IS IRAQ ALREADY LOST?
This post is for those of you who are struggling to come to grips with the “reality” of what we should be doing in Iraq.
Yes, yes, I know. “Reality” sounds too much like “realist” which is dirty word around these parts after the Baker Mob tried with yesterday’s fatwa to off Lebanon, Israel, and democratic movements around the entire Middle East by abandoning them to the tender mercies of our enemies.
I mean “reality” in the sense that we have arrived at a crossroads and none of our leaders seem to have a clue as to what to do next.
The ISG gave us milquetoast when we needed red meat. Bush gives us platitudes and a maddening vagueness that indicates either he refuses to accept that the mission is in deep trouble or that he can’t decide what is the best of a lot of unpalatable options.
The Democrats appear split. Some want to be part of whatever solution we can come up with. Others not so much.
And the left? The netnuts don’t seem to be interested in anything except humiliating Bush and driving him from office. The idea that the Middle East just might blow up if we do as they suggest hasn’t seemed to penetrate their pointy little heads. If that would be the price of marching Bush off to the guillotine, so be it.
Which brings us to the very real possibility that no matter what we do, no matter how many troops we send or how much pressure we put on the Iraqi government or how low we grovel before Syria and Iran, the worst case scenario will still play out and the region will erupt, Iran will dominate, al-Qaeda will make themselves comfortable in Iraq, and American prestige will take a nosedive we may be years recovering from. This means that for all practical purposes, we have already lost. In that respect, the netnuts may be right - for all the wrong reasons, naturally.
For those who don’t think things are “that bad” in Iraq I see no reason for you to keep reading. You’ll only pull an abductor muscle putting your fist through your monitor or lose your voice screeching obscenities at me.
And for those who believe we’ve already “lost” and there is no hope of retrieving the situation, get out of the way because you refuse to be part of a solution. You are entitled to your opinion. But many millions who look at the same facts on the ground in Iraq as you disagree. We are not stupid. We are not blind. We are not Pollyannas. We don’t minimize the problems or understate the dangers. You only reveal yourself to be a shallow thinker if you can’t see that there are, in fact, avenues to success in Iraq that would allow us to leave behind a relatively stable society not run by terrorists. How to traverse those avenues is the problem, not that the all avenues have been closed off. Yes we agree that this is not the dream of the “neo-cons” or Bush, that Iraq will not be as free as we like or as peaceful as it eventually will be. But if we’re talking about the art of the possible here then what we should be seeking with our exit is basically to avoid catastrophe. And almost everyone agrees that this can be done.
Does the fact that our original benchmarks for “victory” in Iraq - democracy, freedom, tolerance, peace - which have now fallen by the wayside, overtaken by the reality of events, mean that we have, in any sense, “lost” the war?
The netnuts are making this argument, although why they seem so eager to embrace defeat makes one question their sanity when you realize who then correspondingly would be victorious. Iran and al-Qaeda stand to be the biggest winners. And by gladly handing them the winner’s cup before the race is completely over is nuts.
There is still time to thwart some of what Iran hopes to gain with our hasty exit from Iraq. And there is still time to kill a lot of al-Qaeda terrorists, thus preventing them from realizing their plan to use Iraq as a base to strike western targets around the world. But what do we have to do in order for these goals - less than total victory but still very desirable outcomes - to be achieved?
I think the first thing we have to do is pretty obvious; don’t give up. If a consensus can be reached between Republicans and many Democrats that “The War Forward” now includes an exit from Iraq that will leave behind a viable government and not a failed state as well as the virtual defeat of al-Qaeda then we have the basis to proceed for perhaps the next two years in assisting the Iraqi government in their efforts to get control of the streets.
Beyond two years is probably not in the cards. As it stands now, there are two clocks ticking side by side; one for the Presidential election in 2008 and another for the significant draw down of American forces in Iraq. But recognizing that the clocks are running would be a significant victory for the Democrats and might just bring enough of them on board for what we have to do to achieve those very limited but very doable goals.
Would we be able to claim “victory” if we achieved those goals? Well, the world wouldn’t let us get away with that. And neither would our lefty friends. But if the goals are achieved, we might salvage a little of our prestige as well as prevent catastrophe. This in and of itself would be worth staying for. In reality, it’s all we have left.
Charles Freeman, a member of the ISG, called this strategy “mitigating defeat.” I don’t see it that way. Considering where the country is now, achieving those goals would be a considerable accomplishment. At any rate, it’s a damn sight better than “surrendering to the inevitable” which is what the left wants us to do.
Of course how we get there from here is the question. And as I said, it may all be for naught anyway. But given the circumstances as well as the consequences of not even trying, I don’t see any other way but to attempt to turn the war around.
It may not be “victory” as we would have imagined it or as it could have or should have been. But it’s better than the alternative which could only spell catastrophe for America and the region.
The goals for our intervention in Iraq should be: 1.)an Iraq that is allied with the US in the broader GWOT, 2.) an Iraq that is stable and able to defend itself, and 3.) an Iraq that is a functioning representative democracy. The last goal of having Iraq as a representative democracy is probably not achieveable at this point. It likely never was but we will never know, as we never had the troop commitments necessary to give it a reasonable chance of being achieved.
Goals 1 and 2 can clearly be achieved. If we can achieve goals 1 and 2, Iran and Al Qaeda will be checked. I would consider this a success. By any objective measure I think it would be a success, as Iran and Al Qaeda would be limited in their ability to harm America and the West. Iran and Al Qaeda are not objective. Their propaganda machines will claim victory no matter what.
If we can achieve goals 1 and 2 America may well be able to continue as the world’s dominant power. Faliure to achieve those goals will mean the end of America’s position as one of the world’s dominant powers and may very well place the survival of the US itself in grave danger.
As for suggestions on how to achieve those goals, a temporary increase in troops may be helpful. Also, we may need to focus less on patroling the entire country. We clearly don’t have enough man power to do that. We should focus more on Al Qaeda and less effort on the Iraqi Civel War.
Beyond this I’m not really sure, as the optimal solution of vastly increasing the size and strength of the US military contingent in Iraq is unavailable. We must pick among potential solutions things we can implement that have a chance of working. With that said I do know what is definitely not the way forward. If American leaders think they can sacrifice the security of Israel to achieve peace, they are sorely mistaken. Israel is a key buffer between the West and Islamic terrorists. To weaken this buffer only places the security of the US and the Western world in more danger.
The bottom line is the US did not properly execute its Iraq strategy. Israel had nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq or with the planning and the execution of the Iraq invasion or its aftermath, furthermore, Israel was not even a part of the “coalition of the willing” either. It would be unethical for Americans or their leaders to punish Israel for a mistake that was clearly made by the Americans and their coalition allies.
