IRAQ - WHAT NEXT?
Now Newt Gingrich, speaking here in New Hampshire, is calling the Iraq war a failure.
The Wall St. Journal rails against the defeatism that seems rampant now in Washington, and urges the President to take whatever actions are necessary to win in Iraq.
A key White House aid writes a memo, leaked to the New York Times, that expresses doubts about the ability of Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki to deal with the deteriorating situation in that country.
If it is a failure, then speaking to Iran and Syria, who want us to fail, probably will not get us anywhere, according to Max Boot.
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann think the Iraq Study Group final report will sell out our Israeli friends. An aide to the Baker panel thinks that the group will call for a regional conference, including Israel, that will try to wring concessions out of the Israelis.
As the Shiites and Sunnis arm themselves for the coming civil war in Iraq (if NBC thinks they are seeing a civil war now, what will they call it when the fighting REALLY gets started), Arnaud de Borchgrave thinks the way out of Iraq may be through Iran. The price will be tough to take.
Here is the must-read piece of the morning. A Saudi named Nawaf Obaid, who the Washington Post takes pains to indicate is not speaking officially for the Saudi government, says that if America withdraws from Iraq then the Saudi government must intervene in Iraq to protect the Sunnis from the Iranian-backed Shiites. If anyone thinks that this guy is just spouting off his opinion and it does not reflect the views of the Saudi government, then I have a bridge to sell them.
All of this paints a pretty bleak picture. The American people no longer support the war in Iraq, as expressed in numerous polls and, most importantly, in the last election. They want to win, or get out. The Bush Administration has been unwilling to do those things that would be necessary to win (substantially increase the size of the military, make war against those who are supporting the insurgents and militias in Iraq, etc.). Since the President has consistently refused to widen the war (just like Truman in Korea and Johnson in Vietnam) then, just as in those past conflicts, our only options are stalemate or retreat. We were able to choose stalemate in Korea only because we had invested enormous resources and firepower that enabled us to hold off the Chinese from kicking us off the Korean peninsula. We had a much larger military then, and a draft. We chose retreat in Vietnam. It appears certain that we will choose retreat in Iraq. While President Bush may not choose it, he will only be President for two more years. His successor will almost certainly withdraw our troops (unless America elects John McCain).
This will be an even worse defeat than Vietnam, as the Middle East is of far more strategic and economic value than Southeast Asia. Additionally, at least some of our enemies in Iraq will wish to take the fight to us here at home, even if we retreat from Iraq. That was, of course, not the case in Vietnam. All of this does nothing to change my long-held view that all of this is merely prologue to what will be the next big war.
posted by Dan Pierce @ 9:22 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
You make many good points in your article. I would like to supplement them with some information:
I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak.
If you are interested in a view of the inside of the Pentagon procurement process from Vietnam to Iraq please check the posting at my blog entitled, “Odyssey of Armements”
The Pentagon is a giant,incredibly complex establishment,budgeted in excess of $500B per year. The Rumsfelds, the Adminisitrations and the Congressmen come and go but the real machinery of policy and procurement keeps grinding away, presenting the politicos who arrive with detail and alternatives slanted to perpetuate itself.
How can any newcomer, be he a President, a Congressman or even the Sec. Def. to be - Mr. Gates- understand such complexity, particulary if heretofore he has not had the clearance to get the full details?
Answer- he can’t. Therefor he accepts the alternatives provided by the career establishment that never goes away and he hopes he makes the right choices. Or he is influenced by a lobbyist or two representing companies in his district or special interest groups.
From a practical standpoint, policy and war decisions are made far below the levels of the talking heads who take the heat or the credit for the results.
This situation is unfortunate but it is ablsolute fact. Take it from one who has been to war and worked in the establishment.
This giant policy making and war machine will eventually come apart and have to be put back together to operate smaller, leaner and on less fuel. But that won’t happen unitil it hits a brick wall at high speed.
We will then have to run a Volkswagon instead of a Caddy and get along somehow. We better start practicing now and get off our high horse. Our golden aura in the world is beginning to dull from arrogance.
I did a google search for “Odyssey of Armements”
Strange, the term “Odyssey of Armements” appears all over the place in the descriptions but nothing in the direct links.
....as if a bot planted this post every where on the blog "o" sphere...
I think the link to his blog titled “Odyssey of Armements” is: Click
here
He tells quite a story.
Post a Comment
<< Home