Fitzgerald: Not a retreat

Strongly support Hugh's comments. No point in throwing more blood and treasure down a black hole. This only saps US strength. If the US could withdraw from Somalia and Lebanon, which were much less chaotic states, then it can also leave Iraq. Bush himself had rather famously and loudly said that the US should not engage in nation-building. He needs to practice what he originally preached.

"diabolically clever"...???

I wish I had your humility Hugh.

Bush is using the name of al Qaeda as a populist demonising slogan. They know the American Heartland doesn't differentiate between the different sects of Islam, or the separate terrorist groups. But for America to leave Iraq now would:
1. Illustrate to the rest of the world America's lack of resolve
2. Embolden America's enemies
3. Allow the neo-cons enemies to state that their strategy (from the beginning) was wrong.
I say that America made the wrong tactical decision right from the start to invade Iraq (rather than Iran). Bush has used up the political credibility of his major ally (Blair), and consigned him to pathetic follower status (when Blair could articulate the motives for the war far better than Bush ever could).
The Bush administration may not have wished to 'nation-build' but it had no (effective) alternative strategy.
Hugh, America's withdrawal from Iraq (at this time) would be seen as a retreat...by her enemies.

"America's withdrawal from Iraq (at this time) would be seen as a retreat...by her enemies."
-- from a posting above

No. It would be depicted very briefly as a "victory." But then, as the real situation in Iraq becomes clear, and as it becomes clearer -- not in years, but in months -- that a permanent fault-line between Sunni and Shi'a Islam has been established, and as the refusal of the Shi'a to yield to Sunni demands (why should they --they've got the oil, they've got the best territory, they are the ones who suffered for so long from Sunni persecution), and the Sunni refusal to acquiesce in the new order, and while both sets of Arabs are preoccupied, Kurds in Kurdistan push for independence). And soon enough the airwaves and the newspapers in the Muslim world will contain stories shrilly denouncing the Americans for "leaving Iraq" in a "deliberate attempt to sow discord" and so on, and the few weeks of exultation over a "victory" will now sound hollow, and both the Islamic Republic of Iran, and even more, the malevolent "staunch allies" of the United States among the Sunni Arabs will realize that their usual appeals to the United States ("You have to do something about the Shia" or a favorite variant, "You have to put pressure on Israel because if you don't the Iranians will further epxloit the situation and harm us and you don't want that, do you" and other blague, by now transparent, designed yet again to have the Americans dance to a Sunni Arab tune. But what if we won't? What if we will force Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E., Jordan, Egypt, even Alawite-controlled but Sunni-populated Syria, have to deal with, or not, as they see fit, the Shi'a takeover of Iraq or the most important parts of Iraq, the Land of the Two Rivers, of such historic importance to history-haunted Muslim minds, in which real or false past glories loom so large?

Think beyond the first week or month after the withdrawal, imagine just a bit further ahead. And if that withdrawal is accompanied by much sterner measures, including a freed-up military now dealing, from the air, with the Iranian science project (having learned the lesson about land invasion of any Muslim country -- from now on, wreak destruction when necessary but without any of that "reconstruction" stuff, any of that "winning hearts and minds" on the ground stuff.

Think of the repercussions, as the Sunnis and Shi'a go at it, as they will, and think of the inevitable repercussions in the relations, already very bad, with persecution of and discrimination against Shi'a in Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states, at time rising to the level of deliberate murder by Sunni groups, as in Pakistan. Think of what will be done by, or done against, Shi'a populations in Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain. Imagine Hezbollah volunteers being summoned by the Iranian government to help co-religionists in Iraq, and some of them going, there to fight their Sunni counterparts, or some of them refusing to go, thereby demonstrating their lack of usefulness and loyalty to Iran that might limit their future weapons deliveries. Think of the government of Saudi Arabia attempting to move wholesale the Shi'a population in Al-Hasa, where all the major oilfields are. Think of the Sunni Arab ruler of Bahrain, attempting to deal with the 70-75% of the population that is Shi'a, and keenly aware of it -- and not only Shi'a, but also, in many cases, of Persian ancestry. Think of Kuwait, think of Yemen, where significanet Shi'a populations exist. And so on.

