Iraq Is Just Test Of Will For America (Mark Steyn Slams Baker Study Group "Realism" Alert)

Chicago Sun Times ^ | 12/03/2006 | Mark Steyn

[goldstategop]

James Baker's "Iraq Study Group" seems to have been cast on the same basis as Liza Minnelli's last wedding. A stellar lineup: Donna Summer, Mickey Rooney, the Doobie Brothers, Gina Lollobrigida, Michael Jackson, Mia Farrow, Little Anthony and the Imperials, Jill St. John. That's Liza's wedding, not the Baker Commission. But at both gatherings everyone who was anyone was there, no matter how long ago it was they were anyone. So the fabulous Baker boy was accompanied by Clinton officials Leon Panetta and Bill Perry, Clinton golfing buddy Vernon Jordan, Clinton's fellow sex fiend Chuck Robb, the quintessential ''moderate'' Republican Alan Simpson, Supreme Court swing vote par excellence Sandra Day O'Connor . . . God, I can't go on. I'd rather watch Mia Farrow making out with Mickey Rooney to a Doobie Brothers LP. As its piece de resistance, the Baker Commission concluded its deliberations by inviting testimony from -- drumroll, please -- Sen. John F. Kerry. If you're one of those dummies who goofs off in school, you wind up in Iraq. But, if you're sophisticated and nuanced, you wind up on a commission about Iraq. Rounding it all out -- playing David Gest to Jim Baker's Liza -- is, inevitably, co-chairman Lee Hamilton, former congressman from Indiana. As you'll recall, he also co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, in accordance with Article II Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which states: "Ye monopoly of wisdom on ye foreign policy, national security and other weighty affairs shall be vested in a retired Representative from the 9th District in Indiana, if he be sufficiently venerable of mien. In the event that he becomes incapacitated, his place shall be taken by Jill St. John." I would be calling for a blue-ribbon commission to look into whether we need all these blue-ribbon commissions, but they'd probably get Lee Hamilton to chair that, too.

Don't get me wrong, I like a Friars' Club Roast as much as the next guy and I'm sure Jim Baker kibitzing with John Kerry was the hottest ticket in town. But doesn't it strike you as just a tiny bit parochial? Aside from Senator Kerry, I wonder whether the commission thought to hear from anyone such as Goh Chok Tong, the former prime minister of Singapore. A couple of years back, on a visit to Washington just as the Democrat-media headless-chicken quagmire-frenzy was getting into gear, he summed it up beautifully:

''The key issue is no longer WMD or even the role of the U.N. The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail.''

As I write in my new book, Singaporean Cabinet ministers apparently understand that more clearly than U.S. senators, congressmen and former secretaries of state. Or, as one Baker Commission grandee told the New York Times, ''We had to move the national debate from whether to stay the course to how do we start down the path out.''

An ''exit strategy'' on those terms is the path out not just from Iraq but from a lot of other places, too -- including Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela, Russia, China, the South Sandwich Islands. For America would be revealed to the world as a fraud: a hyperpower that's all hype and no power -- or, at any rate, no will. According to the New York Sun, ''An expert adviser to the Baker-Hamilton commission expects the 10-person panel to recommend that the Bush administration pressure Israel to make concessions in a gambit to entice Syria and Iran to a regional conference . . .''

On the face of it, this sounds an admirably hard-headed confirmation of James Baker's most celebrated soundbite on the Middle East ''peace process'': ''F - - k the Jews. They didn't vote for us anyway.'' His recommendations seem intended to f - - k the Jews well and truly by making them the designated fall guys for Iraq. But hang on: If Israel could be forced into giving up the Golan Heights and other land (as some fantasists suggest) in order to persuade the Syrians and Iranians to ease up on killing coalition forces in Iraq, our enemies would have learned an important lesson: The best way to weaken Israel is to kill Americans. I'm all for Bakerite cynicism, but this would seem to f - - k not just the Jews but the Americans, too.

