| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| VDH: Ripples of Retreat |
| 2007-07-20 |
| What would be the consequences of such a novel experience? Who knows? But the Left is probably correct — cf. the July 8 editorial in the New York Times — that we could probably redeploy without significant casualties. And it is likewise prescient to anticipate that mass killings in Iraq would probably follow — if not a Cambodia-like holocaust, at least something akin to the gruesome fate of the Harkis, those Algerians loyal to France, but left behind to be disemboweled after the French flight across the Mediterranean. It is easier to envision post-democratic Iraq as a tripartite badlands: a shaky Kurdistan living under the fear of alternate invasion from either oil-hungry Turkey or an ascendant Iran; a Sunni Anbar serving, like Waziristan or Somalia, as a terrorist haven, effused with Wahhabi money and Sharia courts; and an Arab Shiite rump state of Iran, residing in safety under an Iranian nuclear umbrella, that would be the convenient jumping off point for Shiite insurgents in the Gulf States. The sorting out of populations into these various enclaves would be messy and bloody, if not like the Pakistani partition of 1947, at least akin to what we saw in the Balkans during the 1990s. What would the effect be of all this televised carnage and chaos on the United States? Anti-war critics would turn on a dime — disclaiming their prior assertions that our presence ipso facto had been the chief cause of the violence in Iraq. Instead, when the mass beheadings of female reformers and serial shootings of “collaborators” appeared on our screens, American and European leftists would almost immediately blame our fickleness for the carnage. . . . Just as our resolve and stubbornness are now alleged to have resulted in the deaths of thousands, so our irresoluteness would soon be cited for the murders of tens of thousands. A second effect would be a sort of psychological devastation of the U.S. military, particularly the army. . . . Militaries that are beaten and flee take decades to reconstitute and regroup. Command, the mood of the rank-and-file, an army’s self perception — all that is recast in the shadow of recrimination, no more capable of quick resurgence than a boxer recapturing the championship after a surprised, terrible beating. Indeed, even after the five-year withdrawal from Vietnam, the American military took twenty years to regain its own confidence. If we blame a Jimmy Carter for the Iranian hostage crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the unchecked Cambodian genocide during 1977-79, or the communist infiltration of Central America, he can at least claim he was a mere epiphenomenon of the times — that a war-weary American public and a demoralized military were in no shape to engage in another disastrous foreign adventure. . . . And if we worry that our new President in 2008 will have to worry about thousands of soldiers still in Iraq, we should worry even more that he will immediately be challenged by all sorts of enemies emboldened by the nature of our flight from Iraq. In fact, “redeployment” is a euphemism for flight from the battlefield. And we should no more expect an al Qaeda that won in Iraq to stop from pressing on to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia than we should imagine that a defeated U.S. military could rally and hold the line in the Gulf. Would the IEDs, the suicide bombers, the Internet videos of beheadings, the explosions in schools and mosques cease because they now would have to relocate across the border into Kuwait or Saudi Arabia? . . . If Vietnam, Beirut, or Mogadishu left doubt as to the seriousness of American guarantees, Iraq would confirm that it is a dangerous thing to ally oneself with an American government and military. Aside from realignment in the Middle East, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines would have to make the necessary “readjustments.” The “surge” would be our high-water mark, a sort of 21st-century Pickett’s charge, after which skilled retreat, consolidation, holding the line, and redeployment would be the accepted mission of American arms. It is not easy securing Iraq, but if we decide to quit and “redeploy”, Americans should at least accept that the effort to stabilize Iraq was a crushing military defeat, that our generation established a precedent of withdrawing an entire army group from combat operations on the battlefield, and that the consequences will be better known even to our enemies than they are to us. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #7 almost prophetic that the generation that made this all possible was named the Baby Boomers. God has a wicked sense of humor. |
| Posted by: AT 2007-07-20 20:59 |
| #6 Yah, unless Bush makes a move on Iran, we are snatching defeat from the arms of victory. With the US out of the way, Iran will walk into eastern Iraq, and unite with the Shiites. Then they will encroach on the rest of the Sunni cities. If there is nothing between them and Mecca, then that is where they will march. Maybe our grandchildren will make us wear t-shirts: I COULD HAVE PREVENTED IRAN'S NUCLEAR ICBM THREAT TO THE HOMELAND. Greatest generation? We are scum at the bottom of the history barrel. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2007-07-20 20:50 |