Not everyone in the Camp of Islam will interpret an American withdrawal as an American failure. And soon enough, all will see that it bespeaks a much harder line, one where sentimental descriptions of the Shi'a as "those who seek freedom" will be put aside, and the aim will always and everywhere be to halt the presence within, and power over, the Infidel states, by Muslim peoples and polities.

Albion raises good points. The reasons for invading Iraq were either exaggerated or fabricated. Mr. Fitzgerald's observations concerning the causes of the resultant chaos are also spot on. But to withdraw? What is to be left in the wake of a withdrawal? Simple withdrawal is a non-starter.

Certainly there will be civil war, with the likely outcome being the consolidation of Iran's influence in that region. So much the better for a Sunni-Shia conflict you say? Perhaps. But perhaps too the anticipated Sunni-Shia showdown would be postponed until after other matters were settled, say for instance the little matter of the state of Israel. A withdrawal cannot be made while leaving a vacuum. We're stuck until such time as a real strategy is worked out. The Bush administration, however, is not known for its strategic acumen, aside from its ability to win elections, fair means or foul.

A full withdrawal is politically impossible as both political parties scramble to appear tough on defense. I'd add that we need to maintain a presence regardless. The capacity to provide periodic destabilization will be valuable.

There is talk of ‘redeployment’ though. Nobody’s going to buy a redeployment to Okinawa, but a majority would support pulling our troops out of the streets and moving them to a large base in Kurdistan, where they would be welcomed.

Not a full withdrawal, but a strategic reduction in forces, and redeployment of all who remain the the Green Zone, where they can serve as a UN-type "peacekeeping force" --

I disagree with the assumption that the terroristic violence in Iraq must compel the US Forces to withdraw.

The United States cannot afford another Saigon.

The American Warriors who fight there know this very well.

I disagree also with the idea of building a democracy where there are no possible "Citizens" .

But this is the past.
The campaign should have been swift, we should have brought down Saddam's regime and attacked Syria immediately after, without putting boots on the ground.
All this would have taken away a HUGE weight from Israel's shoulders and would have left iran alone, like an island in a sea of chaos.

We chose the American Way and we behaved decently.

Only the next moves will tell us if Bush has really made a mistake: he still has two years and these two years could be very long for both the Syrians and the iranian regime.

The terrorists know this and are attacking with everything they have because they know that their shoulders are against a wall.

We will see. This is a world war and the chess table is HUGE.

"A full withdrawal is politically impossible..."
-- from a posting above

Not if the argument for doing so is the one presented above. Not if the unstated reason -- to weaken the Camp of Islam -- is widely understood even if referred to obliquely, or even in other terms ("It's time for the Iraqis to make the necessary compromises among themselves, and it is clear that our presence only delays the sense of urgency which would force the parties to do that" -- or something like that). Not if it becomes clear that the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer have American troops within easy reach of Zelzal missiles or Iranian agents -- whether from Iran, or locals in Iraq who are directed by Iran.

Such "full withdrawal" makes easier, not harder, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. And depriving Muslim states of major weaponry, which might be used by the current regimes, by successor regimes (had the Shah acquired nuclear weapons, Khomeini would have inherited them), or by groups with connections, or not necessarily any connections at all, to the regime in power).

The reasons for invading Iraq were never exaggerated or fabricated. There were dozens of good reasons, including 16 violated UN resolutions, to invade and remove Saddam. In order to build an international coalition--to sell the project--the US administration, as purely a practical matter, had to highlight the one reason on which there was unanimous agreement among all the various allied intelligence services and governments. And that reason was the WMD threat. That the WMDs were not found (after the US and its dithering allies gave the enemy six full months to prepare for the assault--and hide or "export" any evidence), is the result of Islamic lying and deception at every level. What is so surprising about that?

The whole runup to the invasion, played out in the UN, was more like a court trial, with lawyers providing evidence and making their case--nothing sinister or manipulative about that. The conspiracy theory about how the Bush Administration and Tony Blair were "fabricating evidence" is pure rubbish. They were properly doing their jobs in the best way possible.

As for the future, it is obvious to me that there has been a Iraq withdrawal plan all along, and elements of that plan are underway. The plan is just not being published, and the timetable is hidden, for obvious security reasons.