Finally, the advice to not give up is very sound advice. Humans have faced greater challenges than America and its allies face in Iraq and have emerged victorious. God willing we will do the same.
Comment by B.Poster — 12/7/2006 @ 2:10 pm
At least one thing we will need to do is to eliminate Al Sadr and his militia. If the Iraqi government is unwilling or unable to do this, the US military will have to do it.
Comment by B.Poster — 12/7/2006 @ 2:26 pm
That is assuming US Military power is able to do this and if the resulting negative consequences are worth it. We might be able to kill Sadr and some of his fighters (the rest will go underground and melt into the populace) but I’m not sure what that would ultimately accomplish. There is not really a military means to eliminate militias without separating them from the support base by providing a real political alternative. As it stands now, the general Shia population (and the Sunni’s as well) see the militias as filling the role of government because the central government can’t or won’t fill that role. Simply eliminating Sadr and other militias will not solve the problem, especially in the face of continuing Sunni attacks on Shia civilians.
The way to win is by starting small - neighborhood by neighborhood - securing those areas and then growing outward. It’s standard counter-insurgency doctrine really which, for some reason, still isn’t the overall model for our Iraq strategy.
Comment by Andy — 12/7/2006 @ 3:49 pm
Thanks, But No Thanks
If you are now pissing and moaning that you were lied to and this is not what you were promised by the Democrats… I guess the last laugh is on you, for believing them.
Trackback by Wake up America>Media Lies — 12/7/2006 @ 4:21 pm
BPoster:
You put your finger directly on the middle of the problem. There are no more American troops to use in Iraq and Iraq is so unstable, it cannot be a functioning government as now comprised. Bush’s news conference today made it abundantly clear he is determined to continue “staying the course”. He will feign new actions, but do nothing different. Kicking the can to the next president is all that will happen. The next President will have to withdraw the troops and take the blame for whatever happens afterword. Bush’s cowardice is beyond reprehensible.
Comment by ed — 12/7/2006 @ 4:42 pm
Andy
The risks you point are very real. As always, thank you for your input. I think there is no question the US military can eliminate Al Sadr and his militia. In my mind, the question is does the US leadership have the back bone to do it? Also, does the Iraqi government have the will to do this? In any event, I don’t think goals 1 or 2, as outlined above can be achieved, as long as Al Sadr and his militia are running around.
I agree with you that going neighborhood by neighborhood would be helpful for ending the insurgency. This is going to require more troops to be commited by someone, either the US, the Iraqi government, the British, or another member of the Coalition. After we secure an area, we are often having to go back in. I have read in some cases we are having to go back in four and five times. This is unacceptable.
We have never had enough troops to secure the country. Back in March of 2003, when I learned we were only going to send about 150,000 troops I was horrified. I felt we needed at least 500,000 and possibly more. I simply dismissed my concerns at the time. I thought the military men knew better. Pehaps they did. For all I know, we would be worse off had we commited more troops. I am not a general, however, it does appear the current strategies are not working. the ISG has concluded as much. We probably don’t have the troops we need to go neighborhood by neighborhood and even if we did the US government is unwilling to commit them and I don’t see any of our allies stepping up to do this. The Iraqis will have to do it. We may be able to provide air support or logistical support for them but the heavy lifting will need to be done by the Iraqis.
Going neighborhood by neighborhood would be most helpful if we still want to achieve a representative democracy. I have largely abandoned that goal, not because I think it can’t be done but because we have never been willing to commit the resources to it to give it a reasonable chance to succeed.
Also, going neighborhood by neighborhood would be helpful, if it would eliminate the influence of Iran and Al Qaeda. Hopefully the Iraqis will be up to the task. With regards to Iraq I think the top priority now needs to be to contain and roll back the influence of Iran and Al Qaeda.
In my opinion, there have been three basic problems with the Iraq mission. American and allied leaders have never been quite sure what we wanted to accomplish, we have stubbornly insisted on seeking political solutions where there are only military solutions, and we have stubbornly insisted on being unserious, in the face of very serious issues.
Finally, goals 1 and 2, as I mention above MUST be achieved. It would be helpful to achieve goal number 3 but it is not mission critical. Failure to achieve goals 1 and 2 will mean the end of America as a major world power and it would place the very survival of the country in a very precarious position.
If the Iraqi government will not help us with goals 1 and 2, it will need to be removed. As stated previously our primary goals in Iraq should be containing and rolling back the influence of Iran and Al Qaeda in the country. The question that needs to be asked is does commiting more forces to Iraq help us or hurt us in these areas. If fewer troops in Iraq will better facilitate the containment of Iran and Al Qaeda in Iraq then we shold draw down our troops.
In the final analysis, whether or not Iraq can achieve a representative democracy is up to the Iraqis. It was always going to be up to them. Our job, in this area, should have been to commit enough forces to secure the country and give this process a reasonable chance of succeeding. We never did this. I don’t think it would have worked but I sure wish we had commited enough troops to give representative democracy a reasonable chance of working. Had we been able to establish a representative democracy in Iraq it would have helpful to our national security Alas, it did not happen and it is not going to happen, unless the Iraqis do it themselves.
We need to get back to basics and focus on American national security first and foremost. Military actions should only be undertaken, as they benefit American national security. If we are to ever engage in a “nation building” project again, we should do it the way our forefathers who fought WWII did it. Actually defeat the enemy first.
Comment by B.Poster — 12/7/2006 @ 4:48 pm
Ed
Congress is not going to let President Bush “stay the course.” Even if the Republicans had won the Congressional elections they would not have let Bush “stay the course.” I don’t even think America’s allies are going to let Bush “stay the course,” furthermore, neither the altenative media nor the msm will allow Bush to “stay the course.” They will be relentless, as they should be. If Bush thinks he can pass the blame on to the next President, he thinks incorrectly. Nobody will buy that. I can only hope and pray that when the course is changed that those directing the change are commited victory. Achieving a situation where Iraq is allied with US in the GWOT and is stable is still very achievable. Achieving these goals are mission critical to America’s global position and probably to the survival of the country itself. The stakes could not be higher. I wish I could have confidence in the ability of George W. Bush to lead the country during this crucial time. In any event, he will not be around much longer, as President.
Here is a prediction for you. George Walker Bush will not finish his term. He will be impeached, as he should be. I don’t think his “stay the course” is cowardice. I think it is just plain stupidity. If he were simply a coward, he would withdraw all American troops now. Of course this would mean the end of America’s position in the world but it might save him from impeachment and it would be good for his “legacy.” It would put him in a better position to blame someone else for his failures.