It would, furthermore, be a particularly contemptible confirmation of a line I heard Bernard Lewis, our greatest Middle Eastern scholar, use the other day -- that ''America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.'' To punish your friends as a means of rewarding your enemies for killing your forces would seem to be an almost ludicrously parodic illustration of that dictum. In the end, America would be punishing itself. The world would understand that Vietnam is not the exception but the rule.

It has been strange to see my pals on the right approach Iraq as a matter of inventory and personnel. Many call for more troops to be sent to Baghdad, others say the U.S. armed forces overall are too small and overstretched. Look, America is responsible for 40 percent of the planet's military spending: It spends more money on its armed forces than the next 43 biggest militaries combined, from China, Britain and France all the way down the military-spending hit parade to Montenegro and Angola. Yet it's not big enough to see off an insurgency confined to a 30-mile radius of a desert capital?

It's not the planes, the tanks, the men, the body armor. It's the political will. You can have the best car in town, but it won't go anywhere if you don't put your foot on the pedal. Three years ago, when it was obvious Syria and Iran were violating Iraq's borders with impunity, we should have done what the British did in the so-called ''Confrontation'' with Indonesia 40 years ago when they were faced with Jakarta doing to the newly independent state of Malaysia exactly what Damascus and Tehran are doing to Iraq. British, Aussie and Malaysian forces sent troops on low-key, lethally effective raids into Indonesia, keeping the enemy on the defensive and winning the war with barely a word making the papers. If the strategic purpose in invading Iraq was to create a regional domino effect, then playing defense in the Sunni Triangle for three years makes no sense. We should never have wound up hunkered down in the Green Zone. If there has to be a Green Zone, it should be on the Syrian side of the border.

Perhaps the Baker Commission's proposals will prove not to be as empty and risible as those leaked. But, if they are, the President should pay them no heed. A bipartisan sellout -- the Republicans cut and the Democrats run -- would be an awesome self-humiliation of the United States. And once the rest of the world figures it out, it'll be America that's the Green Zone.

[goldstategop]

According to Mark Steyn, Iraq is bottom line - a test of will for America. If Republicans cut and Democrats run, the next Green Zone target for Al Qaeda will be America itself. Let's keep that in mind as we consider the Baker Study Group's empty and risible recommendations.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[Lurker]

If there has to be a Green Zone, it should be on the Syrian side of the border.

Hear hear.

Now back to Mr. Steyns book.

L

[goldstategop]

The President's mistake was not having America columns march swiftly on Damascus. Think how different the picture would look today. Still, although we are hunkered down there, to retreat will nilly would end the American Moment in history. If we cannot muster the political will to defeat a ragtag group of Al Qaeda terrorists, we will certainly not muster the political will to short-circuit the Iranian nuclear bomb program or halt a Communist Chinese invasion of Taiwan. That's why the stakes are so high. It goes to American credibility and steadiness of purpose.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[Nextrush]

These commissions have traditionally come up with liberal recommendations and are designed to give political cover to elected officials to do things that may not be popular.

These insiders make me puke but I will wait until I really know what they are really saying.

The leaks have come out for the sake of someone's agenda, maybe even the presidents but most likely the Democrats.

But if they say retreat don't count me as happy and this bipartisan crap will be the death of many of us, maybe even literally in this case.

[Lurker]

The President's mistake was not having America columns march swiftly on Damascus

One of the few times I've agreed with Pat Buchanan was when he made this very point.

L

[goldstategop]

Like I said, if America can't defeat a group of terrorists in Iraq, its certainly not going to defeat America's other adversaries. If the President implements the BSG's leaked recommendations, we would be rewarding our enemies and punishing ourselves. In no sane world should we ever be quitters. Let's make it clear ANY "exit strategy" is exactly that, no more and no less.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[xowboy]

"A bipartisan sellout -- the Republicans cut and the Democrats run -- would be an awesome self-humiliation of the United States. And once the rest of the world figures it out, it'll be America that's the Green Zone"
________________________________________

Won't we all be so proud then?

[PghBaldy]

He is right about Iran and Syria (and Jill St. John etc). We should have at least TRIED to stop the "insurgents." Instead, we did nothing.

[PGalt]

If the elite intellectual force called the Baker (Iraq) Study Group isn't a signpost for disaster, what is? The Baker doughboy$ are looking through a busted rear-view mirror at themselves.

