Another Post About Iraq

Some of you who watch me here are in favor of the war in Iraq- a couple of you as enthusiastically in favor of it as I am vehemently against it.

The arguments in favor of continuing the war are as follows:

(1) We must support our allies, or else we will look weak.

(2) The job is not finished- we can't leave until Iraq has peace and a stable democratic government.

(3) By fighting terrorists in Iraq we prevent them from attacking our home soil.

Okay, so let's begin by analyzing the components of the insurgency:

A) Foreigners who just hate Americans and want to kill them all. Such people would not be in Iraq if we weren't. Yes, such people are prevented from attacking the USA- but only because we've made it so much easier for them to kill Americans closer to their homes. Rather than forcing the insurgents to expend millions of dollars to organize a handful of terrorists on American soil, we're sending over thousands, tens of thousands of the bravest among us for use as clay pigeons. This is not wise.

B) Foreigners and locals who want to establish an Islamic state. Two years ago we regarded such people, rightfully so, as the enemy. Today they control the single largest bloc of delegates to the Iraqi parliament. In many cities Sharia law has been established and enforced by militias. The people who two years ago were firing on us are now firing on us AND our local allies. Despite this, we regard the naming of members of this movement as prime minister and head of the national police, among other offices, as progress towards a free, democratic Iraq. This is not wise.

C) Locals who regard us as a conquering power and the new Iraqi government as a conquering power. These are the ones to REALLY worry about, because without any doubt, regardless of the status of the first two types, their numbers are growing. Even the government Bush is praising for its democratic origins is demanding US withdrawal from Iraq. The longer we stay in Iraq, the larger this group will grow, and the more likely it is that this group will overthrow the government we've coaxed into being. Yet our administration tries to ignore the fact that two out of three Iraqis now want us gone immediately, no matter what the consequences. This is not wise.

Against all three groups, but especially the third, there is only one positive action to take: permanent occupation of Iraq. Back in 2003 Paul Wolfowitz and his cronies stated openly that this was their intent- Iraq would provide a permenant base for American power to control the region. We cannot defeat the insurgency in battle- their numbers are constantly replaced by new groups, and they have nothing they can be forced to defend. Their supply lines are secure. We can only fight an ongoing battle to maintain the status quo, because there is no way to force a peace and because there is no ground to negotiate one.

In the meantime, North Korea and Iran thumb their noses at us, because they know we are IMPOTENT. We can't do anything more than maybe lob a missile or two in their direction, because our logistics and manpower is stretched to the breaking point by Iraq and Afghanistan. (Remember Afghanistan? The Taliban and Bin Laden still at large? President Kharzai wielding less power than the mayor of Kabul? THAT Afghanistan?) So much for withdrawal making us look weak.

So, let's see: before the end of the year Iraq will have cost more lives than all al-Qaida attacks on Americans since the FIRST World Trade Center attack. That's not counting nearly 20,000 wounded, nearly half of whom are crippled for life. In the meantime, Islamic terrorism has more public support in the Middle East than ever before; we've established a puppet government controlled in no small part by the enemies of freedom and democracy; that puppet government will fall almost immediately after our withdrawal, and the longer we stay the quicker it'll fall when we DO go; and while we're entangled in Iraq, we're rendered ineffective against any other threat to the safety of the American people.

Our options are either permanent occupation of Iraq- and you can ask the British how well THAT works- or else withdrawal. If withdrawal is the choice, a rapid withdrawal is better than a long "winding down of the conflict." The problem with an army crossing a river is that the enemy can do more damage to an army divided by water... and there's a lot more than a river between the US and Iraq.

And bear this in mind: permanent military occupation will only uphold the status quo, if that- and even that may not be enough. Military combat cannot defeat an insurgency- this was proven in Vietnam, it was even proven in this very nation during Reconstruction. You can only defeat an insurgency by eliminating the reasons for armed uprising- in short, by giving them what they want. In Iraq, they want an Islamic state and the US out of the Middle East- and they'll keep fighting until they get it.

So which makes more sense- staying, or withdrawing?