The US (and perhaps UK) military forces will withdraw to remote desert bases away from population centers and maintain a powerful garrison there with air assets and logistical support in place. Then, they will sit back and watch the new Iraqi government stand or fall. During this birthing process, however violent it is, the US forces will stop any direct attack by a foreign power, such as Syria or Iran, and provide occasional air support to the elected Iraq government, as long as it remains viable. Once the government stands on its own, the US forces will leave the country. If the elected government falls to a new regime, the US will then take stock. If the new regime is a new threat to civilization, the US will move against it, from its convenient location. If not, the US will leave.

As for the withdrawal timetable, one little detail that must be attended before the troops can withdraw to the desert is that we must make sure that Saddam is properly hanged.

Stendec:

I respectfully disagree with your conclusions.

While there were many reasons available to justify the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the reason the Bush administration decided to run with was the threat of WMDs. No WMDs have been found.

The Bush administration assured the US public that enough resources were allocated for the job. The US military is capable and highly motivated. yet as of today, no WMDs have been discovered. You state that these materials were either hidden or exported. If hidden, then what quantities exist that can secreted so effectively. If exported, then why hasn't the Bush administration redirected the military resources to follow in hot pursuit. If the answers to these questions are not known, then how dependable are the intelligence services that sent the US to war?

In my view, amateur though it is, the most charitable interpretation of the Iraq invasion was that it was intended to secure oil reserves to both offset Saudi control of the market and to block developing Chinese interest in the region. Remember, China is in the wings as a major player on the world stage, its economy is growing and this may concern some monied interests --as it should.

A less charitable view is that the Bush adminstration has not and is not identifying the problem. Searching Iraq for WMDs is one thing, but to countenance control of US portlands by Arab financial interests belies an agenda that is not identical with the best interests of the American people. The administration's defense of this deal was terribly unconvincing, in my opinion.

This administration is totally capable of bending the truth to suit its own purposes. Let's hope its in the interest of the American people.

"As for the withdrawal timetable, one little detail that must be attended before the troops can withdraw to the desert is that we must make sure that Saddam is properly hanged."
-- from a posting above

Making that a condition precedent to departure would merely allow the Shi'a who rule Iraq to delay our departure. For they could simply put off the trial, or the final verdict, or the carrying out of the verdict -- it might be delivered in October, and then the date for its carrying out be set, say, for six months hence. And what about appeals?

Why would the Iraqi government do this? Well, for the same reason it has, over the past 3 years, tried in every way to squeeze still more money out of the rich and blindly generous Americans, for that goverment, whether it has been al-Jaafari slyly mentioning on his visit ot Washington the need for a new "Marshall Plan -- let's call it the Bush PLan" (thank god that got nowhere), to the equally meretricious Maliki, supporter of Hezbollah, the man who wanted to free Iraqis jailed "only" because they had killed American soldiers, and had to be read the riot act in order to drop that idea.

The Shi'a of the Dawa and SCIRI parties are perfectly comportable, pleased even, with the idea of American soldiers fighting and dying, to suppress the "insurgents" (that is, the Sunnis who refuse to accept the transfer of power to the Shi'a) and even being asked to handle Moqtada al-Sadr, who will never be that senior cleric his father was, will always remain in all-but-dissertation ("ABD") status.

And the longer American troops can remain to do what the Shi'a are not yet ready to do, in inflicting great damage on the Sunnis, the more opportunities all kinds of locals will be able to squeeze more money out of those innocent soldiers ("What? Your predecessor, Captain Brown, promised he would build a new road right here, and a school, and a factory, and he promised I would get $300,000 in cash to spread around the tribal elders -- why, he gave me his word, and now you are telling me you never heard about this? Are you calling me, the tribal chief of the X, the Y, the Z tribe, a liar?"), for all that "reconstruction" so idiotically and wastefully and corruptly engaged in, winning not a single heart, not a single mind, to the American cause, to the cause of Infidels, but allowing the local Muslims to be even more rapacious in their demands, displaying that total absence of real, as opposed to very temporary and feigned gratitude, that the American officers and men understand far better than does The Great Hallucinator in Washington.