| #5 All very interesting and good arguments. However the issue here is that anyone who is willing to endure another Saigon - unnecessarily leaving millions of innocent men, women, children and infants to be slaughtered and dumped in mass graves can not say that they are concerned about human life or "the war" or that they are tired of the killing. They are just a heartless jerks who probably would have looked away at slavery, or any other evil to avoid themselves from being even slightly inconvenienced. Anyone who will turn their backs and cover their ears for a slaughter of this magnitude is an -inhumane, uncaring *(&^# who deserves exactly what they get, when they get their come around of what goes around. They need to start thinking about what their own personal come around might look like. Torture, rape, and a cruel death. Yeah - and no one will listen to your cries out for help either - you loser, low level uncaring, subhuman jerks. The calls for of leaving Iraq is just politics, mixed with slogans and mantras repeated by half-wits who probably can't even find Iraq on a map. Anyone reading this - if who can justify this slaughter in your mind - YOU SUCK and I hope you go to hell where you belong. |
| Posted by: AT 2007-07-20 18:45 |
| #4 I think VDH is way off base in his analysis of the effect of a withdrawal on the military. I have to believe that the military knows they have done the job, did not lose on the battlefield and are the most powerful, competent and accomplished military force in history. His parallel to the Vietnam war less reasonable than a comparison to the Spanish Civil War. The Soviets won in WWII in spite of the defeat of the International Brigades. I suspect the upshot of a withdrawal would be a substantial reassessment of the relationship of the military and civilian spheres. The fundamental problem is that democracies don't do limited war well politically, regardless of how they perform militarily. I can't predict exactly what would happen, but I would not be surprised if the next time the civilians want to employ the military, the military ask for a Total War level of commitment. Likewise I would not be surprised to see the development of surrogate forces such as a foreign legion with a path to citizenship or an expansion of Special Forces to fight Afghan type campaigns. I would be interested to hear how 'burgers closer to those in uniform think they would react to another civilian stab in the back. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-07-20 18:27 |
| #3 The U.S. public has never gone soft in its support for American involvement in Afghanistan after 9/11. As antiwar critics have pointed out, Saddam Hussein was a secular Fascist and only tangentially connected to al Qaeda style elements. Thus, the simple refrain of "we did not find the WMDs and Iraq did not attack us on 9/11" carries weight with the general public. They seem to believe that we did not have a critical national interest there originally or since. What needs to be publicly explained by high government officials in frank language is that Islamic radicals have long since launched a global war against us and how such distant and seemingly unrelated places as Iraq, the Phillipines, England, and Pakistan are all squares on the global chessboard in this war which we can not afford to lose. Abandoning any corner of the world to Islamic militants is too great a risk now. |
| Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-07-20 17:24 |
| #2 It's interesting to read all the back and forth here on this forum about the war.(undeclared) We are a very, very small group compared to the general US public. The general public, finally getting some absorption of the war overall, are decidedly against it. Some polls show 70 % against; some 73 % against; some 80 %. Doesn't matter much. Basically, most are against it. The military cannot continue without public support. Being a life long Republican, I am terrifically upset at what I see from so-called Republicans today. By holding on for Bush, the Republican party is going to be decimated in the coming election. The public will have their revenge and the Dhimmis will benefit greatly. Once they have control again of the White House and Congress, they will have the power to choke this off and they will. What has been lacking all along is a public discussion of the war on Islam. Actaully the war instigated by Islam on the western world. This should be shouted from the rooftops daily by the American President. By not going to the front and leading clearly, Bush has utterly failed. The main job of President is to lead by influence. FDR wanted to go to war in 1939. He didn't because he knew the American public was not convinced of the necessity. So he led, giving many clear voiced talks on the medium of the day.. radio. The next President must conduct a public discussion of the exact situation we are in. He/she must delineate that we must have a different approach. A cruel, cold, direct appraoch which may result in the deaths of millions of Muslims. After laying the cards on the table, let the public decide if they want to play the game as it needs to be played. Otherwise, if they decide to fold, the consequences of Islamic domination ought to be pointed out in clear, concise terms which cannot be misunderstood by even the simplest ones among us. |
| Posted by: Woozle Elmeter2970 2007-07-20 13:35 |
| #1 In the future, whenever I have to endure some self-righteous, blabber mouth boomer getting up on their high horse about bringing home our poor little children (ie: soldiers) - I'm going to knock them right off it by pointing out that they are condoning the murder of perhaps millions of innocent men, women and children and that I am shocked and dismayed over the fact that are ok with it. I'm not going to sit quietly and tolerate this upcoming humanitarian disaster. We CAN NOT casually just turn our backs, cover our ears and allow this slaughter to occur. IT IS NOT OK to justify the pitiful cries of millions with casual words. Anyone who does so is a selfish, ice-cold, black-hearted, mean-spirited, hateful wretch that is unfit to refer to themself as "human". It is NOT OK. NOT!!! |
| Posted by: AT 2007-07-20 12:17 |