WHY OUR DEFEAT IN IRAQ IS INEVITABLE

A recent Gallup poll shows that 63 percent of the American people want a timetable set for the withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq by the end of 2008. In that same poll, 56 percent said that the Iraq War was a mistake. These results are mirrored by numerous other polls taken since at least the beginning of 2006, if not earlier, and were ratified by the election results last November. Clearly, the American people have turned against the Iraq War and this opposition is what is now driving the political debate in Washington.

We have seen this all before. In Korea and Vietnam, two large-scale, limited wars that were fought at great cost without the benefit of a Congressional declaration of war and that, over time, seemed unwinnable in any traditional sense, the American people eventually came to oppose the war, which resulted in the political pressure necessary to bring each to an end. The wars in Korea, Vietnam and, now, Iraq all validate an important fact about the American people's ability to wage limited wars. Americans have no stomach for long, bloody and, seemingly inconclusive wars. In the Summer of 1974, Larry Elowitz and John W. Spanier wrote an article for Orbis magazine called "Korea and Vietnam: Limited War and the American Political System". Their words written in that Summer of Watergate echo eerily down to the war being fought in our own time:

"...if a limited war continues beyond a point in time where the probability of victory is invalidated by battlefield events and for perceived Administration failure to reach a settlement, public opinion, as evidenced by the polls, will express a decline in support for the President, continued war costs, and war policy in general. There will also be a concomitant rise in the intensity of Congressional dissent. These two lines, a declining curve of public support and a rising level of Congressional opposition 'lock-in' the President, restricting his ability to maneuver and conduct the war successfully".

The current debate over the so-called "surge" is just the latest example of what Elowitz and Spanier were writing about more than thirty years ago. President Bush is attempting to achieve battlefield conditions that can lead to a political settlement in Iraq, but he is being denied the flexibility and maneuvering space necessary to achieve that goal. Just like Truman and Eisenhower in Korea and Johnson and Nixon in Vietnam, Bush is being pushed into a corner from which he cannot escape, except by conceding that the war cannot be won. In Korea, due to the unique geographical conditions of the country, a stalemate was achievable because the opposing armies held a World War I-style line of trenches stretching across the entire peninsula. The Chinese and North Koreans were finally willing to accede to a cease-fire because they knew that they could not achieve anything more by continued war. In Vietnam, since much of the war was being fought by units passing back and forth over porous borders between the two Vietnams and the border with Cambodia, no such stalemate was possible. The North Vietnamese knew they merely had to wait for our troops to leave and our support of the government of South Vietnam to end before they could take the country by conventional invasion and occupation.

In Iraq, the same porous border conditions that hampered our ability to win in Vietnam exist, with terrorists and their equipment travelling back and forth between Iraq and Iran, as well as Syria and, perhaps, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. While we can achieve short-term victories in limited geographical areas, we cannot hope to seal the borders of a country so large, and with so many neighboring governments either willing to look the other way when jihadists cross into Iraq, or are actively aiding them in their endeavors.

So, President Bush looks to obtain a strong bargaining position for himself and our allied Iraqi government to convince those other governments that they must acquiesce to the current, pro-American political structure of Iraq. But, as Elowitz and Spanier wrote, that will not turn the domestic situation around, in fact, just the opposite will happen. "A limited war aimed at attaining and eventual bargaining position with the enemy rather than traditional conceptions of victory will unleash divisive and partisan pressures" across America. This, of course, has already happened. And, with those divisive and partisan pressures curtailing his ability to maneuver, the enemy knows that they can continue to fight, confident in the belief that, eventually, this President or the next will call a halt to American involvement in the war.

As in Vietnam in 1968, we have long since passed the point when a military solution could be achieved that would leave a politically acceptable situation for America on the ground. As in Vietnam, with no political will to attack the sponsors of the insurgents in a way that would defeat them and, in fact, with just the opposite sentiment held by the majority of the American people and their representatives in Congress, there is no longer any possibility of victory in Iraq. It is simply a matter of time. If this President is unwilling to remove American troops from Iraq, then the people will elect a President in 2008 who will be willing.

