My main comb-over man, Pat Buchanan, a true Republican, may not be wrong about the violence in Iraq that would follow a U.S. troop withdrawal, but in several respects the Iraq conflict is not Vietnam, and a Tet-style offensive and massive retaliation against "friendly" Iraqis which he predicts are not inevitable, or even likely. Nor is al Qaeda's dominance in Iraq, post-occupation, a given. See my comments below to find out why I disagree with Pat this time!…
The Retreat of the Old Bulls
by Patrick J. Buchanan
06/29/2007 | HumanEvents.com
What was anticipated in September, the retreat of the old bulls of the Republican Party from the Bush war policy, happened in June. The beginning of the end of U.S. involvement in the Iraq war is at hand.
"I rise today," said Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana on Monday, "to offer observations on the continuing involvement of the United States in Iraq. . . . [O]ur course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital interests in the Middle East and beyond."
According to the six-term, ex-chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, three factors make it improbable the "surge" can succeed -- and imperative the United States redeploy its troops, out of combat and perhaps out of Iraq: political fragmentation in Iraq, the growing strain on the U.S. military and the crumbling support at home.
Lugar's stance provides cover for Republicans anxious to break and join the chorus for early withdrawal. Beyond Sen. John McCain, a few generals and some neoconservative commentators, no one is calling for more U.S. troops. The handwriting is on the wall.
"A course change should happen now," said Lugar. But if his diagnosis seems on target, his remedy lacks credulity.
The United States has four strategic goals in Iraq, says Lugar. Prevent creation of a safe haven for terrorists. Prevent sectarian war from spilling out into the broader Middle East. Prevent Iran's domination of the region. Limit the loss of U.S. credibility through the region and the world as a result of a failed mission in Iraq.
Lugar's recommended policy to secure these goals: "[A] down-sizing and redeployment of U.S. military forces to more sustainable positions in Iraq and the Middle East."
Lugar is calling for what the Iraq Study Group recommended, a shift of U.S. combat brigades out of action and out of country, turning their duties over to the Iraqis.
Most Americans may concur and cheer Lugar. But what is hard to see is the connection between the goals Lugar declares are vital, and the policy course he proposes for securing them.
Those 150,000 U.S. troops are the most effective, if not the only reliable, units preventing all-out sectarian civil war and defending the government, the contractors, the aid workers and the Green Zone. If we draw them down, how secure will the Americans left behind, and the friends of America, be in Iraq? What is to prevent the enemy from launching Tet-style offensives in U.S.-abandoned sectors? When Tet occurred in Vietnam in 1968, we had 500,000 U.S troops to deal with it. It is really a time for truth.
[First, we don't leave the aid workers and the Green Zone behind, we take them with us. When we withdraw, we really withdraw. No colonial footprints! You can't do development work in a war zone anyway; nor can you have diplomatic relations with an Iraqi government that doesn't really exist.
Second, there will be no Iraqi Tet Offensive because there is no organized Vietcong-type army in Iraq, but rather numerous tribal and sectarian militias whose ultimate loyalty, and willingness to fight an all-out war, is still uncertain. Third, if we remove the U.S. Embassy from Baghdad along with U.S. troops and personnel, there will be no one whom this non-existent Vietcong-type Iraqi army could attack. – J]
After four years, 3,500 dead, 25,000 wounded and half a trillion dollars spent, the four strategic goals of Sen. Lugar have not only not been attained, they are receding. Removing U.S. troops may only advance the day that all are lost.
[We can't have it both ways! Either we admit we f-ed up and cash in what chips we have left and go home beaten but not broke, or we stay at the Iraqi roulette table till the bitter end and lose our shirt – and then have to go home and explain to our family how foolish we were and beg their forgiveness. The choice is clear. But waiting, and not choosing, is the same as choosing to stay, die, and lose. – J]
If the U.S. forces, the most effective in Iraq, have failed to eradicate the al Qaeda nests in Anbar, how does he suppose the Shia-dominated government and Iraqi army will succeed?
[I've argued that our withdrawing will probably take care of the al Qaeda problem by itself. Already some of Iraq's Sunni areas are turning against al Qaeda. Why? Not because they suddenly love America or hate bin Laden. No, it's because Iraq's Sunnis increasingly resent these foreigners with funny names and accents who have no local ties coming in, strutting around, threatening people, telling them how to practice their religion and rule their villages, etc. In other words, as soon as we leave, al Qaeda fighters will be the closest thing to "foreign occupiers" left in Iraq. Iraq's Sunnis will take care of the al Qaeda remnants themselves, I reckon. But as long as we continue to occupy Iraq -- and do a piss-poor job of it, I might add -- we represent a much bigger, nastier, non-Muslim target than does al Qaeda. Let's take the bullseyes off our backs and let al Qaeda wear them for a change! – J]
With the sectarian civil war near its height when a U.S. surge is underway, how will ending the surge and pulling out those troops cool, rather than unleash, the passions for killing?
As for Iran's domination of the Gulf, fear of that was a major argument made against going to war. If you smash the only Arab nation in the Gulf able to stand up to Persian Iran, overthrow its Sunni regime and introduce majority, i.e., Shia rule, how can Iran not be the beneficiary?
This war was not thought through. It was not only mismanaged, it was an historic strategic blunder to begin with.
Any U.S. war to overthrow Iran's enemies -- the Taliban in Kabul, Saddam and his Sunni Baathists in Baghdad -- cannot but result in making Iran more dominant in the Gulf when the Americans depart. By eliminating the counterweight to Iranian domination, we guaranteed that either we become that counterweight, or there is none.
[Iran has already benefited. The damage is done. But as long as we stay in Iraq, Iran can meddle as it chooses, helping Shiites to kill us. It's a game to them. We should end the game and go home. If we must be a "counterweight" to Iran, let's do it more sensibly than by ineptly occupying Iran's next door neighbor. – J]
As for preventing a loss of U.S. credibility in the region and the world, it is a little late for that. Bin Laden said Americans are weaker than Russians. They will not take the casualties. Was he wrong?
[No, bin Laden was not wrong. But "Russians" didn't "take" those casualties without backing down, the authoritarian Soviet government did. Democracies don't fight stupid, losing wars for long. The people are smarter than that, thank God. And by the way, the USSR's bloody, ultimately pointless Afghan invasion was a huge, direct contributing factor to Soviet Union's demise. The Soviet government lost a huge amount of credibility and legitimacy in the people's eyes. So, let us not forget: Unpopular wars fought without the people's consent can topple the governments that fight them! – J]
In his assessment of the Iraqi government, the cracking U.S. Army and the dwindling American will to sustain this war, Lugar is right. But no energetic diplomacy is going to save for this country what the best army in the world fighting four years could not hold.
The self-deceptions must end. When we draw down and pull out U.S. forces, the odds will rise steadily that this war ends as did the one in Southeast Asia -- with our friends slaughtered and our enemies triumphant. We may all hope not, but hope is a virtue, not a policy.
["Friends slaughtered?" Really? Unlike in Vietnam, do we indeed have any "friends" in Iraq? I wonder….
Let's end one self-deception once and for all: That we ever cared what happened to the Iraqi people. This was never about helping them. Never. So why should we stay based on some sudden, false sentimentality towards them? Let's be patriots and do what's best for America… like we always do. Withdrawal just happens to be what's best for Iraqis, too, but that's incidental. – J ]
No comments:
Post a Comment