As it stands now, no one will back him when impeachment hearings start. Had he simply worked to placate the “base” they probably would have backed him, however, when he stabbed them in the back with his failure to secure the borders and to control government spending he sealed his fate. Dick Cheney may be impeached also. Speaker Pelosi may well become President Pelosi. We could be looking at our first female president.
If this prediction or my prediction made in other posts that US troops will be out of Shia and Sunni areas of Iraq by July 31, 2007 turn out to be wrong, I will come here and admit it. I want it to be abundantly clear that I do not like this President one iota. I think this is the worst president in the history of the Republic.
With regards to more troops in Iraq we can do it, if we had the national will to do so. In any event, the primary goals should be to contain and roll back the influence of Iran and Al Qaeda within Iraq and elsewhere in the world. I’m not sure more troops for Iraq will help us achieve either of those goals. In any event, since the government won’t make the effort to commit more troops, it is best to focus on potential solutions we can implement that have a chance of working.
One such possiblity would be to pull all troops out of Shia and Sunni areas of Iraq and only intervene in the Iraqi Civil War to prevent the formation of terrorist bases and to prevent the expansion of Iranian influence. We would support militias and other groups within Iraq who are most compatible with our national interests. I think we can probably find plenty of Iraqis who don’t think much of Iran or Al Qaeda. In other words, we would align with these groups and use each other as proxies to serve very specific interests.
We should be under no delusions here. This alternative is not very palatable but it is something we can do, if implemented properly.
Comment by B.Poster — 12/7/2006 @ 5:26 pm
It is a shame we did not follow Zinni’s plan (drawn up in 00) and send 2 battleships to support two (2)(dos) (zwei) divisions of Marines. Had we done so the war in Iraq would have been won (as in victory for the free world) in 04. We would now be talking about the new government in Iran. We never even sent one battleship over.
As any Marine can tell you - A dead Iraqui soldier will never become a live Insrugent/terrorist/rebel.
As a famous SoCal soldier said 62 years ago “The object of war … is to make the other guy give his life for his country!”. Bush and Rummy failed to understand what war is all about; so they failed.
Comment by Rodney A Stanton — 12/7/2006 @ 5:39 pm
Rick~
Your post seems to exemplify the problem everyone has with the situation in Iraq. You write a very long and well written post about Iraq and say:
“I think the first thing we have to do is pretty obvious; don’t give up.”
Unfortunately, your post does not contain a second thing or a third thing. It is fine to argue that some form of success in Iraq is essential for the US. It would be nice, however, to articulate a way to get there from here. This is all reminiscent of a Far Side cartoon:
Step 1. Invade Iraq
Step 2. then a miracle occurs
Step 3. Stable Iraqi democratic government
As the Far Side caption said, I think you need a little more explanation in Step 2.
Comment by Steven Donegal — 12/7/2006 @ 6:19 pm
B. Poster
Thoughtful response, as always. Thank you. Did you listen to the President today at the joint press conference with Prime Minister Blair? This speech is exactly the same as he gave a year ago. Iraq will be a beacon of freedom in the Middle East, and we won’t leave before that. He is determined to do nothing but what has already been done. I don’t think impeachment, let alone conviction, will occur.
The only possible solution I see is to divide the country into three autonumous areas: A Shia, a Sunni and a Kurd area. These entities would soon clean up the terrorists and the militias that do not belong there. Sure Iran would be the de facto leader of one area, but better than the entire country being under their thumb.
The Democrats will trade G.W. Bush for President Cheney? You have more faith than I do. Thanks again for your thoughts.
Comment by ed — 12/7/2006 @ 7:06 pm
It seems I’m pretty much on the same page as Rick and B. Poster. I also want the U.S. to achieve some modicum of ‘victory’, however we now define it, in Iraq. I agree that pulling out troops right away would be disastrous for all involved. And Ed is right: today’s press conference with Bush and Blair was like peeking into a time warp crystal ball. This same speech or something similar was given a couple of years ago. And yet here we are.
Although it’s not all his fault, President Bush holds a lot of the blame (at the very least for not sacking Rumsfeld earlier) for not setting things right with the Iraqi war strategy. Although I’ve never been his biggest fan, I’m also not a rabid hater but Bush does give the impression lately that he’s basically playing out the clock on his Presidency.
As for ideas on what to do? I have to tell you, I’m at a loss.
Comment by Johnny Tremaine — 12/7/2006 @ 8:42 pm
And just a few days ago you were swearing up and down that western values like “tolerance” weren’t part of the plan. I guess you were for it before you were against it.
Comment by jpe — 12/8/2006 @ 12:22 am
1, 2, and 3 have nothing at all to do with one another. That’s why you egghead neocons blew it so badly: you assumed that if we gave democracy to a bunch of crazy Islamists, they’d instantly start waving American flags. That was worse than stupid: it was criminally negligent. The next wave of terrorism is on your heads.
Comment by jpe — 12/8/2006 @ 12:24 am
jpe
I’m not a neo con. If you read my posts here you would know that. Please read more of my posts before making such assumptions. You say that goals 1, 2, and 3 have nothing to do with one another. To an extent, you are correct. It is possible to achieve a situation where we have an Iraq that is allied with the US in the GWOT and is a stable country without achieving an Iraq that is a representative democracy, however, a representative democracy would be optimal.
The US did not “give” democarcy to Iraq. Ultimately whether Iraqis can achieve a representative democracy will be up to them. This was always going to be the case. I was very skeptical, from the beginning, that the Iraqis would be capable of forming a representative democracy. Frankly, I never believed they could pull it off.
What the US did do was eliminate a murderous dictator who was an active sponsor of Islamic terrorism. We would never be able to give the Iraqis democracy. This was always going to be up to them, however, we could have provided enough troops to have given a democratic process the chance to work. When we failed to provide enough troops to provide security, the Iraqis turned to their tribal militias. Had we provided the appropiate force structure to establish security, even if Iraqi democracy failed it would have been far easier to achieve a situation where Iraq is stable and allied with the US in the GWOT.
Two key mistakes were made when attempting to transition Iraq from a dictatorship to a democracy. Islamic parties were allowed into the Democratic process. These groups have no place in a democratic process. We failed to provide enough troops to provide security. For democracy to work, it will need a secure environment.
We never had enough forces to provide security and we are not going to get them. It is best to focus on what we can do. As such, any chance of helping Iraqis achieve a representative democracy is over, however, an Iraq that is allied with the US in the GWOT and is stable can be achieved.
I think the primary reason we never had enough troops for Iraq is because the US government and the governments of our allies were never quite sure what we wanted to accomplish. I think the military wanted to remove the Baathist regime and withdraw quickly. Other people wanted to bring “democracy.” As a result of not being sure what we wanted to accomplish, the “democracy” project never had the resources allocated to it to give a reasonable chance of working.