In Korea in 1953, an accident of geography gave us a politically acceptable stalemate. Today in Iraq, as in Vietnam, we have no such luck. The American people, in the words of Robert Endicott Osgood, in his book "Limited War", think of war "as something to abolish, war as something to get over as quickly as possible, war as a means of punishing the enemy who dared to disturb the peace, war as a crusade...these conceptions are all compatible with the American outlook. But war as an instrument for attaining concrete, limited political objectives, springing from the continuing stream of international politics and flowing toward specific configurations of international power, somehow this conception seems unworthy to a proud and idealistic nation". This limitation of the American ability to wage war caused us to give up in Vietnam, and will cause us, inevitably, to give up in Iraq.

While the Democrats in Washington consider revisiting the war authorization, Bob Novak says it is Pennsylvania Congressman Jack Murtha who is now running the show.

Never in my life have I faced a political situation so difficult to read as the one we face today. As I have written many times, the polling data regarding Iraq says that the American people, as has been their traditional posture regarding limited wars, are fed up with the Iraq War and wish to end our involvement. However, if you ask people whether they want victory, a majority will say yes. As was the case in Korea and Vietnam, the American people want to achieve a military victory. As was the case in Korea and Vietnam, they will be denied that victory because it cannot be achieved without a brutal escalation of the war that is either geo-politically unwise or unacceptable to the media and cultural elites that rule our country. In Korea, any attempt to achieve traditional victory meant an expansion of the war against the People's Republic of China, possibly leading to nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union. In Vietnam, a traditional victory was only possible with either an invasion of the North or a massive expansion of bombing earlier in the conflict, both courses of action could have led to war with the PRC or the Soviet Union. In Iraq, victory could have been had with a much larger American force, with much more robust rules of engagement. But their has not been a willingness on the part of the President to do what is necessary to win, almost from the start. History will condemn him for it. For now, though, we are stuck with a military situation that is poor, and a political situation here at home that is hopeless.

After Vietnam, the Democrats were tagged as being the party that could not be trusted with America's defense. Eventually, this led to their string of defeats in Presidential elections and, ultimately, in Congress. Could this happen again? I think so. While they are now working assiduously to follow through on what they believe to be their mandate from the American people to end the war, they are really cementing into the public consciousness their old image as the party of weakness and surrender. This is unfair, of course. They are victims of the inherent weakness of our system, which relies for governance on a class of people whose instincts regarding war are out of sync with the majority (who simply want to use any and all measures necessary to smash our foes into powder). For this, they will surely be punished, unfairly or not.

As I predicted, U.S. troops are meeting little resistance as they begin their crackdown in Baghdad. The Shiite militias have gone to ground, figuring they can wait us out. Meanwhile, Moqtada al Sadr has fled to Iran, and Ralph Peters thinks we should use that against him by branding him a coward.

The Kurds are seeking promises from the U.S. to help them if Iraq breaks up. Past history should tell them that the Americans are not reliable allies.

Mario Loyola says appeasing Iran, rather than confrontation, is the path more likely to lead to war.

Stanley Kurtz says we should use anthropology to better understand radical Islam.

Blogging has been light these last two weeks as I have been working at WPRO in Providence.

Well, now that the Democrats are running the show in NH, these things were expected.

The GOP has lost another Congressman, although this time they have lost him permanently.

Robert J. Samuelson continues to speak the truth about Federal spending.

Some commentary on two things;

One, the Iraq War debate in the House is a shame and a sham. The Democrats believe the war is wrong, and yet their leadership is unwilling to pass a measure that would cut off funding after a certain time period. So, for political reasons, they allow an unjust and mistaken war to continue. The Republicans are little better, as they were willing to rubber stamp the actions of the Administration at almost every point, even as they bumbled their way through what has turned into a disaster from a foreign policy perspective.

Two, the Korean deal is just another example of the impotence of our current government. In essence, the Bush Administration, after all of its bluster, has adopted the Clintonian appeasement plan. I expect they will see the same results.

I suppose I shouldn't treat these politicians too harshly. After all, they are only following the lead of an American people who are unwilling to stick out a tough war, just as they are unwilling to face the reality of our gigantic and unsustainable welfare state.