And not only money. There is always the need for more, more, more military equipment and training. The endless litanty of "if only" we were given this, the same kinds of equipment you Americans have, just think what wonderful soldiers we would be, and how we would so quickly destroy the "insurgents" (that is, our rivals and enemies) and "if only we had that," why then that so-called "Iraqi" army and "Iraqi" police would flourish. Never mind that in both cases 70% of the recruits are Shi'a Arabs, and many of the rest Kurds, and that the longer the Americans remain, the more training these Shi'a will receive. Were it otherwise, were the Americans to begin training the Sunnis and supplying them with weaponry, the Shi'a government would suddenly discover it wanted the Americans to leave, at once.

Saddam Hussein dead or alive? That depends on if you think he would, if executed, become a valuable symbol to the Sunnis, and will encourage them to fight against the Shi'a, in the name of this unlikely Sunni martyr killed by the "Rafidite dogs," or whether you think that by keeping him alive, he is likely to encourage Sunni irredentism and Shi'a fears that he might, like Napoleon, escape from St. Helena and arrive, triumphant, in Tikrit or Falluja or Ramadi.

What weakens the Camp of Islam more -- Saddam dead, or Saddam alive?

In any case, no need to wait around for the Shi'a to execute him. They may well delay the day, in order to put off the American departure. Right now it is too valuable to them. The minute it ceases to be, they will boot the Americans out themselves, without a single public sign of gratitude.

Such "full withdrawal" makes easier, not harder, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

At the risk of a thunderbolt, I object. Aircraft carrier operations in the Persian Gulf are relatively new. During the days of the USSR, carriers didn’t enter because of the credible threat. Weapons to threaten carriers have essentially been non-existent in the region for a decade or so. These weapons systems are re-emerging (French/Pakistani subs, surface-to-surface missiles, Russian/Iranian subs if they can figure out how to operate them).

It is wrong to assume that aircraft carriers will be able to safely project power from the Persian Gulf in the decades ahead.

There is no substitute for a continued land-based presence for the following reasons:

1. When force needs to be projected in the future, the non-stop media coverage Israel got when it invaded Lebanon is not applicable.
2. By default, we would own Iraqi airspace. Very useful for projecting power and defending against Iranian ballistic missiles. Israeli F-15’s and F-16’s can re-fuel over Iraq if that card is played.
3. Intelligence collection efforts.
4. A local military presence will protect the Kurds and serve an excuse to take appropriate action if Iranian forces enter Iraq to unite the Shia.

The base in Kurdistan should be hardened. Barracks should be below ground and have concrete roofs. Any attempt to ‘nuke’ it would most likely fail to be properly executed. If an attempt were successful, some would die, but the gloves would be off.

Chatillon,

We agree that President Bush (both he and Tony Blair, I think, would also agree in hindsight), that he picked the wrong issue to run with. But making decisions under imperfect information is what leaders are paid to do. On any issue, especially those dealing with war and peace,
it is their duty to make their best judgment, given only ugly alternatives. The US and UK leaders having made a decision for war then, the combat troops require and deserve, above all, a steadfast leader--no second guessing in the middle of battle. That is what they got in Iraq.

We also agree that the original WMD intelligence data was certainly bad (how, given, the Islamic propensity to lie about absolutely everything, could it have been otherwise?), and given that we telegraphed our punch and delayed the attack from fall to late spring, could the WMD intelligence have gotten any better, barring someone discovering a truthful mole in the Iraqi government? (How likely is that circumstance, and even if we had found such a person, how we have distinguished that truthful informant from all the inveterate liars?) Fifty years from now, we will still not know the real story on the WMDs with absolute certainty.

Of course, oil was a factor in their decision-making on Iraq. Out of necessity, I doubt that any world leader makes a foreign policy decision on anything these days without factoring in the oil situation. The inescapable fact, though, is that we did not seize the oil fields. Instead, we left them in Iraqi control. We didn't even send Iraq a bill for our troubles, but instead poured in our own reconstruction money, often foolishly and wastefully as Hugh points out.

Hugh,

I agree we need to find ways to stop our bleeding financially in Iraq (and elsewhere). In other Islamic declarations, which the President pretty much ignored in his recent speech, the Muslims (OBL and others) have stated their plans to economically wreck the west by draining it of resources. We need to start sending Iraq bills for our services, payable in oil credits. And we need to better control, and accelerate, as best we can, the timing of any troop withdrawal events.