I hope and pray that the Iraqis can forge a representative democarcy, however, as it stands now, they will have to do it wihtout the assistance of the US.
Comment by B.Poster — 12/8/2006 @ 2:39 am
ed
I did not hear the press conference. I’ve seen clips from it and read excerpts from it. I’ve also listened to some analysis on it. I agree that this pretty much seems to be the same old stuff Bush has been saying. It really does seem he and Tony Blair really do want to just “stay the course.” I think there are two possibilites for this. 1.) They really think that some how the policy will work. 2.) Their speech writers really believe the stuff about Iraqi democracy and Bush and Blair are simply going through the motions. If 2 is correct, Bush picked the wrong profession. He would have been a much better actor than a President and a lousy President he has been!!
In any event, President Bush no longer has the political capital to continue what he has been doing. If he wishes to continue with the same course, the Democrats will simply cut the funding. There will be major changes in our Iraq policy. All American troops will be out of Shia and Sunni areas of Iraq by July 31, 2007. The only intervention in the Iraqi Civil war, if any, will be to prevent Al Qaeda from establihing bases and to prevent Iran from gaining complete control of the country.
I think what you suggest regarding dividing Iraq into three autonomous regions or something similar to this is ultimately what will happen. The Sunni areas have no oil. They will either need to build an economy or the US and it allies will need to subsidize them. We and our allies will probably be subsidizing them for a while. In return, they will help us to contain Iran. As they along with other Sunni states in the region have much to fear from Iran, we can probably reach a mutual accomodation with them. The Cold War was won, in part, based on containment. The GWOT can be won the same way. This can work, however, as with any policy, the implementation will be the key. Even the best policy in the world will end in failure if it is not implemented properly.
I may have gone out on a limb regarding my prediction of impeachment but I amde the prediction. I will stand by it. If I turn out to be wrong, I will come here and you can tell me how wrong I was:)
Comment by B.Poster — 12/8/2006 @ 3:11 am
JPE”
Maybe you wouldn’t look so much like an idiot if you linked to a piece of mine where I ever said such a thing.
Since no such piece exists where I say that “tolerance” had anything to do with Iraqi democracy, that makes you a liar.
For the record, I have always said that anyone who accuses the United States of wanting to transplant our form of government on the Iraqis is an ignoramous. That’s not what we’ve done or tried to do. And events have born that out.
The criticism is incredibly shallow - to be expected from such a flip, ignorant, intellect such as yours.
Comment by Rick Moran — 12/8/2006 @ 5:44 am
On second thought, JPE - I’m going to ban you.
This site is for thoughtful people with something to say. You are not thoughtful. Nor do you have anything worthwhile to add to any discussion you’ve ever entered.
Not one single commenter, national leader, politician. pundit, writer, talking head, - in other words, not one single human being ever said that the Iraqis would “start waving American flags” if we gave them democracy. The single quote about the Iraqis tossing flowers was so obviously an exaggeration and a throw away line that only idiot lefties jumped on it as “proof” that the Administration was myopic about Iraq. Your comment, as usual, is a gross exaggeration, not worthy of this discussion, and one more reason why you should take your idiotic thoughts to some other website - perhaps you can register at Romper Room.
I’ll give you a chance to read this and then ban your ass later today.
Comment by Rick Moran — 12/8/2006 @ 5:47 am
Deep, deep, deep inside the Iraq Survey Group
We can’t disclose sources and methods, so don’t bother asking how we did it. This transcript, recorded just hours before the release of the report, captures all the wisdom of these veteran ISG rainmakers…
Trackback by Doug Ross @ Journal — 12/8/2006 @ 6:00 am
There is no will in this country to fight this war. The majority of the left want to pull out of Iraq NOW and have a nice little sit down with Iran and Syria and ask them to HELP with the insurgents (that they are sending over to help I might add and think that they can be trusted.) This simply blows my mind — why would they think Iran or Syria could be trusted by looking at past history.
I hate to say this but after the ISG and its meaninless report combined with the intense hate for Bush I feel we’ll be leaving way before the 2008 date I have heard mentioned.
They’re coming over her folks and half the country seems oblivios to this fact. There will have to be another major incident for some on the left to grasp this reality and some may not even grasp it again, they’ll say we brought it on ourselves like 2001.
I’m living my life to the fullest now cuz I really feel I don’t have too much more time in which to do it.
Thanks dems for making my Holiday season so merry and bright.
Comment by Drewsmom — 12/8/2006 @ 7:12 am
I wonder if any of you who supported this war have learned anything from it. One of the posters above was talking about ‘a new government for Iran’.
The lesson from Iraq is that it’s relatively simple to knock over a ME government; what comes after is the hard part. These people don’t take to democracy, don’t like us and above all don’t like Israel.
If I never hear the phrase ‘regime change’ again this debacle will have been worth it.
Comment by Gregdn — 12/8/2006 @ 7:49 am
Did you read ISG? It says perfectly clear why Iran would want to engage in talks. If US pulls out of Iraq and it explodes, US doesn’t risk anything besides losing its prestige and those fictional “terrorists that will follow us here”. Iran, on the other hand, will risk its own destabilization. Iran hated Al-Qaeda enough to help USA with fighting Taliban (in fact, they sponsored Northern Alliance that fought Taliban for a long time before US started to care about Afghanistan).
And this outrageous “We don’t negotiate with our enemies”! No, you do. You don’t negotiate with your friends, unless you’re crazy, but you do negotiate with your enemies.
The fact that Iraq will, sooner or later, fall under influence of Iran is unredeemable, it makes no secret of the fact that it cares for Iran more than for US even now. You just have to face the reality.
Comment by Nikolay — 12/8/2006 @ 7:52 pm
“I wonder if any of you who supported this war have learned anything from it.” That’s a good question. I can’t speak for everyone. I can only speak for myself. A big lesson to take from this is no matter how sound your policies might be, if they are poorly executed they will fail. One of the stated goals was to establish a functioning democracy that we could work with. This stated policy objective never got the resources allocated to it to give a reasonable chance to succeed.
All parts of the Governemnt need to be on the same page. I think we did not get the commitment we needed to give Iraqi democaracy a reasonable chance to be sucessful is becuase the Military, the White House, the State Department, the CIA, and other relevant Government agencies never really agreed on exactly what it was they wanted to accomplish.
When we invaded Iraq we did not bring enough troops and the ones we brought were not allowed to fight agressively enough. The msm generally thinks we have used to much force. This is an incorrect analysis, the problem was we did not use enough force and we still have not to this day. To summarize, politcal correctness and war fighting do not mix well. To fight a war effectively, political correctness will need to be jettisoned.