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann now think Rudy Giuliani is the GOP front-runner for President. I dislike the horse race handicapping that goes on at this early stage, but it has an impact in terms of funding. If McCain is seen as someone who is slipping, and Giuliani as gaining, in the polls, this can have a direct impact on their ability to raise money.

Michael Barone says the President is turning toward Iran. Barone approves.

Officers with PhDs are advising General Petraeus in Baghdad. Finally, officers with a clear-eyed view of how to fight a counter-insurgency war are in the driver's seat. Unfortunately, from a domestic political standpoint, it is too late. Still, they are apparently getting ready for a massive offensive in Baghdad to crush insurgents and other militants. I guess I still hold out hope that the efforts of these new commanders can, at least temporarily, restore order to Baghdad, after which they might be able to push the various political factions toward some sort of grand bargain. Our commanders must realize that, no matter what else happens, our troops will begin withdrawing no later than the Spring of 2009, as a new Democratic administration, backed by a Democratic Congress with an even larger majority, will seek to end our participation in the Iraq War.

A United Nations sponsored panel of scientists now say that human-caused global warming is "Unequivocal". While there are still skeptics out there, it is getting harder to make the case against global warming, or the human factor that is behind it. Of course, political leaders here and across the globe are unwilling to admit the truth about their options, which are basically all pretty tough. If we really want to limit greenhouse gas emissions, we would have to so retard economic growth as to lead to a world-wide depression. This they will not do. I advocate investing a far greater amount of time and money in improving technology to allow for the cleaner burning of fossil fuels and the more efficient use of energy, and making an effort to prepare our societies for the changes that will happen due to global warming during the course of this century.

The new National Intelligence Estimate about the situation in Iraq can only be described as "bleak". Unfortunately, even if the troop surge helps to stabilize the situation in Baghdad and Al Anbar province, it will merely serve to keep the lid on temporarily. Eventually, the new administration in January 2009 will begin the process of withdrawing our troops. When they leave, Iraq will devolve into savage, tribal, sectarian violence. I believe it is inevitable.

David Warren describes the kind of tribalism I am talking about.

Meanwhile, Iran begins the installation of more centrifuges to process nuclear fuel. Unless the current leadership in Iran is set aside by the people, or by more moderate elements within the governing classes, I fear a confrontation between Israel and Iran is also inevitable. At the moment, I do not believe that President Bush has the political support necessary to launch an attack to degrade the Iranian nuclear program, which is why I believe the Israelis will take matters into their own hands.

Finally, the Left here in America is getting impatient with the Democrats in Washington concerning the war. They thought they voted for an end to the war in November when they voted for the Democrats. Instead, they are getting an escalation which the Democrats do not seem to have the will or ability to stop. So, at least one Leftist is calling for widespread public impeachment hearings by ordinary Americans against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. The hope is that such a series of public events would garner enough media attention to put pressure on the Democrats in Congress to convene real impeachment proceedings in the House. While I doubt that the effort would succeed, there is a certain logic behind the effort, and I applaud any American who peacefully expresses his or her political will, especially when the people they elect to represent their will fail to do so.

Boston paralyzed by a marketing gimmick. Officials fulminate against those responsible. Arrests are made. Young people don't understand what all the fuss is about. The incident has resulted in numerous questions. Did the authorities over-react? Did the marketing people misread the prevailing post-9/11 security atmosphere? Was this just an example of the hyper-sensitivity of Boston officials (as the same marketing gimmick went unnoticed in a number of other cities)? Much hot air will be expelled over the situation in the coming days. I will not be adding to it, as I spent the day safe in the Big Apple, where chaos and gridlock is the norm (such that I hardly noticed that the President was on Wall Street).

Bob Novak writes about GOP pollster Frank Luntz, who is now on the outs with the Republican leadership because he keeps telling them things they don't want to hear. Another very bad sign for 2008.

The Powerline Blog has this post about Washington Post writer William Arkin's recent blog piece about our soldiers. Be sure to read the original post, not just the criticism. I have never liked Arkin (although, to be fair, I have never met him personally). His TV bits always rubbed me the wrong way. Perhaps this was true for others, as I haven't seen him do any TV stuff in some time. After reading his blog post, I truly wonder how he can be so ignorant of the mind-set and culture of the military, and yet be considered an expert on military and security affairs.