Reply
Mon 22 Aug, 2005 10:21 am
Sunday Herald UK
21 August 2005
Time for the world to save America
Iain Macwhirter argues that the international community must unite to organise a phased withdrawal from Iraq, otherwise a humiliated US could revert to isolationism, leaving tyrants everywhere free to wreak havoc
The amazing thing is that it has taken this long. More than 1800 American soldiers have died since the Iraq war began and 10,000 have been left with terrible wounds. Yet only now is a significant anti-war movement getting off the ground in the US, with Cindy Sheehan's highly publicised vigil outside President Bush's Texas ranch on behalf of her dead soldier son, Casey.
Some 60,000 anti-war activists have registered support for Ms Sheehan. That may not seem a lot - after all, hundreds of thousands of Americans marched against the war before the invasion of Iraq. But in the US it is seen as deeply unpatriotic to question a war while American soldiers are still fighting it. However, Sheehan's heartfelt call for Bush to explain what her son died for has captured the imagination of the nation's media.
Comparisons are inevitably being drawn with Vietnam, not least because President Bush's popularity ratings have sunk to levels unseen since the days of Lyndon Johnson. One difference is that the anti-war movement in the 1960s was driven, not by service moms, but by young men who didn't want to be drafted. There is no prospect of a return to the draft in Iraq, even though the military is finding it extremely hard to recruit soldiers. It is unprecedented for a war fought by professional soldiers to arouse such vocal public opposition.
As the death toll climbs inexorably toward 2000, there are now serious doubts about whether America has the stomach for a protracted occupation lasting six to 10 years, which is what military planners have been talking about. That could mean another 6000 bereaved mothers taking their grief to the President's doorstep.
It seems incredible now, but Americans were told that there would be no casualties at all in Iraq. This was to be a new kind of war, where smart weapons and overwhelming military strength would make resistance futile. This was why America deployed so few troops and gave little thought to how to run Iraq after it was "liberated". On May 1, 2003, George W Bush declared that all major combat operations had ceased, in what must rank as the most premature declaration of victory in the history of human conflict.
But this is a war nobody wants to fight any more, not even the military. Pentagon chiefs have already said that they hope to bring 30,000 troops home next spring. Britain is planning to cut troop strength in Iraq from 9000 to 3500 in the next year. It looks like a withdrawal and has led some to speculate that the coalition intends to "cut and run".
Chance would be a fine thing. There seems little prospect of any early disengagement, even if the Iraqi ethnic groups agree a new constitution tomorrow when the second deadline expires. America was clearly hoping that the Middle East would turn the corner this summer. The withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied Gaza was carefully choreographed to coincide with the new constitution in Iraq.
With progress over Palestine (not that the Palestinians in the still Israeli-occupied West Bank would recognise it as such) and a democratic constitution in place for Iraq, the Americans could have returned claiming some sort of victory and announced the job done.
However, right now, a withdrawal from Iraq would look like a victory for the insurgents. The lightly-armed attackers have proved terrifyingly effective in keeping up the pressure with suicide bombs and, increasingly, with more sophisticated remotely-controlled detonations. The insurgents are better organised and trained than a year ago, and unlike America, there seems no shortage of recruits to the cause of jihad.
But it isn't just the insurgency that could keep America in this quagmire for years. If America pulled out tomorrow, there would very likely be civil war. The Kurds in the north are determined to have an autonomous Kurdistan, and have demanded that the oil-rich region of Kirkuk should be part of it.
Unlike the Sunni Muslims in the centre of Iraq and the Shia in the south, the Kurds are intensely pro-American and want nothing of the Islamic theocracy that is likely to emerge in most of the country. It's a little like Ulster in the 1920s after the creation of the Irish Free State. Like the Ulstermen, the Kurds are also determined to keep their Peshmerga armed forces.
