sirenianshores

I happen to believe the Democrats are not quite as left wing on the War in
Iraq as their political opponents make them out to be. Leaving aside some of
the nastier human rights violations the Republicans tend to tolerate, the
position of Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are virtually
indistinguishable from that of Republicans. Unless the Kos crowd gains
absolute control of the party, I can’t see things changing all that much.
The Democrat’s strategy from this point onwards will probably depend on two
things: a) the recommendations of the Baker study group plus the opinions of
the generals and various military people directly involved b) the will of
the American people.

This isn’t my personal view of course, but assuming the pro-war crowd still
wish to win the war, I think the only way the situation can be redeemed
militarily is by taking a ’send all we’ve got’ approach. That means shipping
in as many men and equipment as possible into Iraq - something along the
lines of expanding the army so the total amount of troops in Iraq could be
increased by 50 to 100,000. Then kept there five years or so, with gradual
reductions after that. That, from what I can see, is the only way that the
US can regain the initiative and give the native Iraqis forces enough
breathing space to build up their strength to the necessary level required
to take on hardcore Jihadis and veteran Baathists.

That strategy may yet fail, but at least it will have being in a full-on,
sincere attempt to win the war. The actions of the Bush Administration over
the last several years could not be categorized as such.

Instead of promising, as Churchill did in his time, ‘blood, sweat and toil’
to the American public, Bush promised meaningless tax cuts and instructed
them to go out and ‘buy stuff’ - which is entirely the wrong mentality for
fighting a war of such alleged magnitude as he claims the war on terror
should merit. Promising tax cuts while army support units still had
sub-standard flak jackets and National Guard units were being sent into Iraq
with old Vietnam era equipment is not how any committed politician fights a
war.

Ultimately the Iraq war turned out to be a half-hearted effort, in which it
was naively believed that if the US demonstrated a token degree of force
(shock and awe), the enemy would quickly capitulate. The post-war situation
they hoped would solve itself. Instead, what Bush blundered into was a
grinding war of attrition against a coalition of highly determined
opponents. Conservative hawks might ridicule cut-and-run lefties for their
anti-war stance, but I think Conservatives are as little prepared
psychologically for a fighting this war as anyone else is. 3 1/2 years into
this war, they still haven’t wised up to the fact that if they are serious
about winning this thing they are not going to be leaving any time soon.

If history is any indication, most insurgencies take at least 10-20 years to
put down.

* It took the Russian 10 years to pummel the Chechnyans into submission.
* The war in Algeria against Islamic rebels took 10 years to conclude.
* 10 years for the Egyptian government to defeat the Moslem Brotherhood.
* 25 years for the British to bring the conflict in Northern Ireland to a peaceful conclusion.
* The Israelis have been fighting terrorists on various fronts for decades now with no end in sight.

The problem with the Americans is they posses neither the ruthless brutality of the Russians nor the cunning and patience of the Brits. Neither do they posses the capacity for self-criticism which the Israelis have shown in the last Lebanon war - if the sections of the American public had criticised their own governments handling of the war in Iraq like the Israelis did with the Lebanon war, they would immediately have been denounced by the Chickenhawks in power and their legions of mindless cheerleaders. The result of that reactionary approach is no problem ever gets fixed no matter how serious and American sinks yet deeper into the quagmire. The Baker study group may be a welcome effort to resolve this, but that too it is already being vigorously denounced by the right-wing noise machine.

The main obstacles which may sink the ’send all we’ve got strategy’ strategy
are:

A) It would be political suicide for the Republicans, much less the
Democrats, to send more troops into Iraq prior to the next presidential
election, not to mention expanding the army and raising taxes to pay for it.
Good look to Karl Rove if he thinks he can do a pied piper and brainwash a
generation of right-wing chicken hawks into serving in the expanded army.

B) It would probably take the US Army at least five years or more to recover
from the campaign and it would drastically reduce its ability to handle any
other threats which may arise.

C) Increased casualties

Of course if the politicians or the American public are not prepared to do
what it takes to win, then withdrawal is the only realistic option on the
table. The obvious benefit here is it would free the US army from having to
fight a war on two fronts. It could then consolidate and focus on the
situation in Afghanistan, which is in serious danger of turning into a
full-scale insurgency like Iraq. The US could probably still retain control
of northern Iraq where the more pro-American Kurds are located. It could
then try and encourage democracy on a smaller scale there and if the rest of
Iraq went straight to hell, at least that much of the country may end up
being a success. By Middle Eastern standards, that would certainly be a
better than average result.

Ultimately the final decision on Iraq does not depend on the views of either
Nancy Pelosi or George Bush. It depends on what the average American citizen wants out of this. Are they prepared to fore go tax cuts and pour billions of their country’s money into Iraq? Are they prepared for a long hard slog that will take probably at least a decade or more? If the conflict should drag on for years and years, would they be prepared to risk sending their own children to Iraq when their turn comes?

If the answer is yes, then they need to get real and start digging in for
the long haul. If the answer is no, then withdrawal now like the Kos crowd
are advocating is the only realistic choice.