As for Saddam, if he were released or he escaped there would be obviously be a political firestorm back home. That is the only reason I care, really. Maybe he would be a good trouble maker to weaken the Islamic forces, but, because of domestic public opinion, I don't think we could get away with letting him loose, accidentally or otherwise. If I were a soldier fresh back from Iraq, I would probably feel betrayed by such a move, whatever its motivation.

On logistics:

To achieve targeting flexibility, quick response, and useful time on station, air assets must be based as close to the action as possible. If air assets leave Iraq, they will be greatly diminished in their ability to mount a sustained attack on Iran should that become necessary, or to stop a full-fledged invasion of Iran into Iraq. The Navy, with their air assets, is close by, but (as far as I know) they are limited logistically.

Of course, both Navy and in-theater Air Force assets (and their support systems), as well as troop garrisons, are vulnerable to missile attacks, which is why, apart from its Islamic plan to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, Iran spends a lot of treasure developing those kinds of weapons. Close by air assets are needed to hunt down and attack missile launchers in a timely fashion, whenever the need arises.

It looks to me that destroying the nuclear experiment in Iran (rather than just delaying it a short while) will take a large, not a small, attack, unless nuclear weapons are used.

That is, "a large attacking force" rather than "a large attack." Of course, a nuclear attack would be large by most measures.

l am saddened by shortsighted comments by such people l have some respect for, leaving a country to be totally taken over by Iran and assorted terrorists will not solve the problem. armchair pundits and ex generals all have the same thing in common, too much gas. let the military experts on the ground make the calls.

for those who like to look back at history, you need to look at it again. how did Europe stop the muslim
horde? it was brute force, killing and maiming, it was not retreat.

"How would Al Qaeda, a Sunni organization, many of whose members are in complete agreement with Al-Zarqawi that the Shi'a in Iraq are 'Rafidite dogs' and who regard them as the worst kind of Infidels, manage to 'take over Iraq'”?

I don't know. Why don't you ask Sunni Saddam how he did it.

"Why is withdrawal from Iraq called 'retreat from Iraq'"?

Because when armies cut and run, it's known as a "retreat." You withdraw after you've overcome difficulties. You retreat when you refuse to face them.

Fleeing would be "a move designed [to] expend no more lives of Americans, and not to further demoralize and weaken the necessary long-term resolve of the military and support for counter-Jihad measures among civilians?"

The American military is not demoralized. The resolve of our soldiers is far greater than that of their terrorist enemies, who usually scamper at the first sign of the dreaded Americans. The John Murtha School of Leftist Libel and Sophomoric Slander is still handing out diplomas, I see.

Public support for American military action sure was strengthened the last time we cut and ran--in Vietnam. Oh, wait. That shameful debacle poisoned entire generations with defeatism and self loathing. Running from terrorist weaklings now would strengthen public support for running from them in the future. Great policy suggestion.

Running from Iraq would "work in the same way that the Iran-Iraq War worked: to use up men, money, and materiel, and for eight years to preoccupy the two most unpleasant regimes of Iran and Iraq?"

During the Iran-Iraq War, the "preoccupied" regime in Iran used it's terrorist proxy Hezb' Allah to inflict 6 major terrorist attacks against Americans. 208 Americans were murdered. Using the same failed strategy again would likely result in more Shiite Hezb' Allah attacks--only this time, the Sunni terrorists operating in Iraq would be gunning for Americans too.

Shiites and Sunnis have been killing each other ever since little Muhammad died, nearly 1400 years ago. Their long standing feud has never prevented them from killing "infidels" on a regular basis.

President Bush understands this. Those, however, who cannot, are furious that he took the war to the enemy, and will not drop it over partisan posturing, craven protests, and misguided opinions. The constant criticism directed at his war effort hampers his ability to wage it in a more ruthless manner. He's fighting a war on two fronts. The Middle Eastern front, and the public opinion front.

Ascribing misplaced sentimentalism to Bush's PC approach to warfare ignores the political reality. The American left and the dhimmified "international community" will not allow him to use scorched earth tactics.