[PghBaldy]

Correection: we should have taken the fight to Iran and Syria. Instead, we acted like it was all Al Qaeda, which is not true/is misleading. We have known for YEARS that Iran and Syria were involved in the killing of our men, and we let them off the hook.

[goldstategop]

Yep. We did not even try to bomb their sanctuaries in Iraq and Iran to drive the message home we're not to be messed around with. I hang my head in shame at the thought that we're going to give those who are killing us through diplomacy what they want because we lack the fortitude to defeat them in battle. The word for that is called "appeasement."

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[Gaffer]

Vietnam was a test of America's will to show the Russians and Chinese that the US would commit to a sustained war not on its soil. Iraq, however, is a real war, on terrorists (Islam). The WMD reasons for going into IRAQ were hidden, obfuscated, and misreported by the MSM and the rest of the world. Iran is doing the same thing today as Iraq, only they are worse.

That said, I don't think we need to commit troops to Iran, Syria, et al. I think we need to send them a few cases of 50,000# sun block and then give them a reason to try it.

[goldstategop]

Yep. And now we're going to pretend the terrorist sanctuaries in Syria and Iraq don't exist. This is stupidity of the highest order. Instead of winning the war, we're going to arrange an Iraqi Appomatox.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[ishabibble]

It's not Iraq and it wasn't the Viet War. It is the stinking hippies (every last one of those cabals) that daily seek to destroy our country. During the Viet War, Walter Cronkite was the bearer of defeatist news, now the lowest of the low are on the TV 24/7, blaring the bad news out, covering up any good news. I pray that they all will burn in hell.

Steyn is absolutely correct in his essay. Baker is just another old geezer grabbing any relevancy he can get. Carter, Rooney, Wallace, Jesse Jackson, et al. Not a single one has the character and class of Ronald Reagan. He departed the field with his head held high...and what a beautiful farewell letter he wrote to all of us!

p.s. Can you guess which one of the keys of this thing has broken?:)!

[nathanbedford]

I posted this some time ago, it offers counterpoint to Steyn's argument that all we need is "will:"

I only wish that I could assert on my own behalf that I foresaw the tragedy before the fact, but I cannot. Before the invasion I wrote that "God help me" I wanted the invasion to begin as soon as possible before the inspection regime or the French could so undermine the administration that the war could not be started.

Unlike these treacherous neocons, I will admit that I was wrong. In my own defense I can say, for what it's worth, that I was never seduced by the idea of imposing Wilsonian democracy on Iraq, although I of course would not have spurned it, but I saw the war in what I arrogantly believed were grown up and real world considerations of geopolitics. I wanted forward bases in the Mideast from which to strike at Syria and Iran if intimidation alone did not work. I wanted us to get all our hands on the oil fields to deprive Muslim terrorists of petrodollars with which to buy weapons of mass destruction. I wanted us to demonstrate to the Muslim world that no leader could sleep safe if he played a double game with America. I wanted to so intimidate the Muslim world with our military prowess that they themselves would turn against the terrorists in their midst because I believed, and still believe, that the only way we ultimately can win this war is to turn the sane Muslims against the crazies. And, of course, I wanted a regime change as the only effective defense against WMD's in Iraq. My mistake, and I believe Bush's, was to underestimate the tenacity of the Muslim belief system and to see the war in a two dimensional geographical box, like a game of checkers, where squares were to be taken and held.

Not only was I wrong but the result has been calamitous and every one of the "strategic" reasons for waging war in Iraq have been stood on its head. I suspect that the main reason there has been no terrorist attack on the heartland is because Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, as well as Iran, are quite content to see America founder in Iraq. Iran, likewise, is the big winner from all of this as it moves closer to upsetting the entire balance of power in the Middle East when it acquires the bomb and perhaps fashions a Shi'ite Crescent running the Mediterranean Sea. I believe my error came out of the false understanding of the nature of the global intergenerational war against terrorism: that somehow it was a war which could be conceived of in geographical terms. It is not-- although if it is lost the ultimate impact will be geographical. This is a war for the soul of Islam and we must not lose our own souls before we can save theirs.

