Baghdad on the Potomac?

Townhall.com ^ | February 20, 2007 | Pat Buchanan

[gpapa]

Both houses of Congress have now gone on record opposing Bush's dispatch of 21,500 more troops to Iraq. Yet neither house is willing to end U.S. involvement by cutting off funding for the war.

Transparently, this is not a strategy for victory. It is a hold-the-line, stay-the-course strategy until America concludes that the price in blood and treasure of averting defeat is too high, and demands that U.S. troops be brought home, no matter the consequences.

Absent a deus ex machina, we are on the road to defeat. The timing alone remains in doubt.

[oceanview]

if a Dem wins in 2008 - we lose the war. if a Republican wins (any of them, except Brownback), we won't.

But in any case, the plan in iraq is more about transition then victory. we've already won the part of the war US forces were designed to win.

[Loyal Buckeye]

I will be patient and reserve judgement.

In any event, a critic of the war can define defeat any way he or she wants; consequently, many will call it a defeat regardless of the outcome.

A government that can defend, sustain and govern itself is the goal. That, btw, does not necessiarily require a complete end to the homicide bombers.

[When do we get liberated?]

Far from a forgone conclusion, a Republican in the White House does not guarantee the situation on the battlefield. Many other forces involved there than the holder of the POTUS office.
As to the second "part we were designed to win" Can we ever expect an enemy to fight us in the manner we are trained to fight in? The English thought the same way when the Colonists fired from a point of disarry in a guerrilla warfare style. They continued to fight like the nice, polite Euroeans fought. Guess who won. We have gone a long way towards adapting to the situation on the ground, but you can never decide you won the part of the war you expected to and then go home.

[oceanview]

only the iraqis can secure their own country, street by street, on the ground. and that's the phase we are in now, like it or not. we can help, we are helping, but our rules of engagement and the nature of the conflict there places some limits on what we can accomplish.

[KantianBurke]

which is precisely why nation building is a bad idea which should NOT be attempted. Period.

[phillyfanatic]

Cloning would not be so bad if we could dredge up Patton, MacArthur, Gen.Sherman and Grant. Then we could conceivably allow our military to do the things the military are grown for. To kill people and break lots of things. Including nuke plants, mosques that hold insurgents and towns that house Sadr type bullies and thugs.

[oceanview]

indeed, this is why I don't like to hear stories about "liberating the people of iran". we're not liberating anyone in iran, if we have to go to iran, its because we want to blow some thing up and accomplish strategic objectives.

if the people of iran want to overthrow their government, let them.

[jmax]

If Washington were to be attacked by terrorists, the safest thing for a citizen on the street to do would be to run to either the House or Senate. There is no way a terrorist group would bomb the "headquarters" of their own allies.

[George W. Bush]

Buchanan is making a good bet on a bad outcome for a peaceful and democratic Iraq. Even to a cynic like me, it's not clear that the situation is as hopeless as he believes.

[gpapa]

These comments by Pat suggests he may have a different view of the situation in Iraq

Democrats, realizing what happened to their party when they tied Nixon's hands and cut off Saigon, and South Vietnam was overrun and Cambodia fell to the genocidal rule of Pol Pot, want to end U.S. involvement but not be held responsible for what follows. For what will surely follow is a crushing defeat for U.S. policy in the Middle East, a humanitarian disaster, and a wider, bloodier war.

[Bean Counter]

You say Mesopotamia, I say Mess-o-Potomac....