The stated goals for "victory in Iraq" make no sense. Should the goal of Americans and other Infidels be to create a functioning state (with cigars passed around for the final birth of a happy, healthy, baby boy, after such a difficult pregnancy)? In any case this is impossible, with Allawi or Jaafari or Maliki or anyone at all, given that Islam itself is what prevents compromises and encourages continued aggression between Sunni and Shi'a. Both have taken from Islam the lesson that there can only be, after any conflict, only two possible conditions: that of Victor and that of Vanquished.
"Victory in Iraq" properly defined means a situation that justifies the expenditure of some $880 billion dollars (including in that figure the lifetime cost of care for the wounded veterans, and other expenses not yet factored in even by those, such as General MacCaffrey, who are critics of the war but inattentive to the real cost). That is more than the cost of all the wars, save World War II, that the United States has ever fought, in 2007 dollars. It must also justify the deaths of 3,700 soldiers and the severe wounding of 25,000. Bush's notion that the outcome of a unified Iraq is a better one for the United States than one in which Sunnis and Shi'a, at one level or another, continue to fight, is unfounded. Who knows? Who can predict exactly how they will or will not handle one another once the Americans leave? What's more, who can say what will happen when co-religionists on both sides line up behind their fellows in Iraq? That means primarily Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Sunnis cheerfully waved off by the Alawite rulers of Syria, on the Sunni side, and on the Shi'a side, the grim Islamic Republic of Iran, with its Al Quds Revolutionary Guards, and of course its handmaidens in Hizballah, whom all kinds of sensible people in Lebanon would love to see stream off as volunteers, screaming their devotion to Allah, to Iraq to defend their own faith from those terrible Sunnis.
And in the same way, would not greater Kurdish autonomy, or ideally a Kurdish state, be a threat to Iran? For it would hearten not only Kurds in Iranian-held parts of Kurdistan, but others in the area -- Arabs in Khuzistan, Baluchis to the east, Azeris in the north -- to bethink themselves, to wonder if they too, the non-Persians who make up half the population of present-day Iran, must forever be subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran. And another potential threat is to Syria. As for Turkey, the Americans could make clear that Turkey is no longer regarded as an indispensable ally, or even conceivably a reliable member of NATO, to the extent that it "returns to Islam" (as it is, steadily, day by day, under the guiding hand of Erdogan and many little erdogans), but that, in any case, the Americans will act as guarantors to insure that whatever pressures from this Kurdish state are made on Iran, or Syria, no such pressure will be put on Turkey, for the Americans, as the sole suppliers of military aid to Kurdistan, can guarantee their cooperation. And furthermore, it can hardly have gone unnoticed that economic cooperation between Turkey and Kurdistan is already in the works, and that the Turkish government might take an entirely different view of an independent Kurdistan, as not increasing outside pressure on it, but serving to decrease it -- for if Kurds in Turkey feel that they need an outlet for political expression other than the Turkish state, they are now welcome to move to an independent Kurdistan, and for all we know, some might take up the offer. And I have not even reached here the emulative effect the spectacle of one non-Arab Muslim people, the Kurds, throwing off the Arab yoke, would have on other non-Arab Muslims, such as the Berbers.
Finally, along with the sectarian (Sunni-Shi'a) division inside and outside Iraq, there are possible further unsettlements and sectarian strife in Pakistan, in Saudi Arabia (the oil-bearing Eastern Province), in Lebanon, in Bahrain, even in Yemen. Instead of being welcomed -- since when does one attempt to prevent division and demoralization in the camp of one's enemies? -- these are actively being deplored, in warnings from the Great and Good, that an American withdrawal will bring, could bring, might bring, that deplorable thing called "chaos" to the Middle East. Nonsense. Not "chaos" -- not with those kinds of despotisms willing to use their kind of force with their kind of secret police. Not chaos, really, but perhaps a using up of men, money, and materiel, and attention -- but this time they would all bear the initial adjective "Muslim" rather than "American," and that is a highly desirable change.
The only way to achieve victory in Iraq is to turn back the clock on the Islamic revolution of 79. You have to cut the head off the snake. Neutralize Iran by any and all means possible. Do that and we will watch the tide of terror attacks recede throughout the world. Do nothing and watch the countries fall to this islamic cancer like dominoes.
Never was much for the "stated" goals.
Now "national interest" has the ring of truth to it.
Between oil, power, and world stability, one can make a good, if not compelling argument for the West's involvement and need for victory.
Which is being achieved.
(50 dead jihadis per diem)
It is in our national interest to be and to win in Iraq,
(one day last spring, had an infestation of myriad flies in one portion of the porch. Went for the flyswatter - but it too slow, and they were too many. One quick shot of Raid - they were all dead.)
On the other hand, should we just give up and let them kill each other, all the while waiting for the victors to come kill us, Robert?
Goob,
That was written by Hugh, not Robert. And for the record, just how are these "victors" going to come and kill us?
Methinks you are firmly ensconced in the "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" crowd.
How many of the 9/11 Islamic hijackers were not living in the US prior to the event?
"should we just give up and let them kill each other, all the while waiting for the victors to come kill us..."
-- from a poster just above
You tendentiously describe the withdrawal of American troops, which if begun now will not be completed until 2008, five years and nearly a trillion dollars after the war began, as a case of "just giving up" ("should we just give up") when it could be a sign of an intelligent recognition of several things. It could be a recognition that the transplanting of "democracy" is impossible in a Muslim society, because of the nature of Islam, which - while it may allow for consultaton with advisers by the Ruler -- does not locate the Ruler's legitimacy in any will expressed by the people (as in the Western or now more generally non-Islamic tradition) but rather in the expressed will of Allah, as revealed in the Qur'an, and glossed by the Sunnah.
