid and adaptable to changing circumstances. He listens to diverse views from senior military advisors and has changed his mind when it makes sense.
Warm regards.
Brigadier John H. Johns, USA Ret.
22 December 2007
ADVERTISEMENTS 