We need to get to work on energy independence, YESTERDAY!! It is criminally negligent that we are still sitting on vast untapped oil and natrual gas reserves five years after the attacks of 911.
Before you can “nation build” you must first defeat the enemy. Nation building in Germany and Japan were successful after WWII because we defeated the enemy first. We tried to engage in reconstruction before the enemy was fully defeated.
We need better human intellegence. Much of the intellegence we had about Iraq’s WMD turned out to be inaccurate.
This is an overview of lessons that should have been learned. There are many more. I hope and pray that we have not become to partisan to learn from the mistakes we have made. The survival of America and Western civilization may well depend on us learning these lessons.
“The lesson from Iraq is that it’s relatively easy to knock over a ME government; what comes after is the hard part.” I never assumed it would be easy to remove the Iraqi Baathists. If we were to go war with say Iran or Syria, I think it would be false to assume that removing their governments would necessarily be easy. I think this over estimates American power and is quite dangerous. As I reall, the Iraqi Baathists fell much faster than was generally expected.
The war plan was drawn up to topple the regime. It was a brilliant war plan, for this purpose, and it was executed flawlessly. It seems the military wanted to get rid of Saddam’s government and withdraw quickly. As stated previously, I think we never got enough troops to handle an “aftermath” is becuase policy makers were never quite sure what they wanted to accomplish.
“These people don’t take to democracy, don’t like us and above all don’t like Israel.” We will likey never know if Democracy in Iraq could have worked. We never got enough troops to provide security. The fist step to a successful democracy is to establish security and order. We should have had at least 500,000 troops and probably more on hand for the invasion. If we had enough troops, we would have had a greater ability to handle the after math of a failed democracy attempt. You are correct to point out that they don’t like us or Israel. This is because they have been fed a steady diet of false propaganda about us and the Israelis. If we could successfully alter these governments, we could put a stop to the false propaganda.
If I never hear the words “regime change” again this deacle will have been worth it. It should be pointed out that while Iraq is looking rough right now, we have not failed yet. There were some very dark times during WWII and during many other wars yet we prevailed. If Iraq ends up being a “debacle” America’s position as one of the world’s most influential nations will be done and the very survival of the country will be in a precarious position.
With that said, the only way you are going to be hearing the words “regime change” again will be if Iran or its terrorist proxies attack the American homeland or American interests outside of the Middle East. If we are going to work to contain Iran or over throw its evil regime, it will be done with proxies. The only way the American military will particpate in an attack on Iran will be if Iran or its terrorist proxies attack the Aemrican home land or American interests outside of the Middle East.
Iran must be contained or its government overthrown. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, it will pose an existential threat to Israel and very soon after that it will pose an existential threat to America, as well. For better or worse, due to the American domestic politcal climate and the domestic politcal climates of our allies the only way we can confront Iran will be via proxies.
Comment by B.Poster — 12/8/2006 @ 8:13 pm
The thing is, the real chances for Iran turning into a sane country are much bigger than for Iraq. The only opposition to Saddam was religious, while in Iran there is a large secular opposition (I mean, they pay lip-service to Islam, but they are in fact secular intelligentsia). It was students that were the force behind Islamic Revolution, and it’s now students that are against mullahs. Given the demographic trends, they have real chances to succeed.
And it’s not a “regime” there, but almost functional democracy. That slap on the face of Iran’s reformists when they did all they could to help US defeat Taliban in Afghanistan and were labeled “axis of evil” in return was a mighty, but not deadly blow. It’s a “leftist” psychology that success in Iran depends on, so if US gets a leader that Iran’s dissidents can relate to, this will be really good for the prospects of that country.
Comment by Nikolay — 12/8/2006 @ 8:40 pm
Nikoloy
Thanks for the reply to my post. I have read about the oppostion to the Iranian gvoernment you mention. If the right assistance were to be applied to them, they could probably overthrow that government and the world would be bettr off. In any event, the only way we can confront that government right now will be through the use of proxies.
“Its ‘leftist’ psychology that success in Iran depends on, so if US gets a leader that Iran’s dissidents can relate to, this will be good prospects for that country.” This would also be good prospects for us and for the world. I’m not sure what you mean by leftist. When I think of leftist, I think of folks like Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, the people who blab about national secrets to the NY Times, the reporters who gleefully report them, Seymor Hersch, the editors of counterpuch.org, adn so forth. These “leftists” would be more likely to actually help the current Iranian government and actively oppose any Iranian disidents. I’m assuming by leftists you mean a leader who takes a more diplomatic approach and a less hawkish approach. You may be on to something there.
In any event US policy will be changing dramatically in the next few months. President Bush still talks the Hawkish game but he does not have the politcal capital to actually do anything now. I actually suspect he is going to be impeached, as he should be. He’s not likely to finish out his term. Even if he does somehow manage to complete his term, if he gets out of line the Democrats will simply cut funding to any miliary operations they disapprove of. In other words, the President is little more than a figure head at this point.
Part of the changes to US policy will be that US troops wil be out of Shia and Sunni areas by the end of July 2007 and, in terms of rhetoric, we will play far nicer to Iran and Syria. At least the people who will be controling the government will be taling nicer. The approach we will be using will be closer to the “leftist” approach that I think you are referring to than the one had been used by President Bush.
I had read about Iranian oppostion to the Taliban. I understand they did not really care for one another, however, from the best I can tell both the Taliban and the Iranian government like the US less than they like one another. In other words, they would gladly come together for the purpose pf opposing the US. If Itan were really doing all it could to help us take down the Taliban, they could have overthrwon that government for us and even bagged Osama for us. If Iran had made it a top priority back in say 1/01 to remove that government, they could have removed it long before the 911 attacks. Iran has one of the best intellegence agencies on earth. There human intellegence is far superior to our CIA. They would have been able to identify the Taliban’s weak points, as well as identify the people within the Afghan government who would help them. As such, I think that Iranian opposition to the Taliban existed but opposing the Taliban was not a top priority to them.
For a coup to work in Iran, time grows short. The current Iranian regime will be acquiring nuclear weapons very soon. While it would be difficult for us, if handled properly we could probably manage this. Israel cannot manage this. Due to its small size and its close proximity to Iran combined with Iran’s hatred of them, a nuclear armed Iran is a survival threat to Israel. They will have to act preemptively to stop this. Very soon Israel will have no choice but to take military action. God willing the situation will not reach this point. I pray we can get rid of the Iranian government or contain it before it reaches the point that Israel has no choice but to act militarily.
Comment by B.Poster — 12/8/2006 @ 9:50 pm
By “leftist” I actually mean “leftist” as in 1968 protests. Blind opposition to authority etc. I don’t believe that Bush government could inspire Iranian students to take it to the streets as they did in 1999.