If US troops withdrew tomorrow, the insecurity on both sides would be difficult to contain, especially since most of the country remains shattered and filled with armed Islamic fundamentalists. The suicide bombers who have been targeting the Americans would likely turn to the secular Kurds. The Sunnis and the Shia, meanwhile, would pursue their theological disputes on the streets in the traditional bloody manner.
There is no escaping the obvious. The invasion of Iraq was a massive miscalculation by right-wing ideologues in the Republican Party who believed that America had to assert its military hegemony. They were intoxicated by the sales talk of the arms industry which told them that it was possible now to win wars without casualties and that Iraq would instantly become a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. Wrong on both counts.
Whatever government finally emerges, it's clear that most of the country will become an introverted Islamic Republic, closer to Iran than America. In Basra, fundamentalism already has a power base. What will the service moms say when they discover their boys sacrificed their lives to create another Islamic dictatorship which loathes America and everything it stands for, which treats women as second-class citizens, persecutes non believers and which regards Christianity as evil?
The Project for a New American Century is in ruins. The neo-conservatives, who dreamed up this new American imperialism, and inspired Bush on his reckless military adventures, have achieved precisely the reverse of what they intended. Instead of America assuming the role of invincible world policeman, the greatest military power on the planet has been shown to be very vulnerable. A handful of insurgents have been able to nail America down, just as the mujahideen nailed down the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. America is looking isolated, unable to look to support from traditional allies in Europe (Blair excepted), and facing defeatism at home.
Even those of us who opposed the war from the start cannot but feel worried about the consequences of America's imminent humiliation. It could mean a return to US isolationism. Who in future is going to challenge Serbian fascists or African dictators? America's stumble could make us all fall on our faces.
Which is why America needs to act now. It should go to the United Nations and invite the international community to organise a phased withdrawal from Iraq. Only the united forces of the international community, including, most importantly, the Islamic world, can help America out of this mess now.
Unless an exit strategy is found, George W Bush faces a rapid descent into chaos followed by a military rout and an epoch-making defeat of the Republican Party at the presidential elections in 2008. Condoleezza Rice, who is emerging as the most likely to succeed Bush, has little chance of becoming the first black woman in the White House unless she finds a way to withdraw with dignity.
If Tony Blair wasn't so deeply implicated in this fiasco, he might have been the one to help America out of this hole . The PM promised that, with America's help, he could rid the world of tyrants, failed states, fascist regimes. Instead, the world's dictators are sleeping more easily in their beds. And angry mothers are shouting at Bush's bedroom window.
They have sown the wind, and reaped the whirlwind.
What a disaster, George Dubya Bush.
BBB
good article
if we dont rise up and take control of our destiny the neo-cons are gonnas rail us into deep doo doo!
why shoul ours die for an islamic state of Iraq, all the reports are confirming the administration realising its in a crisis has sold our values of human rights and democracy don the pan and the shias have got what theyve been after an Islaimc republic of Iraq!!!
It's an excellent article. Certainly helped me clarify some conflicting thoughts.
If the weak mentality and impatience you are showing here had prevailed in WWI, WWII, you wouldn't have the luxury of sharing your opinion as you're doing now. England would never have endured the Blitz. What are you thinking??
Haven't you learned anything from history? Do you know how long it took THIS country to gain independance and come up with a workable Constitution? I'm glad George Washington didn't say "It's just too damn cold" at Valley Forge. I'm glad Lincoln didn't think "This war is making me too unpopular, I'd better cave to public sentiment."
Worthwhile things take time and people die in war. Nothing is more crucial that what is going on on the Middle East right now. It is crucial to them, us and the rest of the world.
Even when they get a standing government and a set of laws agreed on--it won't be over then. There may be upheavals--as the US had--but cutting and running would be horribly dangerous and stupid and show NO resilience or sense of purpose.
The people wasting their time, waxing for pot addled sit ins and tie dyed shirts are pathetic. If you want to be an activist--send things to Iraq. For the Iraqis and more importantly for our troops. Support them rather than make them feel criticised. They could use support. Be part of the solution.
Hold rallies of support for them. If you're hellbent on criticising Bush, demand better equipment for the troops. Better living conditions.