Perhaps the very worst legacy of this whole Irak tragedy is that we are a daily demonstrating to the world that we are presently incapable of winning asymmetrical wars of terrorism. The Israelis just proved that in Lebanon. The people in Afghanistan are beginning to understand it. The tide in the Muslim world is rising against us as their fear drains away. So the goal of saving the soul of Islam has been made more elusive.

To compound the catastrophe, the "socialist" world of Cuba and Venezuela, Russia and China can read the daily events in Iraq and are emboldened as they have not been since the first Iraq war and seem eager to make mischief 1960s style.

Meanwhile, we've increased the danger of losing our own soul as defined as the will to win. Western Europe already lacks it and half of America possesses an anemic red blood count. Another tragedy of the Iraq war might will be to cause the installation of a Democrat regime in America which will align itself with the appeasers in Europe and so fatally succumb to jihad. The danger is as near as next Tuesday when, if the Republicans suffer a stinging repudiation of the polls, Bush might be left in as feckless a state as Gerald Ford was during the final pathetic agony of Vietnam.

Our dilemma is that we cannot win in Iraq and we cannot abandon it. We cannot win until we learn how to fight asymmetrical insurgencies against our occupation. We show no evidence that we have any idea how to do this at a price America is willing to pay. The training up of Iraqi forces, especially the police, is clearly a failure. So we are mired in a situation that spills our blood and empties our treasury and turns our friends against us. Meanwhile, the existential threat against America, represented by Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon which it passes off to terrorists to explode in the heartland, grows daily closer to reality. Our efforts in Iraq have so attenuated our military force that we probably cannot mount an invasion and air power alone probably cannot interdict Iran's nuclear program. This is well known to the whole world and especially to Iran so our ability to intimidate the Iranians into good behavior has bled into the sands of Iraq along with the Bush Doctrine.

Soon it will be fashionable even in conservative circles to blame Bush just as the neocons now are doing so ignominiously. My belief is that the miscalculation was to presume that the Iraqis, read Muslims, would behave rationally when presented with the opportunity for self-determination and democracy. It is not really that we made fatal tactical military mistakes in Iraq which we can lay at the feet of Bush or Rumsfeld, rather it is the nature of the traditional Muslim society that caused all of this bloodshed to be inevitable. Iraq has revealed that America has no stomach for the pain which must be endured to see such a traditional Muslim society through to Western democratic values.

Asymmetrical warfare works against armies of occupation but these tactics do not work against 21st-century Blitzkrieg, American-style. I fear that the American military will engage in another Vietnam style soul-searching and draw the wrong conclusion, that military force does not work at all in the war against terrorism. I am tempted, therefore, to argue that it was the occupation and not the war itself which was the bridge too far. After Iraq, I am humble enough to admit and perhaps it is I who misses the lesson.

I am well aware that new military adventures will be virtually impossible to sell until the inevitable happens: a strike is made against the homeland. If Al Qaeda strikes with anything less than a mortal blow, ie. a series of nuclear explosions, America might yet be able to find its finest hour. But strike it must if Al Qaeda intends fulfill its ambitions. God grant that they settle for half a loaf with an intensity level not exceeding 911.

We must fashion a new policy, a new strategy for winning this intergenerational worldwide war against a portion of 1.4 billion Muslims who inhabit the earth. We must turn rational Islam against this jihad or we will perish because we will rot from the inside out or we will simply surrender after our cities are turned into glass. We cannot hope to prevail if we eschew all military operations as ultimately counterproductive. We must find what works. Above all, we must not lose our soul.

[Uncle Ike]

" Iraq Is Just Test Of Will For America (Mark Steyn Slams Baker Study Group "Realism" Alert) "

Alternate title:

"Requiem for the American Era"

[Ninian Dryhope]

At least Mark understands the stakes. I think the President does too. We need to kill terrorists and their enablers. Lots and lots of them until they get tired of getting killed or they are all dead.

