You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
Kissinger says military victory not possible in Iraq
2007-04-02
No, it's not a stab in the back. Read on:
TOKYO: Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who helped engineer the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, said Sunday the problems in Iraq are more complex than that conflict, and military victory is no longer possible.

He also said he sympathizes with the troubles facing U.S. President George W. Bush. "A 'military victory' in the sense of total control over the whole territory, imposed on the entire population, is not possible," Kissinger told The Associated Press in Tokyo, where he received an honorary degree from Waseda University.

The faceless, ubiquitous nature of Iraq's insurgency, as well as the religious divide between Shiite and Sunni rivals, makes negotiating peace more complex, he said. "It is a more complicated problem," Kissinger said. "The Vietnam War involved states, and you could negotiate with leaders who controlled a defined area."
That's true enough, and it defines in part the problem we face. Success in Iraq means a level of violence remains that's more akin to other third-world states such as Nigeria and Columbia. There will be organized gangs and various low-level insurrections going on. It's going to take several decades for the Iraqi people to buy into the ideas of personal liberty and rule of law, if they do so.
But Kissinger, an architect of the Vietnam War who has also advised Bush on Iraq, warned that a sudden pullout of U.S. troops or loss of influence could unleash chaos. "I am basically sympathetic to President Bush," he said. "I am partly sympathetic to it because I have seen comparable situations."

Kissinger said the best way forward is to reconcile the differences between Iraq's warring sects with help from other countries. He applauded efforts to host an international conference bringing together the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Iraq's neighbors — including Iran, Washington's longtime rival in the region. "That is the sort of framework out of which it is conceivable that an agreement should emerge," Kissinger said. "One needs to be prepared to negotiate with adversaries."
Negotiating with Sunni tribes is fine; negotiating with al-Qaeda is not. Negotiating with Shi'a leaders is fine, negotiating with Mookie is not.
Kissinger said that fighting in Iraq is likely to continue for years, and that America's national interest requires an end to partisan bickering at home over war policy. "The role of America in the world cannot be defined by our internal partisan quarrels," he said. "All the leaders, both Republican and Democratic, have to remember that it will go on for several more years and find some basis for common action."
The Democrats aren't interested in common action right now; they're still mad with rage over the 2000 election, and the 1994 election, and being locked out of the spoils, and having their personal apple-carts overturned. Reasonable Democrats who are interested in dealing with the WoT are being hammered down by the far left. Those reasonable Democrats have to grow a spine and push back or it will be the Republicans against the Kos Kiddies for the next decade, and that's a scary thought.
Posted by:Steve White

#13  No, LH, "dealing with the oil" and de-Ba'ath are not first steps of any lasting significance, because the Sunni rejectionists (most Sunnis, whether they just feel it or act it) will not be really mollified by such details. This is the game that Zal and crew got suckered into for over a year now, and which predictably went nowhere. The Sunnis don't have a bill of particulars whose resolution will affect the violence, which is all that matters.

You really think the Sunnis calling the shots (no pun intended) in this situation will end their terrorism and violence because of some oil compact or a decision to re-hire Ba'athist high school teachers? Not a chance the situation will be fundamentally changed by such moves. The Sunnis will rightly conclude that their pathetic little "insurgency" has in fact bought them leverage with a feckless Iraqi govt. and a pathetically lazy/misguided super-power that won't stand in their way in the long run. And it's all about getting back on top - or safely avoiding their richly earned comeuppance - in the long run.

A political solution that's of any significance with the Sunnis will follow on that community's subjugation and inability to mount a spoiling campaign of violence. Anything done without/prior to that will be short-lived.
Posted by: Verlaine   2007-04-02 15:15  

#12  I will give you the Yom Kippur War resupply. I was just in an ungenerous mood towards that goddamn little troll.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2007-04-02 12:40  

#11  1.Negotiating with Mookie - We already have. And will again. The key is to negotiate with him from strength (as we are doing now?) and not from weakness.

2. Political solutions - yup, that means dealing with the oil, reforming debaathification. Some good first steps, but no closure yet. Will Malike achieve closure? If not, will we go with someone (like Allawi?) who will?

