Posted on 07/20/2007 7:51:54 AM PDT by Ouderkirk
Responding to the call of Pope Urban II at Claremont in 1095, the Christian knights of the First Crusade set out for the Holy Land. In 1099, Jerusalem was captured. As their port in Palestine, the Crusaders settled on Acre on the Mediterranean.
There they built the great castle that was overrun by Saladin in 1187, but retaken by Richard the Lion-Hearted in 1191. Acre became the capital of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the stronghold of the Crusader state, which fell to the Mameluks in a bloody siege in 1291. The Christians left behind were massacred.
The ruins of Acre are now a tourist attraction.
Any who have visited this last outpost of Christendom in the Holy Land before Gen. Allenby marched into Jerusalem in 1917 cannot – on reading of the massive U.S. embassy rising in Baghdad – but think of Acre.
At a cost of $600 million, with walls able to withstand mortar and rocket fire and space to accommodate 1,000 Americans, this mammoth embassy, largest on earth, will squat on the banks of the Tigris inside the Green Zone.
But, a decade hence, will the U.S. ambassador be occupying this imperial compound? Or will it be like the ruins of Acre?
What raises the question is a sense the United States, this time, is truly about to write off Iraq as a lost cause.
The Republican lines on Capitol Hill are crumbling. Starting with Richard Lugar, one GOP senator after another has risen to urge a drawdown of U.S. forces and a diplomatic solution to the war.
But this is non-credible. How can U.S. diplomats win at a conference table what 150,000 U.S. troops cannot secure on a battlefield?
Though Henry Kissinger was an advocate of this unnecessary war, he is not necessarily wrong when he warns of "geopolitical calamity." Nor is Ryan Crocker, U.S. envoy in Iraq, necessarily wrong when he says a U.S. withdrawal may be the end of the America war, but it will be the start of bloodier wars in Iraq and across the region.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari also warns of the perils of a rapid withdrawal: "The dangers vary from civil war to dividing the country to regional wars ... the danger is huge. Until the Iraqi forces and institutions complete their readiness, there is a responsibility on the U.S. and other countries to stand by the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to help build up their capabilities."
In urging a redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq and a new focus on diplomacy, Lugar listed four strategic goals. Prevent creation of a safe haven for terrorists. Prevent sectarian war from spilling out into the broader Middle East. Prevent Iran's domination of the region. Limit the loss of U.S. credibility through the region and world as a result of a failed mission in Iraq.
But how does shrinking the U.S. military power and presence in Iraq advance any of these goals?
Longtime critics of the war like Gen. William Odom say it is already lost, and fighting on will only further bleed the country and make the ultimate price even higher. The general may be right in saying it is time to cut our losses. But we should take a hard look at what those losses may be.
It is a near certainty the U.S.-backed government will fall and those we leave behind will suffer the fate of our Vietnamese and Cambodian friends in 1975. As U.S. combat brigades move out, contractors, aid workers and diplomats left behind will be more vulnerable to assassination and kidnapping. There could be a stampede for the exit and a Saigon ending in the Green Zone.
The civil and sectarian war will surely escalate when we go, with Iran aiding its Shia allies and Sunni nations aiding the Sunnis. A breakup of the country seems certain. Al-Qaida will claim it has run the U.S. superpower out of Iraq and take the lessons it has learned to Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. The Turks, with an army already on the border, will go in to secure their interests in not having the Kurdish PKK operating from Iraq and in guaranteeing there is no independent Kurdistan. What will America do then?
As for this country, the argument over who is responsible for the worst strategic debacle in American history will be poisonous.
With a U.S. defeat in Iraq, U.S. prestige would plummet across the region. Who will rely on a U.S. commitment for its security? Like the British and French before us, we will be heading home from the Middle East.
What we are about to witness is how empires end.
Well that's about all you can say about that. History does indeed repeat itself
“How empires end”
The US is not, has never been, and has never wanted to be, an “empire”.
I didn’t post any response to Pat as I am still thinking about how to properly address his assertions. Too many fallacies too little time.
So, does this mean we put Patrick J. Buchanan on "surrender monkey" team - defeatism has run rampant.
Before 1917 perhaps only Hamilton's lackeys wanted an empire. But post 1917, if it acts like an empire, speaks like an empire, and has every quality of an empire (perhaps in different terminology and function), it's an empire.
Course I don't know what else you'd call a nation that has its troops spread over 100 different countries in the world under the auspices of defending 'freedom'. A duck perhaps?
Well, if he forgets that flap of leather that hangs under the facemask and takes a 93 mph fastball to the throat – that could do it.
Or... it is futile to fight Muslim aggression. Let them overrun the world and get it over with. s/
“Does this mean we put PJB on ‘surrender monkey’ team” - defeatism has run rampant”.
Actually, Pat stated on Scarborough Country that invading Iraq was a mistake and leaving Iraq is a mistake. Pat’s stand is that once the mistake of tipping the balance of power to Iran by destroying the counterweight of Sunni Iraq was made by Bush, the U.S. must stay in Iraq to prevent the Iranian Shiites from taking over.
You have misjudged Pat’s position on Iraq. If Iraq is lost, as Pat said, who is the winner?
Obviously, it is Iran - which is why the neocons are pushing for an attack on Iran, in order to correct their mistake in Iraq. I believe Pat opposes spreading the war in the ME, but supports the U.S. staying in Iraq to prevent an Iranian takeover.
Naah. I think PJB is warning against leaving, not surrender monkeying.
I loved his line about US prestige would plummet, though. Ferpetesake, can we get any lower about now?
“Before 1917 perhaps only Hamilton’s lackeys wanted an empire. But post 1917, if it acts like an empire, speaks like an empire, and has every quality of an empire (perhaps in different terminology and function), it’s an empire.
