Replies

I understand your argument. But the problem is lot more complicated in Iraq. 20th Century Communism was one thing; - a secular, political ideology. Fundamentalist Islam is a global religious ideology that has been around since Islam's inception in the seventh century. The Shiites espouse the more "provincial" form of Islam that promotes even greater antipathy towards the West than its Sunni counterpart. We're obviously not convince either side to start believing in a different religion.

I think that there is just too much bad blood between the Sunnis and Shiites and that ultimately because of mutual distrust the country will have to be partitioned at some point. The dream of having a united, open and democratic Iraq is no longer a realistic option at this point.

Actually I was NOT comparing Iraq to Vietnam, I was making the point that some people who DO compare Iraq to Vietnam need to look more closely at what actually happened in Vietnam.

The only parallel I see with the Vietnam war is the phenomenom of an enemy unable to win on the battlefield using the US and international MSM in alliance with anti-American leftist elements within the US to convince a large segment of the American public that the war is unwinnable, who in turn will elect Rats that will cut and run and abandon the field to our enemies.

One thing that I believe HAS been demonstrated by the adoption of a constitution and the successful elections is that the vast majority of Iraqis support a representative, parliamentary system. Obviously, the working of such a system is being frustrated by the violence.

The nature of the violence is that it is being perpetrated by a small but vicious part of the Iraqi population using the tactics of the weak - car bombings, hidden IEDs, kidnappings, assasinations. It has also been demonstrated that the violent fraction of society does not have sufficient military forces or support among the population to actually hold territory if they are attacked by US and Iraqi forces.

Even though the violent element is a small part of Iraq as a whole, that does not mean that if we withdraw our support that violent element would not take over. There are many examples of a small but extremely violent element taking control of a country without popular support (but with intimidation of the population).

The dream of having a united, open and democratic Iraq is no longer a realistic option at this point.

It is way too early to make this assessment. By "united" a federal system is acceptable and by "open" a parliamentary government which uses harsh internal tactics to suppress the violent baathists and jihadis seeking to overthrow the system is acceptable.

Iraqis are still joining the security forces in large numbers and the Iraqi security forces are very slowly increasing their scope and effectiveness. Also, it takes time for those people within the Iraqi security forces with military aptitude and strong leadership skills to find their way to the top - the emergence of an Iranian-style Mustafa Kemal Ataturk would make a night-and-day difference in the effectiveness of the security forces.

Could you be right at the end of the day? Possibly, but we will not be in a position to objectively evaluate that until at least another two years, when we see whether a much larger Iraqi security force can sufficiently suppress violence throughout the Sunni triangle and in areas like Sadr City.

My take is that a workable parliamentary system will fail in Iraq only if the US loses will and prematurely withdraws military support before the Iraqi government has sufficient forces to suppress the violent element, and that will take at least a couple of further years, with logistical and material support required to continue thereafter.