Posted on 11/12/2003 6:00:47 PM PST by SJackson
Iraq is turning out to be a tragedy of much greater depth than either the pro-war or anti-war camps, with their shallow certainties, are prepared to deal with.
Hardcore Western leftists still can't get interested in anything going on in that country except American "imperialism." Having endured the embarrassment of Iraqi jubilation at Saddam Hussein's ouster, they're back in the ballgame now with things going badly for the US, and they're raising their voices for immediate withdrawal.
Those who want to sound responsible say the US should hand the job over to an international force – as if any country that's stayed out of the fighting so far wants to send thousands of troops to Iraq now.
There are two main reasons why America can't withdraw from Iraq in the shape it's currently in. One is that this would give spectacular impetus to al-Qaida and the rest of the world jihad movement.
The second reason is that it would open the way to a bloodbath in which Iraqis who didn't oppose the US were slaughtered by those who did.
That's what happened to masses of Shi'ites and Kurds after the US finished up the 1991 Gulf War; for America to let that happen again, with the experience of 1991 behind it, would be just too great a crime.
So failure, as the Bush administration puts it, is not an option. The problem, though – the tragedy – is that success may not be an option, either.
What would have to happen for Iraq to be a success story? I'd say the country would have to become unfriendly territory for America's violent enemies, and be in strong enough and trustworthy enough Iraqi hands for the US to be able pull out its troops, or all but a relative few of them, in the knowledge that success was secure.
For the sake of brevity, if not precision, let's call that democracy.
It's nowhere in sight. There's a controversy on now about whether the strongest fighting force in the world can overcome the Iraqi resistance, but there's no controversy about whether moderate Iraqis can do it themselves. They'd survive about as long as the anti-communist regime in South Vietnam survived after the last US helicopter flew off: no time at all.
The consensus is to stay the course, to finish the job. But Iraq is getting harder for America, not easier. The guerrillas are getting bolder and more efficient. Fury at America, in Iraq and the rest of the Muslim world, is intensifying. The cost in blood and money is rising rapidly.
Unless the military and political trends in Iraq change in a big way, America's situation there will just worsen with time, not improve, while the consequences of pulling out will not become any less dreadful.
THIS HAS always been the biggest hole in Bush's war plan – the lack of an exit strategy. His generals could come up with a military plan to get rid of Saddam, and a military plan to pacify the country afterward, but nobody could come up with a political plan to prevent Iraq from reverting to form – or even worse – once American troops left.
For the US to go to war in Iraq, only for Iraq to fall back into the hands of the Ba'athists, or Islamic revolutionaries, or to explode in a civil war that could destabilize the Mideast, and in any event to be gored by the vengeance and savagery that an American withdrawal would unleash – this was not an option.
On the other hand, for the US to try to keep a lid on Iraq by occupying the country forever with masses of troops – this was not an option, either.
With all the worst, America-hating political forces vying for power in Iraq – as in the Arab world at large – how could Iraq be made to stand on its own two feet, more or less, as a peaceful country where Saddamists, al-Qaida and the rest of America's enemies were shut down?
Given the reality of the Middle East, it seemed impossible. But George W. Bush and his people don't take no for an answer, so with can-do spirit they envisioned a Middle East as they'd like it to be, and found their answer: Democracy.
Once Iraq became a democracy, it would naturally ally itself with America in the war against terror. Once Iraq became a democracy, it would be possible to declare mission accomplished and mean it, and bring the boys home.
But between Bush's natural cynicism about nation-building and his traumatic encounter with the Middle East on 9/11, not to mention his utter frustration with the Palestinians and the loathing he can't help but notice coming at him from the Arab and Muslim world, where does he suddenly come to believe that Iraq can be transformed into a stable democracy?
He doesn't believe it. Bush only talked himself into believing it because he had no choice – his war plan was short an exit strategy, so he took neoconservative advice and adopted democracy as his desperate excuse for one.
In truth, though, there is no exit strategy. America has no way to get out of Iraq without all hell breaking loose. So America digs in, and all hell is breaking loose. Like I said – a tragedy.
The writer is a veteran journalist.
The writer is a veteran journalist.The writer is a blithering idiot.
If memory serves, North Vietnam was a discrete geopolitical entity with unhindered control over a large area, a standing army, and a constant supply of arms from China and the Soviet Union. The Iraqi insurgency is none of that.
Correct
.I think you are absolutely right. That is why Bush says we want to fight them there instead of on our shores. Too bad so many are trying to hamper this effort.
In general it would be: Kill bad guys. Come home.
If the Iraqis are too stupid to appreciate what we're offering them, I'll be happy to see them die like flies in a civil war which they will then roundly deserve.
Moreover, if we fail, and another tyrant emerges, I probably won't be around to see it, but if I am, I'll be happy to see history repeat itself and watch American troops smear Iraqi idiots all over the desert *again* - and give them *another* (by then undeserved) chance.
Succeed or fail, it's great seeing us try to export our own ideology for a change, instead of just reacting to the threat of Communism, Naziism, etc. etc. ad nauseum - I just wish that in the case of Iraq we would confiscate their oil to pay for it all.
(Did the French every pay their war debt, which they incurred for our having liberated them, by the way?)
There have been a number articles posted here on three state (and two state, Kurdistan in the North, Hashemite state in the rest of the country), but I don't think I've ever seen the concept discussed by anyone in the administration.
You are incorrect. Jerusalem Post is a cente/right-wing newspaper in Israel. It is not part of the mainstream either.
This is an opinion piece, not an official article or editorial of the Jerusalem Post.
Is "veteran journalist" a synonym for "idiot"?
Shalom.
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.