That's what you'd be doing if you really gave a damn about them.
Lash wrote:If the weak mentality and impatience you are showing here had prevailed in WWI, WWII, you wouldn't have the luxury of sharing your opinion as you're doing now. England would never have endured the Blitz. What are you thinking??
This is clear-minded not weak-willed. The article is looking for practical outcomes, it isn't suggesting surrender.
Quote: Haven't you learned anything from history? Do you know how long it took THIS country to gain independance and come up with a workable Constitution? I'm glad George Washington didn't say "It's just too damn cold" at Valley Forge. I'm glad Lincoln didn't think "This war is making me too unpopular, I'd better cave to public sentiment."
America was struggling for its independence from Britain and it was doing so of its own volition and by itself. No-one was trying to set up a puppet administration using lies of "independence" for the emergent United States. That's why it worked.
Quote:Worthwhile things take time and people die in war. Nothing is more crucial that what is going on on the Middle East right now. It is crucial to them, us and the rest of the world.
And I think the article accepts that.
[/QUOTE]Even when they get a standing government and a set of laws agreed on--it won't be over then. There may be upheavals--as the US had--but cutting and running would be horribly dangerous and stupid and show NO resilience or sense of purpose.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I fear regardless of what happens that civil war is inevitable
Quote:The people wasting their time, waxing for pot addled sit ins and tie dyed shirts are pathetic. If you want to be an activist--send things to Iraq. For the Iraqis and more importantly for our troops. Support them rather than make them feel criticised. They could use support. Be part of the solution.
They could use materiel and competent poliitical leadership.
[/QUOTE]Hold rallies of support for them. If you're hellbent on criticising Bush, demand better equipment for the troops. Better living conditions.
[/QUOTE]
The argument that people can't criticise policy without criticising the instruments of policy has lost its potency.
Quote:That's what you'd be doing if you really gave a damn about them.
Getting them out as soon as practicable would be better. Again that's my reading of the article.
It's a mess, it's a failure of neocon policy and nothing Bush can say will change that. Time to correct the mess.
It is not a failure. It is a great success, which has not been given time for completion.
Getting them out= cutting and running and THAT would CAUSE a failure of epic proportions.
I don't think the article is advocating cut and run.
Quote:Even those of us who opposed the war from the start cannot but feel worried about the consequences of America's imminent humiliation. It could mean a return to US isolationism. Who in future is going to challenge Serbian fascists or African dictators? America's stumble could make us all fall on our faces.
Which is why America needs to act now. It should go to the United Nations and invite the international community to organise a phased withdrawal from Iraq. Only the united forces of the international community, including, most importantly, the Islamic world, can help America out of this mess now
It is advocating a no-smirk response from the rest of the world. Bush won't pay a political penalty for this mess but the Republicans may well pay it at the next Congressional elections. But that's for the American people to work out. Either way, as the article points out, the rest of us can't allow America to be humiliated because of the failure of Bush and his mates. It would be a continuing disaster for the world if America got into a huff and retreated from world politics. What worries me - and I am absolutely serious in stating this - is that China would start to occupy that vacuum. I might disagree vehemently with Bush and the neo-cons foreign policy but I can tell you I'm bloody terrified of China's foreign policy.
Quote:Yes, I fear regardless of what happens that civil war is inevitable
the sky is falling - sorry it's not going to happen
GF--
Let me do a tone check.
I don't care about Bush's political damage. I care about the reality on the ground in Iraq. You say "invite international community...to organize...phased withdrawal... and I read cut and run.
That is de facto what will occur.
The critics on the Left don't seem to understand that if this happens---or even if it is publicised that it's going to happen--at this juncture--Iraq will be worse than it ws before. We can't leave until the job is done.
Don't cry for us, Argentina. LOL!! If we didn't go isolationist through all this mess--we surely won't now. Humiliated....? Not hardly.
We're also not leaving a vaccuum in Iraq.
