Sometimes there is a person that quite eloquently expresses certain thoughts or feelings in a much better way than you every could do so. I read this opinion piece by James R. Pinkerton (Newsday) and was quite struck by it's summative simplicity in describing our difficulties in Iraq and the Middle East in general. He does a wonderful job of engaging in theater, taking on the persona of one Carl von Clausewitz (left), author of the book On WarSome choice quotes.
Smart strategists know - because they read it in my book - that politics and war are a continuum. They are not separate. If you win a war and then lose the politics, well, you have lost the war.
From your point of view, it's great that the Americans and Israelis can defeat the Arabs. But until you have altered Arab/Muslim political thinking - by breaking or otherwise changing their political will - then peace conferences are mere mirage-castles in the air.
I couldn't agree more. There has been a lot of talk lately about how well the war is going in Iraq. Violence is down, people are out on the streets more, and the American military is doing a better job of keeping the peace. These things are all true.
It is also true that, by Clausewitz's standards, we are losing. And not just Iraq but the wider war of ideology with Islamic extremists. I submit that we are losing because the current administration and its lapdogs in pundit land have a third grade understanding of diplomacy and politics.
Perhaps it is because they are single minded in their approach for control over the world's oil reserves and the profit therein. Or perhaps they are just morons who haven't the first clue on Middle Eastern politics. (Side rant: I am still trying to figure out why "elitist" scholars and diplomats in this situation are bad and would doom our nation to darkness. Could someone help me out, please?) Regardless, no matter how many conservatives you see skipping on the streets singing about how things are "better" in Iraq, please don't let their little song and dance fool you.
Because the question needs to be this: how DO you break their political will? I think the military is only one small party of the solution. Many conservatives will have you believe that any option other than force is a sign of weakness. This is a lie. They say this because they being paid off by the people in corporate American who stand to lose the most money in what is without a doubt the largest amount of war time profiteering in the history of our country (Harry Truman is rolling in his grave).
Conservatives also say this because they are covering for the fact that they don't know what they are doing. They are simply not competent nor intelligent enough to win this war--in the classic Clauswitzian sense--and are dooming us to complete failure. They obviously haven't read Clauswitz, which is odd because it has been required reading at all of the major military academies in our country. I shouldn't be surprised, I guess.
As usual, conservatives are lashing out at liberals who point out that there is still much to be done and many problems unresolved, not to mention the fact that we are partially responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands innocent civilians over the past four and a half years. I guess it's pretty typical of the collective short man syndrome they all seem to suffer from and the complete lack of depth and understanding for what it means to truly win this struggle.
They will continue, at least for the next 14 months anyway, to bluster, whine, and stomp their feet--full of sound and fury, signifying nothing--while the people that are preparing to run this government in 2009 make plans to actually win.
4 comments:
The surge is "working" because the US military has cut deals with Sunni insurgents -- Saddam loyalists -- who were the ones we invaded the country to toss out of power.
The people who we installed in power -- the Shiites -- were Saddam's enemies and puppets of Iran.
And, according to the neocons, the Iranians -- further empowered by their Iraqi allies -- are the biggest threat we face.
Now how brilliant does the invasion look?
Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until after we invaded. The Iraqis have always hated Al Qaeda -- both Sunnis and Shiites -- and the only reason Al Qaeda was ever a threat there was because of the chaos that ensued after the invasion.
We were unable to police the country because Bush and Rumsfeld went in with too few troops, contrary to the Powell Doctrine. We went in too fast, without getting appropriate buy-in from important allies such as Turkey and the Europeans.
In the end we will have wasted a trillion dollars only to empower the Iranians and engender hatred for Americans worldwide. And none of this is hindsight. All of this was known before the invasion. People just wanted revenge for 9/11 so they went along with whatever Bush said.
Yes, blk. The surge is working because they are paying everyone off and Bush is taking credit for it as a victory.
As to the rest of what you have written, I think it dovetails nicely with what Mark wrote. Either Bush and followers are too stupid to know this or they don't care. Either way, we have lost because of the politics of war. Or the war of politics in the Middle East.
Whether the surge is working or not is a moot point. Those people in that part of the world have been fighting forever and will continue to fight each other whether we are there or not.
The sooner we become energy independent the better and we can tell them all to go jump in the lake.
I wonder how much money Bush has shelled out to buy the peace. Anyone know?
Post a Comment