And that one heavily-guarded much-ballyhooed-by-Bush purple-thumbed exercise in mere vote-counting was suppoorted by one side, the Shi'a, only because it insured their consolidation of power, and opposed by the other side, the Sunnis, becuase it validated their loss of power. It had nothing to do with real democracy in the advanced Western sense, with its enshrining of the rights of minorities --- see the 14th Amendment -- and rights of individuals (see Amendments 1-8, but especially the First Amendment).
That poster then goes on to describe, apparently as a Bad Thing, a Thing To Be Avoided, the spectacle of an Iraq in which "we let them kill each other" (that is his way of describing an American decision to withdraw in order not to further risk American lives, and not to spend still more hundreds of billions of dollars, in keeping the two main parties -- the Sunni Arabs and Shi'a Arabs -- from "killing each other") and then, apparently after a short time, those "victors" (so tell us, since you have such fortune-telling abilities, which side will be the "victors" -- you forgot to specify), having been victorios and not having to bother, apparently, with the vanquished continuing to fight on, will have so much fight in them still that they will all be buying one-way tickets on planes and landing at JFK and Logan and O'Hare and Reagan, with their Kalashnikovs and supplies of explosives in tow, and not risking our own men any further, and squandering more than the first trillion, and using up much materiel and military morale in the process) thereby fulfilling the poster's prediction that, once that little business of "killing each other" is over, they will "come to kill us."
I could say a lot about this. But you know, this kind of thing at this point tires me out. It tires me out to repeat what should be the obvious. It tires me out to be mocking and nasty and insufferably cruel, when I am naturally very sweet. So you do it for me. You mock him. You be nasty. You be insufferably cruel.
That's an interesting perspective, Hugh. But it's one I have to disagree with. They make perfect sense. Whether they are achievable within the confines of American patience is a different story.
Operation Iraqi Freedom is as much about proving Al Qaeda wrong as it is about setting Iraq free.
Whatever the mistakes and ultimate uselessness of helping to brainlessly establish a Sharia Law-based "Islamic" state anywhere, we still need to kill jihadis wherever they appear.
They are appearing in Iraq.
Letting them control the oil fields would be irresponsible.
If you plan to show force, then you have to show it hard enough to intimidate any further outbreaks of terroristic lunacy.
Otherwise we embolden the Jihad.
Paper tigers get burned.
How are they coming for us if we leave? uhhhh, maybe through our Mexican borders? Or maybe through our Canadian borders? Or maybe just hop a plane and come to JFK?
They no longer have to depend on the Pinta or the Santa Maria.
Wow, what a challenge that question was. :)
Robert,
Has Iraq had any experience with Democracy in the past 100 years?
The minute Maliki is replaced, which is bound to happen, with the next choice by the US administration for his successor, the mirage of a freely democratically elected government in Iraq will vanish into thin air. Subsequently, the US will be seen not as a liberator, but rather as an oppressive occupier, enforcing US-led imperialist governance.
That should go over well in the Islamic world for sure.
Hugh certainly is not advocating withdrawal from this utopian fantasy of a free Iraq from a position of weakness or defeat, but rather as a victory for infidels.
Wide open borders in the US, coupled with an ineffective immigration enforcement agency will lead to further attacks on US soil. It is inevitable. No measure of victory in Iraq can off-set that reality.
While the concept of killing jihadists does and should appeal to all infidels, the finsish line, if you will, regarding the mission and its successful completion is murky at best. The ranks of the jihadists are easily replenished from the pool of over a billion Muslims worldwide. In addition, there is no reasonable way to differentiate friend, from tacit sympathizer, from foe.
A question I would pose to Dave is just how long our overtaxed military infantry is expected to endure this exercise in futility abroad. How many tours should these service men and women be required to perform? How much more money is required to accomplish this mission? Does dave support the re-institution of the draft, for it will most assuredly be needed going forward sooner, rather than later?
Yes, yes, Patreus will report signifigant progress in Spetember, but what will it really mean? We routed the Taleban in Afghanistan only to see them return in full vigor once our attention was drawn elsewhere. it is logical to assume that the same will occur in Iraq.
The US does not have the will to initiate what essentially amounts to the killing of every male Islamist in the region to effectively root out the current and future Islamic jihadist ideology.
Speaking of ideology, it is the complete lack of comprehension of Islam, whether willful or not, that promotes this fallacious thinking of winning the hearts and minds of the un-winnable. Islam will never allow that. Today's Islamic doctor is tomorrow's Islamic terrorist.
Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, possibly Turkey, the list could go on and on, are all Islamic countries that should concern the US. Iraq is not the be all and end all of the war against Islamic terrorism.
It is indeed to be a long war, fought on many fronts. long-term "boots on the ground" occupation, policing neighborhoods, certainly does not seem to be the best way to go. Not by a long shot.
Whatever the mistakes and ultimate uselessness of helping to brainlessly establish a Sharia Law-based "Islamic" state anywhere, we still need to kill jihadis wherever they appear.
They are appearing in Iraq.
Letting them control the oil fields would be irresponsible.
If you plan to show force, then you have to show it hard enough to intimidate any further outbreaks of terroristic lunacy.
--------