God, these next elections are so critical--and I don't even know who's running. I bet McCain. He'll finish it correctly.
Lash, any comparison between the struggle for independence in the US and this foolish foreign adventure by the rabid right only displays your ignorance.
Here's some criticism of this adventure by a true conservative:
Jerry Pournelle in response to a neo-con letter wrote:Regarding Iraq and what to do, and a national strategy:
Your arguments for the invasion echo the new NeoConservative line, and while many of my paleo conservative colleagues find them risible, I find them nearly persuasive. Not sufficiently so that I would have been in favor of the invasion had they been made at the time (they weren't; we invaded under a different rationale); but not unpersuasive now. The real question is, to whom was Iraq under Saddam a threat? And I would argue "Not to the people of the United States" I continue to advocate a foreign policy of being friends to liberty everywhere but guardians only of our own. I would have favored the Afghanistan invasion. I would have opposed the Iraqi invasion on the grounds that there are worse monsters if all we want to do is go abroad seeking monsters and dragons to slay; the criterion ought to be threats to the United States, and Iraq didn't pose much of one.
We have spent $300 billion in Iraq. I am quite certain that there are many ways we could have spent that much money that would have made the US far safer than invading Iraq made us. Larger navy (how will they get at us if we control the seas?); better border security (even the liberals believe that for $40 billion over 5 years we could pretty well eliminate the illegal alien population); if they can't invade us by sea or air, they have to get into the US some other way, and billions of dollars is real money; one can accomplish a lot of border control with that kind of money, and do it without blunting the fighting edge of the Army and nearly destroying the National Guard and Reserves.
I would say that if containment worked for Communism it will probably work to contain radical Islam. The West's cultural weapons of mass destruction -- rock music, videos, blue jeans, iPOD, Internet including pornography, etc. -- are quite enough to bring down military jihad Islam over time. So is the picture of Western decadent luxury. Contain them so they cannot expand; defend the borders; and allow the market place to work on the rest. If they choose to keep out Western influences they will end up like Burma and North Korea; if they don't, the Cultural Weapons of Mass Destruction and the promise of earthly delights will have their way on their youth. In either event we give them far less to shoot at. It's much easier to persuade someone to attack troops on your soil than to get them to travel a long way to blow themselves up in order to vent rage on the Internet or a rock band. Even the English case proves my point: is that the worst they can do? (No, but 911 wasn't as bad as many things can be and have been; and that was the worst they could do at the time when we had little warning.)
As to the cost of not having the 4th available in the invasion if you care to look you will find I said so at the time. We had to arm the Kurds and make use of Kurdish militia, exacerbating the centrifugal tendencies in Iraq. I am not myself certain of why we so insist on an indivisible Iraq given that the nation didn't exist before World War One, and was artificial when formed; but perhaps that is an argument for another time. I will agree that it would be a mistake simply to run out now, handing the militant jihadists a victory compared to which 911 was trivial. Had we merely gone in, deposed Saddam, and departed the lesson would have been very different; but we did not choose to do that. Had we gone in, used Saddam's army to set up our own puppet regime and made Iraq into a client state, that would have been proper Imperial conduct (of course I would have opposed that, but at least it would make sense). We have now committed ourselves to invading Iraq not for our national interest but for Iraq's own good, and that may be a larger mission than we can accomplish.
Your fear of Islam taking over Africa's poverty is not my own nightmare. So far the militant jihadists do not seem to be capable of creating and running any kind of modern state. The Taliban in Africa? Hard lines on the Africans, but really --
And why do you assume that the Africans can never resist these invasions? I can tell you from first hand experience that Haille Sellassie had first class troops at his disposal. It's a question of leadership, actually.
Finally regarding Global Warming, I can only hope that the world is catching up with the proposals I made in A Step Farther Out thirty years ago; but I do not think that carbon reduction will have much effect on global temperatures. It may well be worth doing -- this high a CO2 level is an experiment I wouldn't care to continue running if there's an easy way to avoid it -- but until we understand what is going on a lot better, I would prefer to put my money into studies and data collection on climate == and put my real money into ways to make the US more energy independent. Solar power satellites, nuclear power, better research into use of electricity for transportation vehicles -- I can think of much we might have done with, say, $200 billion of the $300 billion the Neocons have spent on the War In Iraq.