Well, that’s hypothetical. The fact remains, Iran was supporting Northern Alliance long before US did so. (And there are enough grounds to suspect that US was actually OK with Taliban before 9/11).
And this thing about “not liking US” — of course, Iran doesn’t like US messing in the region. Since Iraq was widely seen as “the first step to Iran”, it was just a natural self-defense for them to make it is bad in Iraq as possible. This doesn’t mean Iran would support someone as crazy as Osama. You know, there is rational antagonism and irrational hatred, these are different things.
Of course, there is not much rational about Ahmadinejad, but he is in fact a product not of “regime”, but democracy. He was elected, and I suspect that his main platform was about economic populism, not insanity. He is about as popular as Bush in his country now, and parliament works hard to undermine his presidency (they already stole 1.5 years from him).
Well, first thing, you remember Saddam behaving as if he had WMD when in fact he hadn’t (unless you buy “they moved it to Syria” line). So, there’s no proof that they are really trying to acquire nuclear weapons, maybe pretending is just a way for confrontational party inside Iran to stay in power. On the other hand, for Israel to act military doesn’t mean throwing their own nuke at Iran. They had successfully stopped Iraq from getting the nuke in 1981, so you can expect them to do the same thing again, although one must agree that their current leadership is much weaker than that of 25 years ago.
Comment by Nikolay — 12/9/2006 @ 8:10 am
1. We tried to create a Western-style democracy in a country where there is absolutely NO APPRECIATION for Western-style democracy. It is like trying to create tribal government in the United States.
2. We wanted to create a series of bases in Iraq to replace our bases in Germany. This is a re-orientation of our international military presence. The old orientation was a bulwark for the West against the Russian menace. The new orientation is to have a strong military presence in Southern Asia against a variety of threats. Unfortunately, the people of Iraq perceive these geo-political military bases as a permanent military occuptation. We have no support, anywhere in Iraq, for this.
3. Bush Sr. wantd a “kinder, gentler nation.” This Bush wanted a kinder, gentler war. This has been a war fought by the rules of diplomacy. What a joke. We will be widely perceived as weak, ineffective hand-fluttering dilettantes when it comes to the use of force. Most of the world has a less-refined view on force, and their conclusion will be that we are utter cowards. (That’s a wrong conclusion, but it is the one that they will draw.) To allow our avowed enemy Moqtada al Sadr free reign against us is a complete outrage.
4. The use of insurgency to resist a powerful traditional military force is now in full bloom. Strategy and tactics have been refined for decades by insurgent and terrorist movements. Nations with powerful militaries have NOT ONE PROVEN STRATEGY for fighting and defeating insurgencies and terrorists. Not one. We’ll never win a war against them until we find at least one. They will always simply outlast our vague, meandering, muddled efforts.
5. Much of the above is perhaps unfair, because: the war in Iraq is perceived as a war of CHOICE. There is no sense that our nation is at risk. There is no sense that we are down to survival. When we finally do REALLY go to war against Islamofascists, when we do see them as a threat to our very survival, we will not be nearly so nice, nearly so genteel.
But that’s for the future. For the present, we have utterly lost.
Comment by DevX — 12/9/2006 @ 10:31 am
Nikolay
Thanks for the additional analysis. I was not yet born in 1968, however, I have seen pictures of the protests on tv. I think I now know what you mean by “leftists.” Thank you for the clarification.
I agree with you that Bush is probably not going to inspire Iranians to take to the streets. Iran does have some legitimate grieveances and some imaginary ones. We also have some legitmate grieveances. If Iran had more rational leadership, it would probably be possible to negotiate a settlement that is acceptable to all parties. With the Democrats coming to power the US will be using a gentler approach when dealing with middle eastern tyrants. In other words, the American side will have someone willing to reach a negotiated settlement. We just need someone on the Iranian side with real power who has the same goals of a peaceful settlement.
Comment by B.Poster — 12/9/2006 @ 11:26 am
Nikolay
I hit the post button by accident. I think the US was at least tolerant of the Taliban prior to 911, possibly even friendly to them. Obviously the attacks of 911 changed that.
I see your point about Iraq being the first step to Iran. Putting oneself in the shoes of Amadinejad, the Iranian government, and the Syrian government they know that, if the US and its allies could have achieved a democratic Iraq that is allied with the US this would have been an existential threat to their regimes. This is coupled with the fact that Bush referred to them in his “axis of evil” speech. From the perspective of the Iranian and Syrian governments, it would have been only natural that they would want to try and to all they could to destabilize the young democracy in Iraq. The fact that the Bush administration did not seem to anticipate this fact when they planned the invasion and its aftermath is very likely criminal negligence.
Now personally I think the current regimes in Iran and Syria are evil and any thing possible should be done to remove them. The Democrats will likely use a less confrontational approach, in their rhetoric, than has been employed to date. If the less confrontational approach can inspire the Iranian people to rise up against that government, this would be great. The 1968 “leftist” approach you mention actually has merit. The key, as with any policy, will be the execution.
From what I can tell, you are likely spot on about the unpopularity of Amadinejad, however, the Iranian government closely guards what information comes out of that country. Its difficult to be sure precisely what is going on there. It does seem, from my reading about Iranian dissidents, if pressure were applied properly that government could be replaced and it could be done without any direct US intervention. With the toppling of the Iranian government this would solve much of our problems in Iraq. Also, there are probably groups in Syria we could support to against the Assad government. Maybe the 1968 “leftist” approach could work there to. Regime change in Iran and Syria will go along way toward solving our problems in Iraq.
Once the people rise up, the US will need to support them. Sadly the US has had a bad habit of betraying its allies. First there was the Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba, then Vietnam, recently forcing Israel into a ceasefire against Lebanon, not backing up the Kurds or the Shia after Desert Storm, and the list goes on.
Even if the people don’t rise up, the regime in Iran MUST be stopped. If the people don’t over throw them, then there will be no choice but to take military action. Iran right now is more dangerous right now than Nazi Germany or imperial Japan ever were or ever could have been. America’s standing as amjor world power and probably its very survival depends on removing the Iranian regime from power or at the very least containing it. As I ahve pointed out previously, the strategy for winning the cold war including containment. Perhaps a similar strategy can work against Iran.
I’ve seen little evidence of parliment working hard to undermine Amadinejad. If so, that is encouraging. It means there may be someone high up in the Iranian government we can work with.
With regards to the Iranian nuke program, if the Iranians are faking it, this means they do not understand their enemy. If they abandoned the nuke program, they would get all sorts of goodies from the US and the West. This would be HUGE for their economy and the confrontational party could get all of the credit. I don’t think they are faking. The leadership has stated that they desire world dominace for Islam. As such, they would want nuclear weapons.
