[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Nat Turner]

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.

too late game over... heres yur koran and burkha...

[edsheppa]

Soon it will be fashionable even in conservative circles to blame Bush just as the neocons now are doing so ignominiously.

There was another President whose motto was "the buck stops here." He gave the order to nuke Japan. His Administration fashioned the strategy that eventually prevailed over the Soviet Empire.

A later President castigated America for its inordinate fear of communism. He lamented American malaise. He lost Iran to the mullahs, the same mullahs who, today, use oil revenues to support terrorists and build nukes.

Bush's legacy, right now, is trending more toward Carter's than Truman's.

[Dr.Deth]

Nah. The foreign nationals and agents provacateur coming to Iraq to fight are and have been routed, as was planned. Of course we could have stopped them at the border rather than kill them in the Sunni Triangle but that isn't the point. These cockroaches can only skulk the shadows, and (as has been loudly proclaimed) in a span of time longer than WWII have managed to pick off, what, 3000 enemy combatants? While hundreds of thousands of their own have been eliminated, captured, or otherwise neutralized. The US-soldier-to-enemy-combatant kill ratio would make Alexander blush. In reality, the US versus Iraq is an historic domination save for the seditious Fifth Column press and it's unrelenting effort to make Iraq into the Vietnam they've desperately sought for over 30 years.