[goldstategop]

On a lighter note, every blue ribbon commission seems to inevitably have Lee Hamilton in there. I agree with Mark that our time could better be spent investigating why we need a blue ribbon commission for anything in the first place. Those who sit on such a panel are pompous windbags puffed full of ignorance.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[goldstategop]

I get irked when we needed to hear from His Royal Horseass on how we need to hightail it out of Iraq! Heaven save us from becoming Frenchified.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[xtinct]

Cut and run in Iraq = Green Zone USA for the terrorists.

The issue I've found most hard to deal with since 9/11 is the fact that our government officials have not deported people involved with CAIR, Hamas USA, Hezbollah USA, Imams who recently started trouble on US Airways, Imams in MA who requested Visas for religious workers who turned out to be NOT religious workers (have disappeard into American society) and generally any Muslim who appears to be up to no good. For the most part, these people are NOT citizens so why are they still here. I also have a problem with students from countries who sponsor terrorists. Why are they allowed to come to America?

Now America has a Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison, Minnesota who wants to take his oath of office with the Quran... preposterous when you consider that the Constitution is law in the United States while the Quran is the equivalent law for Islam (Muslims). The Bible is merely the tool used to take office. It's not the law. So who/what is Keith Ellison going to be swearing allegiance to if he's allowed to use the Quran.... ding, ding...It's Islam... That is unacceptable in my view.

What's next? Sharia law in the US (like Britain) in order that the Muslims can govern themselves with their own customs and traditions? Will this be a separate government in the US? I find that unacceptable. Additionally, as you may know, their customs and traditions included beheadings, stoning, etc.

It could be me BUT I'm fed up with special rules for special cases, like hate speech laws which go against First Amendment Rights and put us all in a position of not being able to speak our minds when we disagree with something.

[jim35]

Mark Steyn is a genius, and as usual his analysis is spot-on, but hey... leave the Doobie Brothers alone. They rock.

[livius]

We must turn rational Islam against this jihad

That is actually a key point of Bush's plan, and I think is the point that has weakened everything else. First of all, there is no such thing as "rational Islam." Islam is fundamentally anti-rational from a religious/philosophical point of view, and based on such aggressive world-political goals from a practical point of view, that there is really nothing that can be done except to regard it as a whole. Within that, one can perhaps appeal to men of good will who for one reason or another do not share the views of their religion; but that's an individual matter and not something we can build policy on. Furthermore, Islamic society is so oppressive that men of good will find it hard to do anything but keep their mouths shut.

Country after country (Britain, France, Russia, etc.) has become embroiled in Islam precisely by trying to "fix" it in various ME societies in which those countries have had influence. Supporting one or another Islamic group because we perceive it to be less of a threat to us, in comparison to another Islamic group, is the very thing that sinks us deeper and deeper into their dangerous world. Furthermore, it actually ends up by stoking their grudges against each other and giving us what they perceive to be another justified cause against us. We have to treat them the way we treat any enemy, that is, without extravagant cruelty or viciousness. But we have to remember that the enemy is Islam; not necessarily every person within it, but that we must stand up to it, stop its advance, and discourage it at every turn, militarily or otherwise, or it will perceive our tolerance as weakness and simply scoff at us first and overrun us second.

If the grip of Islam is weakened by our opposition, the men of good will within it will have more of a chance. But only if their leaders and countries are rendered powerless first.

[OldFriend]

A large segment of our population will be happy to see America lose this war on terror. They'd be so happy to say I told you so! It's all about proving themselves right than protecting our country.

All the dems want the money spent on the WOT given over to social programs. Remember free health care, free college education, blah blah blah.

Add our very own talk show hosts who demanded that the President do their bidding and who are now happily saying I told you so.....and you see how we got to this dangerous point in time.

The President has two years to get this situation under better control. Our enemies are watching, and hoping the cut and run crowd wins, because that means they win.

[nathanbedford]

The implications of your foundational thesis, that Islam is inherently closed to rationality, is unsettling in the extreme-but that does not make any less likely to be true. It is unsettling because it means that we must prevail against an inscrutable alien enemy without allies. We both concede that the aggressive Islam is maniacal, suicidal, and fanatic. The question is, is there a part of Islam which will say to itself, "this jihad is not just going to kill the infidels, it is going to kill us as well." If you are right in your pessimistic assessment of Islam, we will end up as Fortress America with Europe turning its face against us and our blue states undermining us from within. In those extreme circumstances, the terrorist might not even need to blow up American cities to prevail.

Heretofore we have had to make allies of parts of Islam for oil and this was unavoidable and even noble because it furthered our national interests. Hence, oil has made us choose sides even if we did not want to. Our support of Israel also places us in the position in which we are hostile to much of Islam. I did not see now how we can extricate ourselves from this relationship and this practical reality means that it will be even harder to divide and conquer- which is an infinitely preferable strategy to your call to confront all Islam. Those who support Israel at any price no doubt would support your view.

There are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world and we cannot afford to make enemies of all of them. Until it is demonstrated beyond doubt that all Islam is the enemy, it would be strategic suicide to turn the whole of the Muslim world against us.

[TomGuy]

Sounds like the Baker boys sent out this banner cry:

HALP US, JON CARRY. WE R STUK ON THIS IRAK STUDY GRUP.

[Paladin2]

It's not too late to stir up trouble in Iran's Kurdistan.

[Stallone]

Had Bush had the will to destroy the enemy with extreme prejudice, not only would the Republicans respect Bush more, but the enemy would too.

The enemy - both foreign and domestic (aka Democrats).

Caving in to the NYTimes, Al Sadr, etc. and trying to run post-war Iraq like FEMA was Bush's biggest mistake.

[xowboy]

"It's all about proving themselves right than protecting our country"


Bingo!

[hnj_00]

Stallone.....glad someone gets it!!!!

the US needs a Sherman/Patton leader to win..... not a Westmoreland/Wesley Clark to fight to a tie!!!!!

if the war would have been fought as a war...this would have been all over a long time ago and iran would have backed down on the world stage.

muzzies do not repsect life/property/civility, etc.
they only respect strength/power and the ability to destroy an enemy....all of the qualiities the US demonstrated they have lost!!!!

[RegulatorCountry]

''F - - k the Jews. They didn't vote for us anyway.''

Maybe I'm suffering some sort of odd memory lapse here, but I don't recall voting for James Baker.

[ohhhh]

"Iraq Study Group"

HEE, HEE. Lestists one and all.

[maica]

I'm changing my tagline:

For America would be revealed to the world as a fraud: a hyperpower that's all hype and no power -- or, at any rate, no will.

[elhombrelibre]

Ping to you, Alouete.

I think the best thing about this Steyn article is its reminder of the Baker line about the peace process and Jews. Steyn writes this of Baker: "James Baker's most celebrated soundbite on the Middle East ''peace process'': ''F - - k the Jews. They didn't vote for us anyway.''" There is a lot of wisdom in this article, but that insight into Baker and his plan says all we need to know about this man. By the way, last night the Sunnis in Anbar Province were reported to have killed 55 al Qaeda terrorists. I wonder if Baker even considered a potential success.

[Steel Wolf]

Asymmetrical warfare works against armies of occupation but these tactics do not work against 21st-century Blitzkrieg, American-style. I fear that the American military will engage in another Vietnam style soul-searching and draw the wrong conclusion, that military force does not work at all in the war against terrorism.

The U.S. military, while unmatched at conventional warfare, is not structured physically, mentally, or spiritually for counterinsurgency operations. Despite our experiences in Iraq, the concept is still so alien to how the military operates, we really haven't adapted at all to it. Aside from better convoy and react-to-IED SOPs, the military as an organization hasn't learned a lot from Iraq. The chaos in Iraq feels weird and aberrant; not something Soldiers should be involved in.

That's a problem.

The military bureaucracy is completely unwilling or unable to change. While this is good insofar as it preserves our main strength, unparalleled conventional superiority, it's not helping our current national security interests. What may be needed is for SOCOM itself to become a fully fledged branch of the U.S. military.

There will always be a place for the U.S. Army, but, just as the Army Air Corps matured into it's own branch, modern warfare may require another such evolution. SOF forces need representation at the highest levels, and enough brass to make their points carry weight. They're the tip of the spear in counterinsurgency heavy, media age warfare, not tank divisions and fighter wings. It's time to recognize that, and give them a seat at the big table.

[ßuddaßudd]

You are not alone....

[Gritty]

We should never have wound up hunkered down in the Green Zone. If there has to be a Green Zone, it should be on the Syrian side of the border.

Has Steyn nailed it, or what?

The smell of American capitulation is in the air and the enemy (foreign and domestic) is in full Victory Mode. It's not too late to salvage this thing, but it will take a genuine sea change in our Politically Correct view of the World and our mortal enemies.

For the sake of the truth-in-advertising trial lawyers, we should rename the Iraq Blue Ribbon Commission the Iraq White Flag Commission.

[USS Alaska]

There are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world and we cannot afford to make enemies of all of them. Until it is demonstrated beyond doubt that all Islam is the enemy, it would be strategic suicide to turn the whole of the Muslim world against us.

Why not, they have made the USA their enemy? Start by nuking tehran and damascus. Announce that any reprisal of any size will result in the immeadiate destruction of medina, then mecca. Give all iraqi groups 24 hours to lay down all arms, if not, withdraw all US troops, and bomb {not nuke} bag-dead. Continue until terrorists all quit or all are dead. Extreme? Sure. We don't have the stomach to fight them the way they are fighting us.

[hershey]

Steyn's right, and Test America's well underway. We see a group of Muslims testing airport security and then suing when they're kicked off the plane. Just the beginning. The dems will blame GW when another attack occurs here...or anywhere else for that matter. The Baker Commission is sickening. On the home front...the local Benedictine Abbey...priests deliver non-PC homilies naming names (Muslims have been attacking Christianity for thousands of years, this is just the latest...)and calling for prayers for 'Our President'.

[Prodigal Son]

I enjoyed reading your post.

Ok. So what do you propose we do?

Second, you wrote:

I wanted forward bases in the Mideast from which to strike at Syria and Iran if intimidation alone did not work. I wanted us to get all our hands on the oil fields to deprive Muslim terrorists of petrodollars with which to buy weapons of mass destruction....

...Not only was I wrong but the result has been calamitous and every one of the "strategic" reasons for waging war in Iraq have been stood on its head.

You say you wanted forward bases in order to strike Iran and Syria. Fair enough, so do I. But later you say this strategic reason has been stood on its head.

How so? We haven't even tried it yet. Iraq was never 'the' problem. It was a part of the problem but 'the' problem is in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Why do you no longer want to strike outwards towards the more dangerous countries in the Middle East?

[nathanbedford]

You have defined the problem that absolutely must be solved and I don't know how we're going to do it. Rumsfeld could not do it and I can think of no better man to call on to turn the Pentagon upside down and seek real answers to hard questions. With two years left, Gates is coming in already a lame duck and will not have a chance to make any omelettes much less break a few eggs.

[livius]

Until it is demonstrated beyond doubt that all Islam is the enemy...

I think we've already had ample demonstration of that! About 1300 years of it, in fact, during which Islam has shown itself to be aggressive when it feels strong, and unconcerned about dying because it really doesn't care about life and has a power-driven, distant god that does not care about it, either.

I'm not advocating "confronting" Islam, but simply not involving ourselves in its internal affairs, which are really outside of our control and just confuse matters. Unfortunately, though, Islam can be relied upon to confront us; and when it does, we have to fight back aggressively and without quarter. And when we are in a situation of power, we have to drive it back: for example, the Iraqi constitution would have been much better and much more of an instrument of peace among the Muslims themselves if it had not enshrined Islam. We had our opportunity to neutralize the Islamists in terms of the civil state, but I'm afraid we missed our chance. I think that our desire to tinker with Islam in the hopes that its "peaceful true nature" would be revealed has provided abundant evidence of the weakness of that idea.

I hope we learn from this, and when the next confrontation comes around (which it will), we respond simply on the basis of what is the best defense for us, and not out of some well-meaning notion that we are meant to be the saviors of the Islamic world.

[nathanbedford]

Iraq was never 'the' problem.

