| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| See Ya, Iraq? |
| 2004-09-17 |
| VDH "War is a series of catastrophes that results in victory." — Georges Clemenceau A few conservative strategists — from the Financial Times to Edward Luttwak — have recently floated the idea of a strategic withdrawal from Iraq. "Exit strategy" is suddenly the realist buzz. In addition, Clintonites — for a time staying low as scrutiny turned to their past appeasement of terrorists in the 1990s — now boldly proclaim that Iraq is another Vietnam (notwithstanding 49,000 fewer American dead, no nuclear Soviet Union or China in the neighborhood, and no army of three million insurrectionists under the banner of worldwide socialist revolution). Nevertheless, given our successful removal of Saddam Hussein and the subsequent increasing chaos in the country, the idea may grow popular to re-declare "Mission Accomplished" — and then quietly leave. We have fulfilled our goals of ensuring that a Baathist Iraq no longer threatens its neighbors or the strategic Gulf states, and can now let Najaf fight Fallujah rather than both of them us. Or so the new wisdom goes. Furthermore, should another Saddam-like tyrant arise from the ashes, we can always GPS him back into oblivion. That is much easier than losing another 1,000 Americans in an attempt to craft consensual government at the price of some $87 billion in aid. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #4 Iraqi security forces are dying at a rate 3 or 4 times that of American troops. They are making a real effort. The press swings both ways on this - on the one hand, the security forces are supposed to be thoroughly infiltrated with guerrillas - on the other too many are dying because Americans aren't providing enough security. Media people are blowing this out of proportion - it's like someone who provides a close-up of a gory traffic accident and then proclaims that we are fighting a losing battle against traffic accidents. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-09-17 3:45:28 PM |
| #3 Can't bug out on Allawi until he bugs out on the coalition. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-09-17 2:01:50 PM |
| #2 Plus we'll need a base on Kurdistan to ensure that the Kurds don't get devoured by the Turks and Iranians. Fine with me; a 50 year lease on an air base and adjoining base for a brigade would be fine. We can rotate troops in and out -- dandy place for a National Guard unit to come in for specialized training. I'd negotiate with Sistani to have a small base just outside Najaf, you know, for shrine security. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-09-17 1:04:12 PM |
| #1 This "solution" will eventually lead to the 3 part partition fo Iraq, and the US shoudl not withdraw entiurely - we should set up a base in the soon-to-be Republic of Kurdistan. We will need it to strike Iran - or at least to aid the rebellion when it comes, and help precipitate it by suporting Free Iran guerillas. And maybe negotiate with Sistani a port base and facility in Shia dominated "Shia-stan" in Southern & Western Iraq (in exchange ofr trianing and equipping thier army to keep Najaf and the holy sites safe, and help him hold off the Iranians who want to take over his job). We need somethign to maintain the geopolitical leverage Iraq gives us, without the costs of policing Baghdad and the Sunni triangle. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-09-17 12:52:36 PM |