Posted on 07/03/2007 7:36:01 PM PDT by neverdem
The war in Iraq is approaching a kind of self-imposed climax. Public disenchantment is palpable. Congress will surely press for an accelerated, if not total, withdrawal of American forces. Demands for a political solution are likely to mount.
But precipitate withdrawal would produce a disaster. It would not end the war but shift it to other areas, like Lebanon or Jordan or Saudi Arabia. The war between the Iraqi factions would intensify. The demonstration of American impotence would embolden radical Islamism and further radicalize its disciples from Indonesia and India to the suburbs of European capitals.
We face a number of paradoxes. Military victory, in the sense of establishing a government capable of enforcing its writ throughout Iraq, is not possible in a time frame tolerated by the American political process. Yet no political solution is conceivable in isolation from the situation on the ground.
What America and the world need is not unilateral withdrawal but a vision by the administration of a sustainable political end to the conflict. Withdrawals must grow out of a political solution, not the other way around.
None of Iraq's neighbors, not even Iran, is in a position to dominate the situation against the opposition of all the other interested parties. Is it possible to build a sustainable outcome on such considerations?
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
The architect of our defeat in Vietnam seeks a mulligan. Henry, you are a looser. Suffer the ignominy of history. Let the American Soldier continue to kick terrorist booty where ever it may be found.
Deja Vu, all over again.
It is very simple. We cannot leave Iraq before we crush the terrorists there. We leave before we do this and we face consequences worst than any nightmare we can imagine. Therefore we stay and win, so please save us the political crap and analysis that you and your ilk give us on a daily basis.
Practically speaking, the US is no longer in Iraq for Iraq; we are there because Iraq is the best place to be in the region to do several important things.
First, we keep Iran under some degree of control, or are able to squash them quickly and decisively, if needs be.
Second, we bust up the Muslim nuclear proliferation in the region, which if we leave would quite possibly lead to a medium large nuclear exchange of over 100 nukes. And yes, large enough so that even in the US* we would get fallout contamination.
Third, that is by far the most unstable region on the planet right now, and by being there we forestall any number of wars and other conflicts.
Fourth, we are also protecting much of the world’s oil supply, whose sudden cut off could plunge the world into a deep depression. “No blood for oil” also means “no oil for food, industry, or transportation.”
If the next President is a smart republican, he will keep the headquarters of the Africa Command in Iraq, to take advantage of this situation we have paid for. If he (or she) is a democrat, typically with no concept of foreign policy, we could face a disastrous and rapid collapse in the region.
And without our forces in Iraq, it could cost 300 BILLION dollars and a lot of dead bodies just to get us back to where we are right now.
...the United States will need to put forward a diplomatic position that acknowledges the legitimate security interests of Iran.
Great post and you need to add the most important thing about why we are in Iraq and why we should stay there until we achieve victory. Iraq is the center front of the war on terror and the islamic terrorists from all over the world are coming to Iraq to fight us there and it is in Iraq where we are going to annihilate them.
I read all that—and the only meaningrul takeaway was the last line.
We need a poiitical and military solution independent of an artificial timeline.
Henry, your drivel is mostly drivel. Talk and talk and yada yada and then we must beat feet.
Please stay away from any planning, joint commissions, or diplomacy related to the current wars against muslim sandnazis that need killing.
“Saudi Arabia and Jordan dread Shiite domination of Iraq, especially if the Baghdad regime threatens to become a satellite of Iran.”
________________________________
If they “dread” it so bad, maybe they ought to help carry the load. The US has to do all the heavy hauling in the Middle East...and all we get for our effort is criticism from the freeloaders.
It was for a very good reason that my boss, Admiral Moorer, agreed to the pilfering of Kissinger’s briefcases when Kissinger was SecState. The Chairman was completely cut out of the Paris Peace Talks loop — and Nixon was essentially neutered at that point.
The only way the gent who was responsible for the Armed Forces of the United States could get the intelligence he needed to function effectively was to steal the policy directives from Kissinger. And, he did, quite effectively until the plot was uncovered months later. At that juncture, Nixon did not have the political capital to fire the Chairman. Admiral Moorer survived the resultant mini- massacre and served out his term unscathed. *S*
That tells us all we need to know about Kissinger’s megalomania, paranoia and moral malfeasance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.