All wars are different, but suitable analogies can be drawn between any of them. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein by the Coalition, and the subsequent creation of a representative government, has glaringly obvious similarities to The Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Iraq cannot be described as descending into civil war without a certain analogy coming to mind. Sneering at the intellects of President Bush and Secretary of State Rice is unwarranted.

The American military is stronger than ever. Reenlistment levels are up--particularly among combat veterans. Funding is up and weapons technology is improving--especially the bunker-buster bomb technology needed to exterminate the terrorist rats crouching in their nuclear hidey-holes.

What should be America's natural allies in Old Europe (New Eurabia?) are largely envious, dhimmified, ingrates that don't have the heart to protect themselves from the jihadis, much less support America's crusade. The muslims don't need to exploit the divisions in the West's camp. Surrender is the national pastime in France. Islam has already carved out an Empire within its borders. All it took was a few bombs for Spain to throw in the towel. Soon the Spanish will wear them on their heads. Britain is tossing Prime Minister Blair out on his ass over the mission in Iraq. Terrorists openly preach jihad in Londonistan.

Divide and conquer tactics didn't work on islam in the past, and they won't work now. A frontal assault is the only answer. kick their asses back to their caves and huts, and then flatten them.

The projected Democrat landslide in the upcoming 2008 congressional elections will not come to pass. The polls that predict a landslide are the same ones that gave John Kerry the Presidential victory in 2004. The same polls that rarely, if ever, reflect public sentiment accurately. If the Dhimmiecrats get their way--especially by installing an appeaser in the White house--America will be struck by terrorist attacks much deadlier than the 911 attacks. If that happens, the appeasers will be thrown out of office.

Running from Iraq now would hand the terrorists a victory. They would swarm in from all corners of the globe, and without the Coalition Roach Motel to exterminate them, they would thrive. All the sectarian violence in the world couldn't prevent them from consolidating their forces, and using Iraq as a terrorist staging ground. Leaving now would be sheer folly.

Besides, we still have Iran and Syria to take care of.

Divide and conquer tactics didn't work on islam in the past, and they won't work now. A frontal assault is the only answer. kick their asses back to their caves and huts, and then flatten them.

But Jeff, we cannot mount a frontal assault because these guys hide behind their families. Short of an ‘execution by relation’ –type set of Rules of Engagement, which it may come down to someday, our enemy can watch our forces for weeks and then target them at a time and place of the enemy’s choosing with a cheap shot. Our troops are being ordered to act as policemen to protect Iraqi citizens from other Iraqi citizens, have had these orders for years, and have presided over increasing rates of violence. Its making this Bush contributor think that we need to adjust our tactics.

If attrition is a metric, divide and conquer tactics do work well. 1 millions Islamic soldiers were killed in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. The 93 per day number we kick around was 433 per day under Reagan’s watch. And 1.4 trillion petro dollars were expended. With the exception of a TWA 727 and probably some other events that I can’t remember, the 1980s were a time when Islam was turning its attentions inward instead of at us.

As far as Iran and Syria are concerned, a base in Kurdistan would be fully capable of containing them, harassing them, or melting them as necessary.

The poster above wishes to maintain that the Western world has nothing to gain from hostilities, at whatever level, between Shi'a and Sunnis in Iraq.

In attempting to rebut the argument that, like the Iran-Iraq War, such hostilities within Iraq -- with repercussions on Sunni-Shi'a relations outside Iraq -- would be a good thing, he suggests that the Sunnis would have no difficulty reasserting their dominance.

To my rhetorical question:

"How would Al Qaeda, a Sunni organization, many of whose members are in complete agreement with Al-Zarqawi that the Shi'a in Iraq are 'Rafidite dogs' and who regard them as the worst kind of Infidels, manage to 'take over Iraq'”?

he comments:

"I don't know. Why don't you ask Sunni Saddam how he did it."

This must have pleased him as a brisk retort, but it will not do. Saddam Hussein did not inflict a Sunni dominance, but rather he inherited it. The Sunnis had always dominated Iraq, during its entire modern history. And when they first were given the mastery of the country, itself an artificial yoking together of three Ottoman vilayets (Mosul, Baghdad, Basra), they managed to preserve that dominance for a number of reasons. The first is that they controlled the officer corps and constitued much of the army. The second is that the unifying symbol of Iraq, the monarch, was himself was a Sunni and a Hashemite. The third is that the Shi'a did not originally constitute 60-65% of the population but much less. As in Lebanon, the Shi'a have outbred the Sunnis in the way that Muslims in Europe outbreed non-Muslims. During most of the history of modern Iraq the Sunnis controlled the army, controlled the wealth that came through Baghdad, controlled the government.