Another Post About Iraq

Some of you who watch me here are in favor of the war in Iraq- a couple of you as enthusiastically in favor of it as I am vehemently against it.

The arguments in favor of continuing the war are as follows:

(1) We must support our allies, or else we will look weak.

(2) The job is not finished- we can't leave until Iraq has peace and a stable democratic government.

(3) By fighting terrorists in Iraq we prevent them from attacking our home soil.

Okay, so let's begin by analyzing the components of the insurgency:

A) Foreigners who just hate Americans and want to kill them all. Such people would not be in Iraq if we weren't. Yes, such people are prevented from attacking the USA- but only because we've made it so much easier for them to kill Americans closer to their homes. Rather than forcing the insurgents to expend millions of dollars to organize a handful of terrorists on American soil, we're sending over thousands, tens of thousands of the bravest among us for use as clay pigeons. This is not wise.

B) Foreigners and locals who want to establish an Islamic state. Two years ago we regarded such people, rightfully so, as the enemy. Today they control the single largest bloc of delegates to the Iraqi parliament. In many cities Sharia law has been established and enforced by militias. The people who two years ago were firing on us are now firing on us AND our local allies. Despite this, we regard the naming of members of this movement as prime minister and head of the national police, among other offices, as progress towards a free, democratic Iraq. This is not wise.

C) Locals who regard us as a conquering power and the new Iraqi government as a conquering power. These are the ones to REALLY worry about, because without any doubt, regardless of the status of the first two types, their numbers are growing. Even the government Bush is praising for its democratic origins is demanding US withdrawal from Iraq. The longer we stay in Iraq, the larger this group will grow, and the more likely it is that this group will overthrow the government we've coaxed into being. Yet our administration tries to ignore the fact that two out of three Iraqis now want us gone immediately, no matter what the consequences. This is not wise.

Against all three groups, but especially the third, there is only one positive action to take: permanent occupation of Iraq. Back in 2003 Paul Wolfowitz and his cronies stated openly that this was their intent- Iraq would provide a permenant base for American power to control the region. We cannot defeat the insurgency in battle- their numbers are constantly replaced by new groups, and they have nothing they can be forced to defend. Their supply lines are secure. We can only fight an ongoing battle to maintain the status quo, because there is no way to force a peace and because there is no ground to negotiate one.

In the meantime, North Korea and Iran thumb their noses at us, because they know we are IMPOTENT. We can't do anything more than maybe lob a missile or two in their direction, because our logistics and manpower is stretched to the breaking point by Iraq and Afghanistan. (Remember Afghanistan? The Taliban and Bin Laden still at large? President Kharzai wielding less power than the mayor of Kabul? THAT Afghanistan?) So much for withdrawal making us look weak.

So, let's see: before the end of the year Iraq will have cost more lives than all al-Qaida attacks on Americans since the FIRST World Trade Center attack. That's not counting nearly 20,000 wounded, nearly half of whom are crippled for life. In the meantime, Islamic terrorism has more public support in the Middle East than ever before; we've established a puppet government controlled in no small part by the enemies of freedom and democracy; that puppet government will fall almost immediately after our withdrawal, and the longer we stay the quicker it'll fall when we DO go; and while we're entangled in Iraq, we're rendered ineffective against any other threat to the safety of the American people.

Our options are either permanent occupation of Iraq- and you can ask the British how well THAT works- or else withdrawal. If withdrawal is the choice, a rapid withdrawal is better than a long "winding down of the conflict." The problem with an army crossing a river is that the enemy can do more damage to an army divided by water... and there's a lot more than a river between the US and Iraq.

And bear this in mind: permanent military occupation will only uphold the status quo, if that- and even that may not be enough. Military combat cannot defeat an insurgency- this was proven in Vietnam, it was even proven in this very nation during Reconstruction. You can only defeat an insurgency by eliminating the reasons for armed uprising- in short, by giving them what they want. In Iraq, they want an Islamic state and the US out of the Middle East- and they'll keep fighting until they get it.

So which makes more sense- staying, or withdrawing?