And I fear I am not persuaded to adopt Big Government Conservatism, whatever that is, by any accomplishments of the Bush regime. That hardly means I have an love for the Clintons.
I fear we Old Republic advocates are doomed to watch as neo=Jacobins and Socialists fight it out for control of a new Imperial state. But despair is a sin.
But continue to defend the indefensible.
husker wrote:Quote:Yes, I fear regardless of what happens that civil war is inevitable
the sky is falling - sorry it's not going to happen
Noted - although I must admit, I'm not usually one to say "told you so" but we shall see :wink:
didnt we cut and run in Veitnam, Somalia, Yemen and Lebabnon, and didnt those folk carry on without us?
DrewDad--
First, I think the first one to attack the poster because of their opinion has run out of valid comments. Shame on you. Personal attacks like that lower the bar in this community. I am, in no way, ignorant of this subject, but that idiot, Jerry Pournelle is.
Almost everything he said is incorrect. I can't believe you buy that bullshit.
I'm going to work. I'll point out his ignorant statements later.
But, chew on this. Any struggle for independance of nations IS applicable to Iraq's. For those like you and Pournelle, who can't get over how it came about and who allow that to pervert your thinking process on what should NOW BE DONE to acheive the best result, yuo may as well not speak. IT IS DONE. Rehashing your tired opinions about the war is a waste of time.
We are living in the NOW. Stevewonder-- Think a bit more about those examples. You may want to delete that post.
Lash
Lash wrote:DrewDad--
First, I think the first one to attack the poster because of their opinion has run out of valid comments. Shame on you. Personal attacks like that lower the bar in this community. I am, in no way, ignorant of this subject, but that idiot, Jerry Pournelle is.
Almost everything he said is incorrect. I can't believe you buy that bullshit.
I'm going to work. I'll point out his ignorant statements later.
But, chew on this. Any struggle for independance of nations IS applicable to Iraq's. For those like you and Pournelle, who can't get over how it came about and who allow that to pervert your thinking process on what should NOW BE DONE to acheive the best result, yuo may as well not speak. IT IS DONE. Rehashing your tired opinions about the war is a waste of time.
We are living in the NOW. Stevewonder-- Think a bit more about those examples. You may want to delete that post.
Anyone stupid enough to invade Iraq is also stupid enough to not have a peace plan and an exist strategy. Stupid is as stupid was. I despise Bush for the first stupidity. I despise Rumsfeld even more for being too stupid to support our troops with a peace plan and an exit strategy.
BBB
Lash, it is not an attack to point out that you are mistaken. Nor is it an attack to point out the magnitude of your mistakes. Do you even know who Pournelle is? Calling him an idiot is only another example of your abysmal ignorance.
"Any struggle for independence" is not applicable to Iraq. The American Revolution was accomplished by patriots who put their fortunes and lives on the line. It is more appropriate to compare the American Revolution to the current insurgency in Iraq than to the reckless imperialism of the Bush invasion. One cannot hand out freedom like it is candy; people only value that which is earned.
But continue to defend the indefensible.
Yes, it would help Lash's understanding to consider the insurgents not terrorists, (an unhelpful and deliberately pejorative catch-all term) but Muslim Minutemen.
The invasion is a war crime.
And a very stupid waste of lives and money.
Creating a new government from the bottom up, with people who have never experienced self-determination IS a struggle for independance and that is EXACTLY what is going on right now--and it goes on under fire of terrorists who are desperate to make it fail--and in who's greedy, murderous hands you throw Iraq, if you follow the stupid weak-willed warblings of idiots like Pournelle.
It IS a struggle for independance.
A withdrawal now is aiding and abetting the enemy.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace