Posted on 07/14/2006 10:05:15 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
If we "cut and run" from Iraq, Republican senators argued recently, we will lose our credibility, dishonor the memory of those who have already died there, break our promise to the Iraqi people and settle for something less than victory. The United States does not quit that way. So Republicans will run in November against dishonor, flag burners, gay marriages, the New York Times, the Supreme Court and the Democrats who want to lose Iraq (just like they ran a half century ago against Democrats who "lost" China). Will it work? Sure it will.
In fact, the United States did cut and run in Korea and Vietnam. It did settle for something less than victory in these two wars. The United States did abandon the North Korean and Vietnamese people. It did dishonor the dead soldiers, if withdrawing from an impossible conflict does dishonor those who have died. Some of the senators know that. Most of the American people, ignorant as they are of history, have forgotten.
However, the truth is that Iraq was "lost" the day the war started. It was an artificial country like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, stitched together after the Great War. The British forced its rebellious tribes together with bombs and poison gas. They left the minority Sunni tribes in charge. They ruled brutally through eight decades, viciously suppressing the Shiite majority and other tribes, particularly the Kurds in the north. Saddam Hussein was merely the logical conclusion of the cruel dictators who ruled before him.
When the American invasion brought him down, it destroyed the Sunni establishment and gave power to the Shiite majority. It also confirmed the Kurds' determination that they didn't want to be part of Iraq anymore. Moreover, they had 100,000 well-trained and well-armed troops who would defend Kurdistan from any invaders.
Thus, as Peter Galbraith writes in his The End of Iraq, Iraq ended for all practical purposes when the Americans arrived. To exacerbate the centrifugal forces, the United States did not send enough troops, did not try to stop the looting --particularly of weapons, did not plan for a postwar policy and sent arrogant amateurs to administer the country.
However, the Kurds already have an independent country, the Shiites have established their own regional governments with close ties to Iran and the Sunnis have launched a civil war. Eventually, the Sunnis will form their own enclave and continue the civil war in areas they share with the Shiites, especially Baghdad. No foreign army is capable of policing these areas of continuing conflict. The central government that we have created will at best be able occasionally to mediate among these independent enclaves.
Those who knew anything about the history of Iraq were predicting this outcome before the war. The president, the vice president, the secretary of defense, and the swarm of neoconservative intellectuals around them did not know Iraqi history and paid no attention to those who did. The pretense now that the war in Iraq can still be won displays the same criminally arrogant ignorance of the Bush administration before the war. Messrs. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are still not speaking the truth, perhaps not even to themselves. Neither are the senators who will run against the Democrats (and probably win) on the platform of victory in the war.
Galbraith has been around Iraq long enough to know that the first Bush administration supported Saddam in his war with Iran, providing weapons, equipment and intelligence, some of it in support of poison gas attacks on the Iranians. He also remembers that the previous Bush urged the Shiites and Kurds to rise up against Saddam after the Gulf War. He and his advisers did not believe that they would take him seriously. Hundreds of thousands died. The people of Iraq have very good reason for hating Americans.
Most Americans will not read books like The End of Iraq. They know almost nothing of the history of this artificial country, which is all right because they don't know much about the history of their own country, either. The president doesn't even read memos his staff prepares. Most of the important people in the government don't have time to read. Therefore, having ignored the lessons of history, they repeat its mistakes. Americans will continue to die in Iraq because no one making decisions could bother reading its history.
mailto:agreel@aol.com
A translation of the last paragraph: Most Americans are not as smart as moi.
He's right. Saddam, the Ba'athists, Al Quida, and the militant islamic terorists lost that war the day we invaded.
And now 25 million more people are freer, with an opportunity at more porsperity and peace than they ever could have imagined without our efforts. And tens of thousands of would be terrorists...are dead.
"In fact, the United States did cut and run in Korea and Vietnam. It did settle for something less than victory in these two wars."
So what is this guy complaining about? If he thinks we're losing, but it's no big deal, then why even talk about it?
"Most of the important people in the government don't have time to read."
Actually, I think it would be more accurate that most Americans feel that they have better things to do than read the trash that gets published these days.
Greeley...Maybe you don't know this...but we now have 100,000 US troops in the area...and we ain't leaving dumb@ss...It's not about anything else other than we control the game.
Abandoned the North Korean people??? Since when was the protection of the North Korean people a goal in the Korean War? Way to show your ignorance Greely.
And alas, he's probably got it right at the end, too: that given the sophistication of average American voters the best bet for all such politicians is to blame the the other guy and hope they can shrug their way into office one more time.
So will Democrats run for dishonor, flag burners, gay marriage, the New York Times, the Supreme Court and for losing in Iraq? Or will they pretend to be Republicans again?
The myth about "three Iraqs" is just that. The divisions in the country are not as strong as the MSM and others have led us to believe. It is common for Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, and the other ethnic groups that make up the country to intermarry, go into business together, socialize, etc. Much of the sectarian violence taking place in Iraq is settling old scores from the Baathist days. This kind of violence was frequent even while Saddam was in power. (Why do you think Saddam and his cronies all lived in heavily fortified compounds)? This nonsensical blather of Iraq "degenerating into civil war" forgets that civil war was already happening in Kurdistan under Saddam and that war is pretty much over. Sixteen of Iraq's 19 provinces are relatively quite. Even Mosul, which only a year or so ago a hotbed of insurgent activity, has settled down. Ninty-five percent of the violence in that city of several-hundred thousand has disappeared as the terrorists have been killed, captured, or driven away. Even Tikrit, Saddam's home turf, has settled down greatly. I believe the war in Iraq has already been won on the ground. The only way we could lose is if we allow the friends of all thugs and terrorists, the Democrats, to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory by returning them to power in this country.
About the only thing Greeley has is his head up his phony ass; note how he doesn't go anywhere near our "loss" in World War Two.
Andrew Greeley is a spetuagenarian Catholic priest who in his writing combines Liberation Theology with lefist Sociology. His essays are perfectly predictable, as were his courses at the University of Arizona. There are columnists who seem to hang on forever. Greeley is one.
I don't buy the argument that the dissolution of Iraq is inevitable. But even if it were true, what of it? If it took a bloody dictator like Saddam to hold the country together, then arguably, it wasn't worth holding together.
Umm, we'd embolden the enemy. They'd see it for what it is...WEAKNESS
How I LOATHE the appeasing, surrendering, left
Not to mention the rest of the world as well.
We cut and ran from Korea? Why the hell are all our troops still stationed there? RUNAWAY! Your 50 years late!!!!
Greely is Priest who writes novels about hard core sex. He is an embarrasment to the Catholic church.
Greely is a Catholic priest who deserves respect, a tenant of the John Hancock Tower in Chi-Town who deserves a rude dose of "reality therapy", and a fool who disagrees with the bright leaders of Coalition countries. Bottom line: I'll let God be the judge. Greely is repulsive.
Yes, it will Andrew. Because it's the truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.