Iran is different from Iraq. In 1981, Iraq’s facilities were in one place. Iran has them all throughout the country and buried in hardened places. Elininating Iran’s nuclear program will be much more difficult.
Israel’s leadership is weaker than it was 25 years ago. Of that, I think there is no question and they face a much greater threat than they did 25 years ago. To say this is not a good situation, understates things dramatically. All os this means is that Israel will wait until the last possible moment to act. This is when it will be most difficult. Israel probably does not have to act now but time grows incredibly short. I hope and pray this issue can be solved before Israel has to take military action.
I’m skeptical of the claims that Saddam’s WMD were moved to Syria, however, convoys of something were transferred to Syria and the Iraq Survey Group was never able to fully eliminate the possibilty. The bottom line is while, at this time, I do not think Saddam shipped his WMD stockpiles to Syria but the ISG was never able to complete the investigation into that possibility. For now, I’m assuming Iraq faked his WMD. if so, this means he did not understand his enemy. Had Iraq come clean on their WMD, Saddam would still be in power and there would be no sanctions.
Comment by B.Poster — 12/9/2006 @ 12:18 pm
DevX
Ultimately whether or not the US will have permanent military bases in Iraq or not will be up to the Iraqi government. If we would commit enough troops to actually provide security for the average Iraqi, we would probably get more support for such a policy assuming that is what we want. In any event, assuming that is what we want the best place for them would probably be in Kurdish areas. The Kurds are generally more friendly to the Americans than the Sunni or Shia and they will likely need some type of American prescense as a defense against the Sunni, the Shia, and against Turkey.
Your analysis that a war cannot be fought with a kinder and gentler method is spot on. Wars are to be fought with extreme force in the manner that WWII was fought.
Americans do not understand the the Islamofascist enemy along with its allies in Russia and China pose an existential threat to the US. They don’t understand this because their elected leaders have not told them the unvarnished truth. There is little courage among American leaders to deal with hard issues. This will need to change. I hope and pray it changes before a WMD attacks occurrs on American soil.
As it stands right now, we can win this, if we get the proper commitment from the American government and the American people, however, if we wait to long to deal decisively with this threat it may be to late. Getting the support of the American people can be achieved, if only we had politicians who had the courage to face problems head on and be truthful to the electorate. If only…..
Comment by B.Poster — 12/9/2006 @ 12:29 pm
B.Poster:
There are really two dangers in regards to Iran. One is “axis of evil”, “they are going to build world caliphate” derangement, other is making nice with the _bad_ side of Iran so that dissidents will feel desperate. Here’s a quote from Israel’s specialist on Iran about the first danger:
Those crying against talks with Iran on the right side are, I’m afraid, mostly suffering from “Muslim evil” derangement syndrome. Instead of seeing situation in Iran as something to work with, they believe in country all filled with “evil Muslims”, ready to overtake the world.
On the other hand, sending a message that you don’t care about Iranian people as long as talking with tyrants can help you save your ass in Iraq is very, very wrong, and it would be bad if Democrats did something of this kind.
Well, that could mean many things, not necessary good, but there’s a lot of internal tension in Iran at the moment, read this article as example. There were also student demonstrations in Tehran recently.
If they abandoned the nuke program, they would get all sorts of goodies from the US and the West. This would be HUGE for their economy and the confrontational party could get all of the credit. But they don’t need these goodies! They have enough of goodies for themselves, and the goodies you talk about — economical progress, trade, general thawing etc. would be good for people but bad for those in power. Of course, the more Iranians have taste for freedom, the more they would want it.
Comment by Nikolay — 12/10/2006 @ 10:07 am
Nikolay
Thank you for your thoughts and for the links you provide. The Israeli specialist nails when he points out that it would be difficult, if not impossible to trust the Americans right now. He or she can only conclude that their is no support for them among America and the West. My considered opinion on why we have an incosistency between Bush’s speeches and the words of colin Powell is because the American government has never been quite sure what it wants to accomplish. On the one hand we have many of Bush’s advisors who would go to the mat for Iranian dissidents and on the other hand we have people like Colin Powell who have a different approach to foreign policy than the President’s speech writers and many of his advisors. This leads to wildly inconsistent policies. In summary, Aemrican foreign policy is a mangled mess. This has to change.
The first step is to properly define the enemy. Once this is done, policy makers must decide on strategies to defeat the enemy that are workable and that they can all agree on.
As I recall, the way Raegan brought down the Soviet Union was by supporting dissidents within those countries. From the pressure applied, this caused the Soviet Union and its satellites to collapse. The Israeli specialist nails it when he points out that this type of effort is needed today. Frankly, it is the only method that we can actually implement today. The Western world and the US lack the stomach to undertake the major effort that a war with Iran would entail.
We should immediately get to work on an approach similar to the one employed by Ronald Raegan to get rid of the Iranian government and get rid of that regime we must.
The Islamic ability and willingness to build a world wide caliphate is no derangment. It is very real. It is not Muslims who are evil. The evil ones are those who use Islam as a basis for their goal of world domination. These are the people who insist on a literal interpretation of their religous religous text. The threat is very real and it must be confronted. I estimate the US and its allies have a five year window to deal with Iran, Syria, and the Communist allies of Russia, China, and Venezuela. Our enemies are growing stronger literally by the week. There lacks a fundamental desire in the West to undertake a major military build up. In five years, we may well find ourselves facing lop sided military disadvantages with our enemies. We may have less time than that. Five years is likely the maximum amount of time we have. If our enemies are not contained or eliminated within five years, we will probably have no choice but all out war and by that time it may be to late.
I agree with you that talking to Iran and Syria simply so they can rescue us in Iraq would be wrong. I also hope the Democrats don’t choose that option. The way to rescue ourselves from the situation in Iraq is to properly identify the enemy, commit the corect number of troops to destroy them, and pursue the enemy with ruthless efficiency.
If we are not going to commit more troops, we should find militias and groups within Iraq who will help us oppose Iran and Al Qaeda in Iraq. With this method we should be able to contain Al Qaeda and Iran and, in time, roll back their influence in Iraq.
I’m not sure what policie the Democrats will adopt. I think I can be sure that their approach will be less confrontational. In public, at least, they will make nice. In other words, unless there is an attack on the American home land or on American interests outside of the Middle East by Iran or its proxies, there are unlikely to be any “axis of evil” speeches by the Democrats and any confrontation with Iran will be done by proxies.
I hope and pray that the Democrats do understand that we need to confront Iran. For now I’m assuming they will confront Iran. I also think it is higly likely they will use a less confrontational approach when dealing with Iran than the Bush Administration has. Of course, if Iran or its proxies attack the American home land, all bets could be off. Such an event would change everything.
