Submit your comments on this article |
Iraq |
Defeat Made in Washington |
2007-09-17 |
Amir Taheri While some US politicians claim that the war is lost, a broader analysis of the existential struggle between two visions of the world may provide a different picture. The trick that the party of defeat uses is simple: reduce the larger struggle to the war in Iraq, then further reduce it to the success or failure of the so-called "surge"; then proceed to show that, despite the presence of 22,000 additional US troops, the terrorists still manage suicide attacks. The conclusion: the war is lost; let's run away as fast as we can! However, the "surge" as such is not the issue. There is no doubt that the arrival of additional US troops has helped improve security in parts of Iraq. Nevertheless, whatever success the "surge" might have had is due to the psychological impact of the decision by President George W Bush to increase the number of US troops rather than cut and run. The real issue in Iraq, as in all other theatres of the global war against terrorists, has always been one of commitment and resolve, especially on the part of those who have the power to make a difference. Rather than enter into a debate about the actual number of suicide bombings, let us note some positive developments that no one can deny: * The Sunni Arab tribal sheikhs in the once unruly Anbar province have decided to come off the fence and take up arms against Al Qaeda, even if this means collaborating with the Americans. What is certain is that the political tide is turning in favour of new Iraq. As in any war, what counts in this war is the protagonists' states of mind. No war is won with a defeatist discourse. The "surge" was a political signal that the US did not intend to throw in the towel. That signal persuaded fence sitters in Iraq and, beyond it, the broader Arab world, to take side. Most chose the side of new Iraq against its internal and external foes. The US and its Iraqi allies cannot be defeated in Iraq. However, defeat could be manufactured in Washington where part of the American elite seeks it in order to win in the domestic political war. Each time an American political leader speaks of defeat, he encourages the terrorists, discourages allies, signals to fence sitters to look elsewhere, and thus prolongs the war. It is not twenty-two thousands more or fewer American troops that would determine the outcome of the war in a country the size of France. What could persuade the terrorists and the sectarian gangs that their cause is lost is the perception that behind those 22,000 troops stands a nation, a "superpower" at that, determined not to surrender to terror. A United America can win with even fewer troops, acting as symbols of US commitment. A divided America will lose even if it doubled the number of its troops. To win in Iraq, the Americans need to end their own partisan war on this issue. |
Posted by:twobyfour |
#3 No, JohnQC, they really don't. They think the whole thing is juiced up by the Republicans in order for THEM to get/keep power. The Europeans have thought essentially the same way. I think it is a natural state of the species to deny unpleasantness - "if I don't believe it, then it does not exist." This is the exact situation Europe faced with regard to the rise of fascism in the 1930's. That psychological study which was much-discussed here last week may actually have been onto something, but with incorrect analysis. |
Posted by: Glenmore 2007-09-17 13:00 |
#2 the Democratic Party Do these dumb dhimmi $hits not realized that it is their war too? |
Posted by: JohnQC 2007-09-17 12:24 |
#1 A United America can win with even fewer troops, acting as symbols of US commitment. A divided America will lose even if it doubled the number of its troops. The money quote. And this is the precise strategy of the Democratic Party - to divide America so that we will lose the WOT. Because that this they only way they can 'win' power. And the more dead Americans the better for the Defeatocrats. |
Posted by: CrazyFool 2007-09-17 11:07 |