Posted on 10/16/2006 9:58:48 AM PDT by World_Events
To me, the relentless mud slide of insurgency and civil war in Iraq is leading to unacceptable strategic disaster for the U.S. There appear to be no viable paths to follow in order to avoid it. Neither "staying the course"--whatever that Bush strategy now means--nor the Democrats' idea of exiting by timetables offers a semblance of success. Both approaches produce only nightmares: general chaos; Iraq's center taken over by terrorists emboldened by victory over America, their pockets bulging with Iraqi oil money; southern Iraq controlled by pro-Iranians or Iran itself; and Iraq's neighbors picking at the nation's carcass until regional war erupts and prompts oil prices to hit $150 a barrel.
But while those fears have a real hold on me, I can't help transporting myself back more than 30 years to that day in Vietnam when I felt certain the dominoes would fall throughout Asia and destroy America's strategic position there and elsewhere. I was wrong about those dominoes, as were almost all foreign-policy experts.
It was April 28, 1975. The last U.S. officials scrambled aboard helicopters, bound for home, heralding defeat as North Vietnamese troops tramped into the South Vietnamese capital. And it was the most ignominious kind of defeat, one that came after a decades-long war, after tens of thousands of Americans and Vietnamese had been killed, after our Presidents had pledged it would never come to that.
We expected China and the Soviet Union would be ascendant, that allies like Japan and South Korea would doubt our resolve and reposition themselves, and that North Vietnam would claim the rest of Indochina. Almost none of that happened.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
True, I believe that the fact we are in Iraq hold them up a bit. But don't forget there are probably a good few million willing jihadis and only 140,000 Americans in Iraq. So they could still plan operation wherever they please. It is good intelligence and covert operations that stop terrorist plots.
Ahmadinejad doesn't have the capability to strike US soil (as of yet) but he does have at present the capability to strike Iraq. Iran's hope is to control Iraq through the Shi'a militias. They don't want Iraq to be so utterly blown back to Neanderthal times (and its getting there already). They also know that if they strike at US forces in Iraq we will have perfect legitimacy to bomb them. They are goading and goading us...but they will only push us so far. They want to be a player (like the wonderful regime of Pakistan is a player) in the nuke club. I have seen too much name calling in this particular post. Yes, American security is of utmost importance, but one cannot have an imbecilic attitude of all brawn and no brains. I am hearing a testosterone overload.
So you don't think a philosophy such as neoconservatism exists?
Defeat in Iraq? Those words will never be put together. If they are, it'll be the end of the world as we know it. This is what Dems think. Why don't the Republicans keep telling people all the good things we've done there and why this effort is so damn important. The thought that there are people who believe our country can be defeated by a gang of ragtag fighters is downright insane.
Agree. Conservatives talk about liberals having little patience for disagreement. I am finding that there is quite a lot of knee jerking going on in this post.
Broadly speaking, the problem is chaos. The central authorities, be it the U.S. military or the Iraqi government, are unable to provide adequate security to inspire confidence in the government. Without that confidence, you have other powers, be they tribal groups, Islamists, foriegn intelligence agents, jihadists, militias, insurgents, nationalists, Ba'athists, criminals, or terrorists, that step up and assert their power. They're all bad guys, to varying degrees, but they want different things. Still, the bottom line for us is this: No security plus no confidence equals no progress.
What we're facing is a country that was held together with the iron fist of Saddam, now held together by nothing more then helicopter overflights by day, and madmen with machetes at night.
I know we love putting things into categories, so we can help define them. No one, including the U.S. military, has a good name for what's going on in Iraq. It's not a civil war, exactly, but there is some large scale regional/ethnic fighting. It's not an insurgency, exactly, but there are insurgents. If you come up with a good name for what's going on, please email it to CENTCOM.
Libertarian-Buchananite---and at least I am honest about it.
Philosophical point of view.
No, it's not philosophy. It's reality. The American people aren't going to wait around forever for success. We need to start producing some results, or the center and right are going to start jumping ship.
I understand your point, but public opinion ain't gonna hold forever. They don't want a moral victory; they want a real one, and if they don't get it, they're going to want to leave. It may be impolitic to say it like that, but we need to get realistic about the situation if we want more than a principled loss on our hands.
Good points for your honesty, bad points for your affiliation.
I think there are as many definitions of "neoconservatism" as there are asses to pull them from. It's a very handy epithet that conveniently has no fixed meaning.
You should read the American Conservative and stuff from Cato Institute sometime.
What civil war? That idea exists only in the mind of the media. You don't hear this from the troops on the ground and that counts more to me than any fear mongering from the MSM.
The Sunni/Shi'a fighting was instigated by Zarqawi & Co. and because its such an eye for an eye society the average Sunnis were drawn into the sectarian fighting. But it originated with Al Qaeda in Iraq.
......."Staying the course in Iraq is the only strategy for victory"..............
If we're going to stay, let's let our guys untie that arm they have behind their back. Let's let them kick some ass, and if civilians get in the way, that's their problem.
We can't play a good guy war, when the other side doesn't care how many of their own they kill with the homemade bombs strapped to their kids waist.
Soldiers job is to kill people and break things!
Agreed.
Thank you for your level-headed approach.
I surmise the affluence of the new Iraqi society will not be matched by the money the Syrians and Iranians throw at the mobsters who commit terrorist acts, and with the population willing to turn on the Syrian and Iranian elements with tips and deeds to expose them, the new Iraqi security forces will be able to stabilize the democracy. The number of Iraqi security forces dying for their country speaks volumes about the likelihood of a good outcome. I saw where that number is up to 25 casualties a day now, but with no problem recruiting replacements and building toward 300,000 troops.
Sincerely,
Libs can't stop comparing islamofascist maniacs to communist asians of 30 years ago. Theres NO comparison.
What IDIOTS. It was a defeat because we LEFT, one. and two: Because MILLIONS died when we DID. Those idiots are STILL trying to rewrite history!
FINISH THE JOB you fools! Any problem with clarity on THAT?
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Yes, it would.
Just damn.
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.