Carson Sasser
-- generating more background noise

Iraq's Porous Border

We hear a lot about Iran supplying armament to Iraqi insurgents and a lot about foreign fighters entering Iraq to join the insurgency. My question is, why do we let them? Why are we allowing armament to cross the border? Why do we let any foreigners into Iraq, fighters or not?

I realize that Iraq has a very long border. The CIA's World Factbook says that it covers 2,267 miles. I also realize that we can't seem to manage our own border with Mexico, which is similar in length (but that's a subject for another post). It seems to me, though, that if we expect to make any headway in eliminating the insurgency, we have to stop the flow of armament and personnel across the border. It is reported that the insurgents have large reserves of weapons, ammunition and explosives -- much of it left over from Saddam's army -- but what is gained by finding and destroying these caches if they are constantly being replaced from across the border?

It is clear that the Pentagon was at least concerned about controlling the border. As early as February 2004 Rumsfeld said:

"My impression is that the border with Kuwait is very secure, and the border with Jordan and with Turkey is secure, while the borders with Syria and Iran are not secure. Part of the reason for that situation is that we're not getting good cooperation by Syria or Iran, and part of it is that we need more border patrol --- Iraqi border patrol --- to help do that job."

It is now clear that they didn't achieve that control. I hope that's not because they continued to expect cooperation from Syria and Iran. He didn't mention Saudi Arabia. I hope he has noticed it in the meantime. Rumsfeld said that we need more Iraqi border patrol. According to a May 2006 article by the American Forces Press Service we did make some progress on that:

"The (Iraqi) border police are based in 258 forts along all of Iraq's borders. There are about 21,000 members of the service, and it will grow to about 28,000 by the end of the year, said officials traveling with (Lt Gen Peter) Chiarelli. The border police are an integral part of the strategy to end the insurgency in Iraq."

So, it looks like they are getting a lot of boots on the ground but they apparently aren't that effective yet. Maybe this will help: Female Marines Train for Iraq Border Security.

We must stop all people from entering Iraq.  We should let anyone leave that wants to, but not let anyone in. General Chiarelli said (in the article referenced above):

"The cooperation among the security forces has already proven its worth with the nearly violence-free Ashura festival. Hundreds of thousands of Iranian Shiia Muslims journeyed to Karbala and Najaf for the religious observance."

I wonder how many went back to Iran after the festival?

We also must limit cargo entering Iraq to food and other life essentials. That, of course, means that every truck or train(?) must be thoroughly searched. We must control all the border, not just the major entry points.

The most likely explanation for not being able to control the border is lack of personnel. We must use advanced technology, like small remotely piloted aircraft, to offset the shortage of personnel.

I know that it's a very difficult job, but if we can't control the border how can we defeat the insurgents and secure the country? (Hmmm? Why does my mind keep drifting back to our own border problem?)


Comments

Richard Luken
26 Aug 06, 3:00pm

I found your points about failing to control the Iran/Iraq border interesting, but I think you miscalculated the length of that border. The figure provided at the CIA fact book website (which you cite and to which you thoughtfully provided a link) is given in Kilometers, the measure used by most of the world, as being 1,458 Km. There are approximately 62 miles per 100 Km. That gives a figure of about 904 miles = 62miles/100km * 1458km. It's still interesting to compare the problem to sealing the Mexican border, but the same source gives the length of the US Mexican border at 3,141 Km which would be 1,947 miles, more than twice the length of the Iran/Iraq border. I would hate to try to seal either one.

A bit of history might be in order. While the border in the following case was in the jungle not the desert, during the Vietnam War the US did its best to interdict supplies and personnel coming into the Republic of Vietnam through Laos and Cambodia via the Ho Chi Minh trail. According to the CIA factbook site, 1228 Km is the length of the border with Cambodia, and I estimate the length of the border with Laos that is south of the then DMZ (that divided North and South Vietnam) to be about 1/3 of the total length of the current Laotian border with "unified" Vietnam, so that would be about an additional 710 Km, making the total border 1938 Km or about 1 and 1/3 times the length of the Iran/Iraq border. While the US did its best to close that supply corridor, it did not succeed because of the level of political will in Hanoi to keep supplies moving despite massive bombing of the trail.

26 Aug 06, 3:30pm

Richard, thank you for your comment. Its clear from your comment and the data in the World Factbook that you thought (understandably, since I talked mostly about Iran) that I was giving the length of the border with Iran. My number, 3650 km or 2267 miles, is for Iraq's entire land boundary with all its neighboring countries.

Although Iran is probably the biggest supplier to the insurgents, we can't overlook Syria and I wouldn't trust Saudi Arabia either.

Make a comment:

Recent Articles
Recent Comments on Articles
Recent Comments on Home Page Remarks
Blogs that Link to Me
Other Blogs
Blogs About Blogging