|
Bail Out! Eject! Eject! Eject! Osama Can't Lose!
As we've said in the GPB {Global Power Barometer} since it began, astute global strategists (of which Osama bin Laden is clearly one) figured out long ago that the military might of superpowers can essentially be borrowed to achieve regional goals. When bin Laden began ratcheting up his attacks on the US 15 years ago, his goal was not, as many politicians suggested, to "punish" the US for its infidel ways And, he achieved his goal to an extent he likely never dreamed possible. But we cannot change the past. The US is in Iraq and Afghanistan. But is the path to "victory" as John McCain suggests to continue to do the bidding of US opponents? Is it to continue to keep the Middle East in chaos...a chaos that has benefitted radical Islam and Iran...a chaos that has allowed China and Russia to gain the edge in striking deals to develop Iraq's oil and gas assets (yes, believe it or not, the US is losing even in the business of producing Iraq's oil). As Washington Post columnist and PostGlobal founder, David Ignatius said in his Thursday (May 15) column, "Odd as it sounds, I fear that the Bush administration is making the same mistake as hard-liners in the region. It doesn't know when to compromise. It accumulates lots of chips through its military power, but it never plays them at the bargaining table." Mr. Ignatius states that in both 2003 and 2006, the Iranians made serious attempts to discuss the stabilization of Iraq but was rebuffed by the Administration. When Syria asked for help in negotiating a peace deal with Israel, the US also refused. Mr. Powers points out rightly that while the US Democrats promise that planning for Iraq withdrawal will "begin on Day One...the plans will be hostage to events." That's an understatement. There is little disagreement among analysts that the continuing US presence both empowers US opponents and has been the recruiting gift for radical Islam that keeps on giving. And, as the cost of Iraq exceeds $3 trillion, there's a growing question as to whether this continual bleeding of US treasure will not begin to permanently weaken the US. Nearly all global analysts believe that Iraq will go through a period of increased violence, perhaps even a breakup whenever the US leaves regardless of how long it stays. Mr. Powers goes so far as to suggest that "The surge, therefore, has not so much ended the sectarian strife as it has set the stage for a renewal of civil war at a higher level of violence." Nearly all global analysts also concur with the view of the authors Mr. Powers reviews that Afghans will go on fighting among themselves So, one might ask the obvious questions. If the US is helping its opponents by staying in Iraq and even Afghanistan, would it not be victory to deny this valuable asset by the simple act of leaving? If the US is weakening itself far more by staying in Iraq and Afghanistan than a thousand al Qaeda terror attacks would ever weaken the US, would it not be victory to leave? Posted by: Bobby 2008-05-18 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=239340 |