Everything has now changed. The Sunnis are no longer a bare majority, or as they once were, a minority. They are well aware of their numbers. They are well aware, too, that the wealth of Iraq sits mainly under their lands. They are aware that the Sunni-officered army has dissolved, and of course are aware of how much damage has been done to the Sunni insurgents by the Americans. They have received training from those Americans, who thought they were training the "Iraqi" army and "Iraqi" police. They have received, in some cases, aid from Iran, and certainly many of those Shi'a leaders who had been in exile in Iran and retain their ties, have also been emboldened by the Islamic Republic's aggressive stance. The meek-and-mild Shi'a are no longer, and the behavior of those Shi'a militias demonstrates this. It is the Sunnis in Baghdad who are now more scared. This doesn't mean that in any future hostlities the Sunnis could be destroyed but it does mean that they are likely to be confined to the north and west of Baghdad, with Baghdad itself dividing, or possibly having many of its Sunni inhabitants driven out.

The notion that any withdrawal from anywhere is always and everywhere a "retreat" even if it makes perfect sense and contributes to the defeat of the enemy, is hardly worth discussing. But perhaps invocation of the name Kutuzov (and of "War and Peace"), and his strategic retreats from Napoleon, whose army was destroyed with the help of General Winter, will remind some of what intelligent withdrawals can do.

Furthermore, if troops are in a place in order to achieve a goal, and if that goal makes no sense, is the exact opposite of what one should wish to achieve, if one rightly defined the enemy, if not publicly at least to oneself, then of course one would wish to withdraw. Making Iraq a place where Shi'a and Sunni, Arab and non-Arab, can happily coexist does nothing at all for what should be the goal, the only goal, of American policy in Iraq and in the Middle East, and in those many countries of Europe where the Muslim presence is now threatening to destroy the well-being and safety of non-Muslims: to make sure that the Camp of Islam is everywhere weakenened, if possible through exploitation of the divisions -- sectarian, ethnic, and economic -- that naturally divide Muslims, and that need only a bit of encouragement here and there, but not much more.

The stated goal in Iraq is the wrong one, a foolish one, a messianic one, one that fails to exploit divisions that have always existed and are now widening, but the Administration, maddeningly, wishes not merely not to exploit those divisions but in fact to repair them.

That is real folly. That is genius in reverse. That is unforgivable.

From a comment above:

Bush is the devil! Bargholz is fiendishly clever! Please help me!

Cold reality: The Shites will not conquer the Sunnis. Running from Iraq would leave a yellow stain, and little else. The Coalition is not demoralized. Fleeing would enable the terrorists to commit further atrocities. The Shites and Scummis haven't been able to exterminate each other in 1400 years of trying, and they won't be able to do so now. They never stopped murdering "infidels," and they never will until they are wiped out. President Bush understands what you do not. Leaving muslims to squabble amongst themselves only makes them stronger. Leaving them to themselves resulted in 911. (MORE THAN 3000 DEAD!) The American military is stronger than ever. Europe is hell-bent on appeasement.

"The poster above wishes to maintain that the Western world has nothing to gain from hostilities, at whatever level, between Shi'a and Sunnis in Iraq."

My words are here for all to see. I wrote that such hostilities would not solve the West's islamic problem--and they won't.

The Sunnis can't seize power in Iraqi territory--despite having done so for most of Iraq's history? The shiites have seized power in Lebanon. Lebanon is in a sunni area. Are shiites now more effective than sunnis somehow?

Saddam Hussein inherited nothing; he seized power in a coup.

Shiites were never outnumbered by sunnis in Iraq. you're playing games with population figures.

Running from an enemy and strengthening its position is a retreat in every language. You've failed to build a case to the contrary.

The Bush Doctrine doesn't call for "happy" coexistence between religious factions, despite your fanciful embellishments.

************

Again, you've failed to cite a single instance of successful "divide and conquer" strategy that has been used against islam. Until you do, your policy suggestion to do so are worthless.