Course I don’t know what else you’d call a nation that has its troops spread over 100 different countries in the world under the auspices of defending ‘freedom’. A duck perhaps?”
I find such arguments ridiculous and disingenuous. An empire places its troops in many countries by force, usually for the purpose of maintaining control of the land, the government or the population. US troops are in foreign countries by invitation or agreement with the host govt by way of defense agreements. When the conditions of the agreement expire or the host asks us to leave, WE LEAVE. The fact that such countries INVITE the us to place troops within its border demonstrates enormous trust that would not be given to an empire that might use them to take over said country.
The British and Romans built empires by military conquest of independent states all over the world. Where is the US equivalent?
It sure seems strange that all the talk is negative - we can’t win in Iraq - republicans don’t have a viable candidate for 08 - Hillary’s gonna win. Frankly, we must be getting more gullible if we sit here and take this crap as gospel truth. The media LIES, LIES, LIES...stop believing and start living!
I am aware of PJB’s stand on the war - I disagree completely.
Either on will destroy the US internally.
To quote Donald Rumsfeld, I believe you are a “deadender” on the Iraq war. The Bush delusion of turning Iraq into a Swedish democracy filled with democracy loving muslims is being blown apart with suicide bombers and where are the WMDs? When the U.S. abandons this war, Iran will take control of Iraq - exactly what Pat has been worried will happen.
Pat’s curse is that he is a Cassandra - doomed to realize that politicians are leading America into disaster via mass immigration or unfounded wars and being there when his predictions are ignored and then come true. Perhaps Bush wishes he had listened to Pat on Iraq now.
I agree with Buchanan on quite a few issues but I disagree with him about invading Iraq as we should have taken out Saddam the first time. My opinion.
I agree with the Rummy statement in that Democracy is not a viable form of government and will not work in the ME. If Rumsfeld means Liberty, then I also agree, you cannot free a people who are not free in their hearts and Islam will not allow it. .02 cents worth
The way I see it, PJB has woken up to the fact that - even if he didn’t like the Iraq war - HE DOESN’T LIKE THE CONSEQUENCES OF LOSING IT AND IS EXPOSING THE FALSITY OF ASSURANCES FROM THE SURRENDERISTS THAT IT WOULD BE “OKAY” TO WITHDRAW.
Leaving Iraq would be a calamity:
- for USA, our influence, prestige and ability to fight AQ would be decimated
- for the world, a victory for terrorists and a defeat for anti-terrorism
- for Iraq and Arabs, violence, repression and sectarianism would increase
bad all around.
I think everyone who has criticized the war up until now needs to take a deep breath and ponder it: Suppose this is another “vietnam”? Do you want a repeat of Vietnam 1975? Do you want another aftermath, such as Vietnam had and Cambodia etc., but played out on a muslim arabic state (different players/ideologies but similar historical dynamic of a vacuum filled by repressive forces)?
If not ... what way forward?
I don't like the consequences of leaving.
I don't criticize the war.
We should invade Iran.
My opinion and I'm keeping it.
Have a nice day.
Rather than invade iran, I say we just bomb the heck out of it. Then do it again everytime they start acting up.
ping
I am inclined to accept that as an alternative to invasion - first.
PJB did not wake up to the fact that losing the Iraq war is a calamity - destroying the secular Sunni Baath regime in Iraq was a calamity. The U.S. has destroyed the secular Iraq that was the enemy and counter balance against the Iranian mullahs.
Now Iraq is in danger of falling under the control of Shiite Iran - and PJB thinks leaving Iraq to the Iranians would be a disaster. Short sighted politicians and neocons have destroyed the balance of power in the middle east and now the push is on for the U.S. to attack Iran.
With the “cakewalk” types still running things, good luck trying to persuade (or fool) Americans into attacking Iran - isn’t one Iraq debacle is enough?
If we were behaving like a classical empire, we’d suck the oil out of Iraq and other armpit countries for the next few centuries the way Spain robbed Central and South Americ of its gold and silver.
Did I say classical empire? I said empire. The British operated much differently than the Romans and yet 150 years later we readily recognize the British Empire existed. 150 years from now, this will be seen as the American Empire. Be it colonialism in its original form, a mercantilistic empire as the Brits evolved into, or an empire held together by occupying forces in nations that ‘welcome’ us (much like the Gauls that ‘invited’ the Romans in), it’s still in a sense an Empire.
“....US prestige would plummet, though. Ferpetesake, can we get any lower about now?”
Hmmmmm Yes. But as long as there is France and Frenchmen we will not be the lowest.
“destroying the secular Sunni Baath regime in Iraq was a calamity.”
Only to Saddam Hussein.
To the rest of humanity, that was the one good thing done so far in this war.
Pats big hero is Gen. Douglas MacArthur (along with Franco and tailgunnger Joe). I find it strange that Pat would admire Gen. MacArthur's efforts to bring the war to Red China, but not what he believes is Pres. Bush's idea to carry the war to Iran.
What's the difference in these two? That North Korea didn't attack mainland U.S., but the Islamics did? Aso, is it that the war in the Middle East is evil because it might benefit you-know-what country?
As Pat pointed out in the past, Saddam Hussein and the Sunnis or Baathists are not identical - a simple and cheap option that Bush could have used was depose Saddam and replace him with a secular Sunni strongman, and then withdraw U.S. forces. As General Ricardo Sanchez said, what the U.S. needs is a Iraqi strongman who could contain the fundamentalist Shiite Islamists. This option would have been much cheaper than nation building or trying to suppress an insurgency.
And I suspect if you polled most (surviving) Christian Iraqis or Iraqi women, they would prefer peace and liberty under Saddam to chaos, death and islamic law under the new Shiite regime in Iraq.
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.