| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Even if We Leave Iraq Now, We'll Be Back |
| 2006-12-10 |
| By David Rothkopf Strategic redeployment. Phased drawdown. Exit strategy. However one phrases it, Washington seems to be turning a page in the story of Iraq. The midterm elections, the subsequent resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the release of the Iraq Study Group's report last week all suggest that the transformational objectives that led U.S. forces into Iraq are being supplanted by an unmistakable and bipartisan desire to bring troops home, end this mess and move on. That impulse, while understandable, reflects the national narcissism that dogs much of U.S. foreign policy. We think Iraq is about us. We made it happen and we can undo it. But one-sided solutions for ending the Iraq war are as unrealistic as the one-sided impulses that started it. Even as we seek to remake history, it is remaking us. The economic and political forces that drew the United States into Iraq -- quite different from the reasons the Bush administration gave for the invasion -- remain powerful, exerting a pull that will be hard to resist. Oil, of course, is foremost among them. But also important are the threats and tensions linked to oil: Washington's decades-old rivalry with Iran, the growing dangers posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the fear that the Middle East's simmering conflicts will erupt into a broader, bloodier and far more costly war. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #5 This is worth the read for the history lesson. However, due to internal political presure US troops have to be taken out of the fight soon. Otherwise, Congress will limit war fighting funds. Bush made a giant tactical error when he sent troops back into Baghdad prior to elections. Things were sort of on simmer, then he threw gasoline onto fire. Now troop retraction out of danger zones will be needed soon. As for author's contention that we'll be back. Not the same way, I think. This pause is needed for some sober thinking. I agree with Grom, the next round will be fought at distance, with no real combatant troops. I think we'll go after strategic targets we've seen and identiified in Iran. If they have populations on top of them, they'll be sacrificed this time. If this still doesn't stop them, I think we'll attack with unrestrained ferocity. This will quiet the ummah for some time when they see millions of fried turbans and see that there will be no more restrictions. |
| Posted by: SpecOp35 2006-12-10 22:40 |
| #4 In other words, our military now is stuck between sectarian factions made up of ingrates that reject the gift of liberty and instead embrace centuries's old clan, ethnic, tribal, and religious animosities. In other words, it's time to get truly Medieval all over their pathetic Muslim asses. No more Mister Nice Guy ... EVER. Break things, examine rebuilt systems, break again as needed. Rinse and repeat, ad infinitum. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-12-10 19:52 |
| #3 However, many conservative post-election analyses continue to evade the War as the primary culprit for the electoral debacle. For example, S.T. Karnick writing for National Review Online pointed the finger at the Republicans' abandonment of "classical liberalism": “The Right lost because the Republicans failed to govern as classical liberals. Instead, in the economic sphere they ran up huge, unnecessary budget deficits attributable solely to massive spending increases. Small government went out the window as the Republicans massively increased federal control over elementary and secondary schools and passed numerous constraints on political freedom in the Homeland Security Act and the McCain-Feingold restrictions on political speech.” -- S.T. Karnick, New Age Conservatism: Election Day was a big loss for classical liberalism. Though he later acknowledged that the Iraq War was an issue because "Republicans failed to get it done in Iraq and stood idly by while Iran and North Korea worked to develop nuclear weapons," this assessment comes late in his article. It also ignores one salient point: How exactly do we define victory, much less achieve victory in a place where the enemy is not radical Jihad, but a number of disparate groupings of Sunnis, Shiites, Baathist secularists, unemployed and disgruntled military men, criminal gangs, foreign Jihadist and home-grown Al-Qaeda terrorists all wanting a piece of us and mostly each other? There can be little doubt that since (and perhaps since before) the bombing last February of the Mosque of the Two Holy Imams in Samarra, Iraq is slowly spiraling toward civil war. A series of horrible bombings only seem to be proceeded by even worse attacks. A U.N. report cites a figure of 1,000 Iraqis fleeing their homes daily largely due to terror from militias and criminal gangs. Another UN study claims 3,709 Iraqis were killed by violence in the month of October, thus reaching a numerical figure that puts Iraq within the projected monthly death toll (4,000) of a full-fledged civil war. Noticeably absent is any reference to Islamist terrorists. In other words, our military now is stuck between sectarian factions made up of ingrates that reject the gift of liberty and instead embrace centuries's old clan, ethnic, tribal, and religious animosities. Grand Old Party Gets A Grand Old Comeuppance |
| Posted by: Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-12-10 18:05 |
| #2 But maybe not with 300000 troops? Maybe just a few nukes? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-12-10 16:21 |
| #1 We gave those assholes a chance for freedom, the chance to make and control their owne destinies. The decided they'd rather loot and murder instead. We overestimated them I guess. They much prefer to kill and bomb and mutilate than work on making a unity government |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-12-10 12:26 |