The stated goal bush had for Iraq was a representative government--a goal which has been achieved. Describing it as "messianic" is not hyperbole, it's contemptible fraud.

The Bush administration is not trying to build religious and political unity. It is trying to build a state that is freer and more democratic than its neighbors.

Guess what? It succeeded.

Your blind opposition and abject stupidity are unforgivable. I can trash your sophistry no matter how much I drink--and I drink a lot.

Who am I addressing "from above?" Hugh G. Rection, of course. You aren't even man enough to address me personally, are you? Pull your pinky out, Mini-Me.

Bush sold me. Regardless of whoever takes power if America cuts and runs, you can bet it would be absolute. Like he said, both Shiites and Sunnis have the same hostility to the West, and it would make it only worse for us if it became a chaotic Islamic bastion, another Syria or Iran. We have many goals to achieve in Iraq that can only be achieved from inside Iraq. But Hugh is right in certain respects; we must adapt to the role of nation building, and find ways to defend against those “low blows.” We must mold Iraq and the Greater Middle East to our vision, such that one day people of the Middle East will visit Mecca to shake their heads at the Relic of Shame. To let the Muslims run free in any country, to do what they want, is gross negligence.

Before embarking on any nation building, we need to defeat the Muslims first. I think what Hugh is saying is that our Army should be focused on defeating that enemy. Instead, it is being used in a policing role to defend government by sharia--which is actually self-defeating for us.

As long as Iraqi Muslims cling to an Islamic form of governance, they are doomed to despair and violence anyway. We could spend our entire GNP trying to help them, and it would make no difference. They will learn no lessons except that extortion and deception work well in hoodwinking the infidel governments out of their treasure. And because of their triumphalist Islamic indoctrination, they will never show, not in a thousand years, the slightest gratitude or appreciation for the help they are getting. They certainly will never take genuine democratic instincts permanently to heart--such is forbidden by Islamic teaching.

If we had initially forced them to exclude Islamic law from their constitution and had ruthlessly crushed all the Islamic militias in Baghdad, then Iraq might have a fighting chance right now to join civilization. Of course, we didn't do anything close to that. If we had insisted that 100% of any reconstruction costs be paid for out of Iraqi oil revenues (instead of being pocketed as proper Islamic loot bestowed by Allah) then we would not now be bankrupting our own nation.

The way I see it, the Administration is trying to end the war before the war is over and trying to simply buy Iraqi acquiescence. The "stay the course" thing is actually a very much passive approach based on the idea that, through constructive contact with us, the Iraqis will somehow warm to and then eventually adopt our value system. That is foolish--it will not happen in our lifetimes or a hundred lifetimes. It cannot happen until Muslims finally realize that their misery is caused, not by others, but by Islam itself.

The withdrawal that Hugh has in mind is not based on passivity--it is a call to be much more aggressive against the global Islamic conspiracy, in all dimensions of power, not just military power. And if the Army is to be employed, send them somewhere to kick butt, or somewhere preparing for the next butt-kicking, or else don't send them anywhere. Hugh's admonition is a call to regroup and conserve our resources so we have something left for the next major battle, soon ahead. On that, I agree.

Mr.Fitzerald seems to be confused with who is the enemy, p.s. it is not Mr.Bush. Also please look at how muslims were sent off on their merry way, it was physical brute force, war, with all its ugly worts, that is the only respect these islamofacists understand. Mr.Bush has not only his hands tied behind his back from the leftist in the US and EU,UN, but hobbled like a horse as well. What was truly needed was a total destrcution in military terms. but the Democrats and Rep.RINO's are such cowards and opportuanists, that is not possible.
When you look at how ret.Gen.Westley head of the UN just bomb the crap out of Serbia, killing innocent children and women and men, schools, bridges, churchs.. there was not much of an outcry. no pictures of those "Christian" being killed. now you have these Demoncrats crying about rights not given to prisoners at G'itmo, on and on.. Bush has some hell of fight even amony his State Dept! so Mr.Fitzerald you continued attacks on the only President since R.Regan who is at least doing something, just gives more fodder to the likes of the smelly crowd of Michael Moore, shame on you Mr.Fitztgerald!