3. Dems - naturally they wanted to regain power - its not like the GOP was less than partisan. Alot of them think they won in 2006 mainly cause of Iraq. Unless and until the situation on the ground improves fairly dramatically, its hard for any hawkish Dem to respond.

4. Kissinger and the ME. K pushed for resupply Israel in '73, when Schlesinger and DoD were opposed. He negotiated the non-belligerency betw Israel and Egypt, which led to the Sadat initiative, which was in part an attempt to head off a Carter mistake, inviting the USSR into ME negotiations.


I wont defend all his other positions in those years, other than to say some of them flowed naturally from his belief, shared by many, that we were beleagured at that stage of the cold war, and had to act accordingly.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2007-04-02 11:02  

#10  Let's see, he turfed the Vietnam situation repeatedly, and only Nixon & Abrams, working around him, got the ball as far as the 1972 ceasefire. He enabled the East Pakistan genocide, engineered the idiotic creation of Turkish Cyprus, got us involved in the Pinochet coup, screwed the Israelis during the Yom Kippur War so badly that it took *Carter* to straighten things out, and generally led us into the weakest period of American impotence since the isolationist years.

Yeah, I want to hear what the little war criminal thinks about foreign policy. If only to make sure that we're ignoring him comprehensively, and not even accidentally doing what he might want done.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2007-04-02 10:28  

#9  Kissinger is a "realist," which means he believes all problems can be solved by negotiation, that there is no valid moral distinction to be made between various negotiating partners, and that right and wrong are not proper considerations in international diplomacy. (If your only tool is a hammer, . . . .) You can ask the South Vietnamese how well that all worked out the last time we tried it.
Posted by: Mike   2007-04-02 08:58  

#8  Accepting an honorary degree from Waseda University? That second-rate dump? Kissinger has surely fallen on hard times.
Posted by: gromky   2007-04-02 07:37  

#7  Having served through the McNamara, Johnson, Nixon, and Viet "architect" Kissener period. I have observed personally, as have many others, the many misteps and blunderings. It is beyond me how he could go overseas and phueching say ANTHING or make ANY comment on what is going on in Iraq. Forty plus years of your sad groanings is enough you defeatest bastard. Just go away, please just go away.
Posted by: Besoeker   2007-04-02 05:23  

#6  I'm guessing the US will have military bases there for quite a while. I doubt there will be any land grabs until they are gone, and I doubt the military bases are going to be invited to leave until that threat diminshes.
Posted by: gorb   2007-04-02 04:17  

#5  I thought military victory was achieved 4 years ago and its the attempts to humanise civilise democratize the resident vermin population have failed
Posted by: gromgoru   2007-04-02 02:27  

#4  He's wrong about involving the neighbouring countries. The USA has to guarantee Iraq's borders then let the Iraqis figure most of the rest out themselves. It will be a mix of negotiation and military force, but it's going to happen anyway.

The big risk is the Turks or Persians (or maybe even Syria; a land corridor to to Iran would look pretty attractive) try to take advantage and grab territory.
Posted by: phil_b   2007-04-02 01:14  

#3  Is Henry wearing Depends
Posted by: Captain America   2007-04-02 01:04  

#2  You are correct (sir/madam). Any negotiation is a baad idea unless and until the context of said talks have been completely shaped for the desired end result.

Henry did some of this (piss poorly) in the lead up to the VC talks.
Posted by: Captain America   2007-04-02 01:03  

#1  He's wrong about a conference, though. Only worth it if we've already shaped the situation to our liking inside Iraq. And in that sense, too, he is wrong - a "military victory" means accomplishing what we need to accomplish. As we've already tried pure political development, asking nicely, perhaps some voodoo or incantations, perhaps now we could try, gee, I dunno, force. Ya know, the kind that has determined the outcome of every other single armed conflict in human history.

This doesn't mean securing every square inch. It does mean smashing Sunni rejectionists, AQ, IGRC, and select Shi'a militias - in that order.
Posted by: Verlaine   2007-04-02 00:13  

00:00