Victory Impossible Now in Iraq
Kissinger: Iraq military win impossible
By TARIQ PANJA, Associate Press Writer
“‘If you mean by ‘military victory’ an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible,” he told the British Broadcasting Corp.’”
Well, that seems to define military victory the same way as the Bush Administration did before invading Iraq. But, I think he fudged his statement just enough to get air time.
He’s put an unknown time period and used the phrase, “under control” twice. However, he’s also saying that Iraq is having a civil war. But, he makes no effort to define ‘civil war,’ either in the extremely narrow sense defeated Confederates continue to use, or any rational political usage.
Henry has always been a good photo op with quick sound bite. But, his agenda has always been self serving.
Would anyone care to trot out another lame version of stay the course or we’ll be fighting terrorists on American soil?
Mad Dog
I think we should set up road blocks and stay there until they have zero D.U.I.s, the same as the Evangelicals are trying here. Zero D.U.I.s globally. That’s victory.
I do not care how many troops you had in Iraq it was a bad idea unless you had regional support.
I made this point before the war. The problem is the more U.S. troops on Middle East soil, the bigger the problem.The plan might of worked if the peace keeping forces where from the region and the three groups split up.
This is why we got out fast under Bush 41 in the first Iraq conflict.
READ THIS
That is why I say seperate the groups and get Countries in that Region to help out. The reason we have a chance is becaue the leaders do not want an all out Civil war.
John,
You say, “The reason we have a chance is becaue the leaders do not want an all out Civil war.”
When you say that, I’m reminded of the GOP in the USA. Who cares what those leaders are doing? Look at how few are following!
In simple language, if nobody follows, you’re a loner not a leader.
The people you would call “leaders” in Iraq are simply moving targets with multi-million dollars bodyguards, riding in a very well armored Lexus.
John,
I’m no Iraqi scholar. Not at any level.
But any invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or al-Qaeda.
Any invasion of Iraq, no matter what, faced the current outcome.
The military stated this in 1999. Bush Daddy stated that in his book.
Even IF, and that is theoretical IF, the reason to invade HAD BEEN to save innocent lives, we wind up with a trade off of human lives. And, again, most likely, more die in invasion and occupation than are ‘possibly’ saved.
There was no reason to invade Iraq in 2003 where the outcome satisfies the costs.
And, in the post 9/11 world, invading Iraq is the ‘best case outcome’ for bin Laden. Bin Laden was trained by the US to fight a non-traditional war against a hugely superior army dependent upon technology.
Sun Tze said to pick your battle ground to be the most favorable for your army. And, never fight on “dying ground.”
“Dying ground” is where your enemy would always fight and DIE with withdrawal or surrender being impossibilities for your enemy.
Now, we’re facing terrorists or whatever term you want to use, half way around the world from our troop base, in heat and terran that uses up our equipment, and those enemies choose to die as a FORM of fighting.
A HUGELY STUPID ‘CHOICE’ OF BATTLE GROUNDS.
There was never a victory to be had in Iraq by us.
“Marry in haste; repent at leisure”.
As I understand it, the neo con approach argued for strategic control of ( not just access to ) Middle Eastern oil. Terms of trade and currency value issues were shadow issues, so Middle East was also a plausible way of boxing in global rivals like Western Europe, Russia, Iran and China,as wellas isolating further the Saudies. ( Israel provided the strategic anchor at the mediterraenean end)economically as well as geographically.
So, at a time when the fledgling Bush presidency was facing legitimation problems ranging from the election results of 2000, to China and finally to 9/ll, the prospect of a solution was too mouth watering. Fuelling this was lobbyist and corporate anticipation of the prodigious buck to made in provenance and reconstruction.
Why, oh why then, could not two separate things occurred beforehand.
Firstly, an adequate occupation and reconstruction plan, that avoided egregiously antagonising the long-suffering Iraqi people and Middle Easterners in general.
Secondly, an attempt to approach the American People beforehand, whose state and corporation induced fossil fuel addiction was driving politicians to seek a too- hasty solution to future energy needs. Did fear of public resentment at being told that gas-guzzlers and massive freeways were becoming too much a luxury play play toomuch of a role the decision for the intervention?
The US government forgot that the oil was being secured, whether or not at the expense of the middle east and when people are taken for granted, nasty surprises happen (yes John; I read the thread on suicide bombers ).
The neo cons forgot to include just about everyone, in fact.so sure were they aof their own power. From the people of the middle east, to middle class Americans aware that liberties taken with the constitution also ultimately threatened their own lives fundamentally. How long was the war on terror going to take? answer, a flip “as long as it takes”. What about taken for granted human rights and freedom of information- answer: “the war on terror comes first; besides you might even have forgotten all about those nonsenses; ala “1984″, obviating the need for their return”.
Basking in post Fukuyama triumphalism, they were way, way, too sure of themselves. They were far too confident of their own cosmic skills.
Why, George dubya had already shared an outline of a prospective US-led colonisation of the stars, with the Iraq adventure a tiresome mere inconvenience, or formality scarcely requiring attention.
If some measure of sobriety- finally- returns to the West, only then will the Iraq prank finally have yielded its first dividend of
any value.
Mad Dog
I am talking about the leaders in other Countries in the Middle East, They have vested interest in not having the Iraq war spread.
John,
As you have correctly pointed out to me, not all Arabs are alike. So I would remind you, that not all Arab leaders are alike.
Some Arab leaders WANT a spread of the ethnic cleasing, some want a spread of the religious intolerance for other Muslims, and some want — a unification of the Muslim World!
Spreading the conflict in Iraq could help any of those three and possisbly all three at the same time.
Now that I’ve ignored what you really meant, lets go back to your point.
The current nominal heads of state in various countries would want a stop to Iraq type violence in the Middle East.
Can you name any?
Iran wants a spread. Syria could benefit by a spreading violence. Pakistan, benefits as long as the US continues to send billions to their banks. Lebannon and Hamas benefit one way or the other. Turkey could fall onto either side.
Given the timeless threat to power coming from within FIRST and from outside SECOND, internal competitors for power all benefit from government instability caused in Iraq.
IN a CLASSICAL sense, the Democrats benefited from instability in IRAQ. And, I’m sure even the dim witted talk radio hosts made this point before the elections.
More violence in Iraq = victory for the Dems.
So … more violence in Iraq benefits rivals for power. So not all leaders…Arab or other… have an over-riding reason to stop the violence and instability in Iraq.
Almost 90% of Pakistanis cheer the violence in Iraq, the events of 9/11, and support General/President Musharraf, who’s done NOTHING to help us.
I fear you’re repeating the partisan line for talk radio.
If angst and anger drive mid east politics its only because the oxygen that feeds this was not cut off.
I feel more optimistic now than at any time since before 9/11, that something can occur that removes the heat and emotion, through joint cooperation.
Aussie Paul,
Is that optimism from the results of the US election?
The one where the Follow the leader GOP lost to the Democrats in Dissarray?