Agreed, I've said as much many times elsewhere.

It was a part of the problem but 'the' problem is in Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Again, agreed. And I have so said.

Why do you no longer want to strike outwards towards the more dangerous countries in the Middle East?

I do, but largely because of Iraq we no longer have the power, as I said: "Our efforts in Iraq have so attenuated our military force that we probably cannot mount an invasion and air power alone probably cannot interdict Iran's nuclear program. This is well known to the whole world and especially to Iran so our ability to intimidate the Iranians into good behavior has bled into the sands of Iraq along with the Bush Doctrine."

[Prodigal Son]

so our ability to intimidate the Iranians into good behavior has bled into the sands of Iraq along with the Bush Doctrine."

I disagree. You mass troops on the Iranian border and I guarantee you can make them blink or blunder into the mistake of doing something overtly hostile. This would allow us to attack them in a very convincing manner. And I think we could do quite a bit of damage to Iran with air power alone. Flattening Tehran would be a good start.

[nathanbedford]

Clive conquered India with 800. We have to check 1.4 billion! If we cannot do it by sending the Marines into Fallujah, how do you propose to do it against 1.4B unless you adopt the strategy of:

1. Clive

2. USS Alaska (Dr. Strangelove)

[Steel Wolf]

With two years left, Gates is coming in already a lame duck and will not have a chance to make any omelettes much less break a few eggs.

Gates will be a caretaker, nothing more. The revolution in military affairs will probably not take place until after we redeploy from Iraq and take a breather. It was the same after WWII, with the creation of the United States Air Force, and there are already forces behind the scenes that intend on elevating SOCOM to a higher status. Hoping for it to happen under Gates' term may be a little too ambitious. It's a hard thing to, as they say, change horses in mid stream, so expect the topic to come up once the dust settles from Iraq.

As I said before, the U.S. Army is peerless as a regime killer. Like a great white shark, it does what it does at an unmatched level. Still, it may be too specialized at warfighting to be good at anything else. A U.S. occupation of Iraq under the Department of Special Operations would have looked a lot different then under the Department of the Army. It's too late to do anything about it now, but next time, hopefully we won't make the same mistake.

[nathanbedford]

Mass what troops on the Iranian border? General Abazaid said that we could not sustain an accretion to the force in Baghdad of only 20,000 troops. The weight of the authority that I have heard is that we simply do not have the horses. I heard retired General on Meet the Press state that the idea of interdicting Iran's nuclear program with air power alone was, "insane."

I do not set myself up as a military expert and I would be delighted to be shown to be wrong here if you could only tell me where we can get the forces and the machines and equipment to mount a credible threat of invasion.

[Steel Wolf]

You mass troops on the Iranian border and I guarantee you can make them blink or blunder into the mistake of doing something overtly hostile.

Are we talking about intimidating Iran, or annexing Texas?

This tactic simply won't work. For one thing, we occasionally might skirmish now and then with the Iranians. It barely makes the news, much less as an act of war. Second, we don't have a credible force to project into Iran, due to our drained national will, so they have no reason to fear an invasion. Especially on the flimsy grounds your proposing.

[Steel Wolf]

You mass troops on the Iranian border and I guarantee you can make them blink or blunder into the mistake of doing something overtly hostile.

Are we talking about intimidating Iran, or annexing Texas?

This tactic simply won't work. For one thing, we occasionally might skirmish now and then with the Iranians. It barely makes the news, much less as an act of war. Second, we don't have a credible force to project into Iran, due to our drained national will, so they have no reason to fear an invasion. Especially on the flimsy grounds your proposing.

[nathanbedford]

I forgot to make explicit my agreement with your point that it is no business of the United States to be constructing Athenian democracies with medieval Neanderthals.

[finnigan2]

From The Article: "Aussie and Malaysian forces sent troops on low-key, lethally effective raids into Indonesia, keeping the enemy on the defensive and winning the war with barely a word making the papers."

- And what makes Mark think that Special Forces and SAS units have not been carrying out clandestine operations along the Syrian/Iranian borders to intercept men and materiel into Iraq and with, in his words, "barely a word making the papers"?