America is my country and the Democrats are my leaders. I will work to impress upon them the need to get rid of this regime, as I tried to impress upon the former Republcan leadership of the need to eliminate the Iranian regime. If a less confrontational approach will work, lets do it. The survival of America and the survival of Western civilization may well depend upon containing or removing the Iranian regime. Time grows short.
Comment by B.Poster — 12/10/2006 @ 6:43 pm
As I recall, the way Raegan brought down the Soviet Union was by supporting dissidents within those countries. From the pressure applied, this caused the Soviet Union and its satellites to collapse.Well, there were many factors that brought Soviet Union down, but I’m afraid the main one is the one that you can’t use against Iran. Reagan engaged USSR in nuclear arms race which drained economy and forced party leaders to change direction. The only similar way to take down Iran would be to force Saudi Arabia to triple their oil output and to significantly lower prices. This would bring Iranian economy, which is already in very bad shape, to a halt.
The Islamic ability and willingness to build a world wide caliphate is no derangment. It is very real. It is not Muslims who are evil. The evil ones are those who use Islam as a basis for their goal of world domination.Well, this is not some PC stupidity about Islam being religion of peace I’m talking about. I agree that Ahmadinejad, if left to his own devices, could do something crazy like nuke the world out of existence. And this is the thing to be dealt with.
But there’s just no way for him to “conquer the planet”. You know, “Islamofascists” are frequently compared to Nazis. But there’s a huge difference. Hitler, among other things, restored German economy that was in shatters after WWI. German fascism was a symbioses of politics with very effective corporate economics. Islamism is not an ideology that could conquer the world, because it’s not fit to function in reality. It thrives on oil trade, drug trade etc., but in the “real word” it’s dysfunctional. Regular people in Iran are fed up with Islamism, they don’t have enough resolve to fight it, but they certainly won’t have resolve to spread it across the world. Of course, there’s a big number of psychotic “jihad warriors” in the world, but don’t forget, all the Al-Qaeda is about 10.000 people max, same with Hezbollah. They can cause a lot of trouble, but they are zero compared to Nazi armies if you talk about regular combat that is required to “conquer the world”. The apocalyptic trash about “world caliphate” is just that, trash. They could as well talk about meeting the aliens.
Another comparison. Could you imagine something like this happening to Hitler:
All the student resistance to fascism in Germany was, basically, limited to “White Rose”, and they are now “saints” of Germany, with schools and streets named after them all over the country.
This is not say that Ahmadinejad is “soft”. He’s just as likely to murder dissent as Hitler was. But there’s much more tension in the country now.
Well, you know, I live in Russia. I can honestly say, practically all the troubles that Russia causes have pragmatical grounds. It’s good for us to have Middle East in a mess, since our economy is depended on oil exports. We sell hi-tech weapons to bad guys because bad guys pay money and because weapons is basically the only hi-tech exports we have. Our crazies in command like to do some minor Cold War replays just to repay for humiliation of the Cold War we lost. But the country as a whole is totally demoralized, there’s no functioning army and nobody would care for a serious military conflict. Sure, we have nukes, but that’s all we have.
Chavez is just a stupid nut who will eventually destroy his country’s economy.
China is a different story — I believe they expect the second Great Depression in your country that will officially make them the lone superpower of the world. This is probably inevitable, but it’s a fair play. There are hard times ahead for US, but they won’t have anything to do with “existential threat of Islamofascism”, unless, of course, Ahmadinejad nukes the world to hell.
Comment by Nikolay — 12/11/2006 @ 11:36 am
Well, there were many factors that brought Soviet Union down, but I’m afraid the main one is the one that you can’t use against Iran. Reagan engaged USSR in nuclear arms race which drained economy and forced party leaders to change direction. The only similar way to take down Iran would be to force Saudi Arabia to triple their oil output and to significantly lower prices. This would bring Iranian economy, which is already in very bad shape, to a halt.
Well, this is not some PC stupidity about Islam being religion of peace I’m talking about. I agree that Ahmadinejad, if left to his own devices, could do something crazy like nuke the world out of existence. And this is the thing to be dealt with.
But there’s just no way for him to “conquer the planet”. You know, “Islamofascists” are frequently compared to Nazis. But there’s a huge difference. Hitler, among other things, restored German economy that was in shatters after WWI. German fascism was a symbioses of politics with very effective corporate economics. Islamism is not an ideology that could conquer the world, because it’s not fit to function in reality. It thrives on oil trade, drug trade etc., but in the “real word” it’s dysfunctional. Regular people in Iran are fed up with Islamism, they don’t have enough resolve to fight it, but they certainly won’t have resolve to spread it across the world. Of course, there’s a big number of psychotic “jihad warriors” in the world, but don’t forget, all the Al-Qaeda is about 10.000 people max, same with Hezbollah. They can cause a lot of trouble, but they are zero compared to Nazi armies if you talk about regular combat that is required to “conquer the world”. The apocalyptic trash about “world caliphate” is just that, trash. They could as well talk about meeting the aliens.
Another comparison. Could you imagine something like this happening to Hitler:
All the student resistance to fascism in Germany was, basically, limited to “White Rose”, and they are now “saints” of Germany, with schools and streets named after them all over the country.
This is not say that Ahmadinejad is “soft”. He’s just as likely to murder dissent as Hitler was. But there’s much more tension in the country now.
Well, you know, I live in Russia. I can honestly say, practically all the troubles that Russia causes have pragmatical grounds. It’s good for us to have Middle East in a mess, since our economy is depended on oil exports. We sell hi-tech weapons to bad guys because bad guys pay money and because weapons is basically the only hi-tech exports we have. Our crazies in command like to do some minor Cold War replays just to repay for humiliation of the Cold War we lost. But the country as a whole is totally demoralized, there’s no functioning army and nobody would care for a serious military conflict. Sure, we have nukes, but that’s all we have.
Chavez is just a stupid nut who will eventually destroy his country’s economy.
China is a different story — I believe they expect the second Great Depression in your country that will officially make them the lone superpower of the world. This is probably inevitable, but it’s a fair play. There are hard times ahead for US, but they won’t have anything to do with “existential threat of Islamofascism”, unless, of course, Ahmadinejad nukes the world to hell.
Comment by Nikolay — 12/11/2006 @ 11:38 am
You said: At any rate, it’s a damn sight better than “surrendering to the inevitableâ€
I respectfully submit: One doesn’t surrender to thhe inevitable. One accepts the inevitable. That’s why it’s called, “inevitible.” Any further extension of this war only strengthens our enemies and further weakens us.
Comment by chikarex — 3/11/2007 @ 11:09 pm