Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War
By Martin van Creveld
November 25, 2005
The number of American casualties in Iraq is now well more than 2,000, and there is no end in sight. Some two-thirds of Americans, according to the polls, believe the war to have been a mistake. And congressional elections are just around the corner.
What had to come, has come. The question is no longer if American forces will be withdrawn, but how soon ?- and at what cost. In this respect, as in so many others, the obvious parallel to Iraq is Vietnam.
Confronted by a demoralized army on the battlefield and by growing opposition at home, in 1969 the Nixon administration started withdrawing most of its troops in order to facilitate what it called the "Vietnamization" of the country. The rest of America's forces were pulled out after Secretary of State Henry Kissinger negotiated a "peace settlement" with Hanoi. As the troops withdrew, they left most of their equipment to the Army of the Republic of South Vietnam ?- which just two years later, after the fall of Saigon, lost all of it to the communists.
Clearly this is not a pleasant model to follow, but no other alternative appears in sight.
Whereas North Vietnam at least had a government with which it was possible to arrange a cease-fire, in Iraq the opponent consists of shadowy groups of terrorists with no central organization or command authority. And whereas in the early 1970s equipment was still relatively plentiful, today's armed forces are the products of a technology-driven revolution in military affairs. Whether that revolution has contributed to anything besides America's national debt is open to debate. What is beyond question, though, is that the new weapons are so few and so expensive that even the world's largest and richest power can afford only to field a relative handful of them.
Therefore, simply abandoning equipment or handing it over to the Iraqis, as was done in Vietnam, is simply not an option. And even if it were, the new Iraqi army is by all accounts much weaker, less skilled, less cohesive and less loyal to its government than even the South Vietnamese army was. For all intents and purposes, Washington might just as well hand over its weapons directly to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Clearly, then, the thing to do is to forget about face-saving and conduct a classic withdrawal.
Handing over their bases or demolishing them if necessary, American forces will have to fall back on Baghdad. From Baghdad they will have to make their way to the southern port city of Basra, and from there back to Kuwait, where the whole misguided adventure began. When Prime Minister Ehud Barak pulled Israel out of Lebanon in 2000, the military was able to carry out the operation in a single night without incurring any casualties. That, however, is not how things will happen in Iraq.
Not only are American forces perhaps 30 times larger, but so is the country they have to traverse. A withdrawal probably will require several months and incur a sizable number of casualties. As the pullout proceeds, Iraq almost certainly will sink into an all-out civil war from which it will take the country a long time to emerge ?- if, indeed, it can do so at all. All this is inevitable and will take place whether George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice like it or not.
Having been thoroughly devastated by two wars with the United States and a decade of economic sanctions, decades will pass before Iraq can endanger its neighbors again. Yet a complete American withdrawal is not an option; the region, with its vast oil reserves, is simply too important for that. A continued military presence, made up of air, sea and a moderate number of ground forces, will be needed.
First and foremost, such a presence will be needed to counter Iran, which for two decades now has seen the United States as "the Great Satan." Tehran is certain to emerge as the biggest winner from the war ?- a winner that in the not too distant future is likely to add nuclear warheads to the missiles it already has. In the past, Tehran has often threatened the Gulf States. Now that Iraq is gone, it is hard to see how anybody except the United States can keep the Gulf States, and their oil, out of the mullahs' clutches.
A continued American military presence will be needed also, because a divided, chaotic, government-less Iraq is very likely to become a hornets' nest. From it, a hundred mini-Zarqawis will spread all over the Middle East, conducting acts of sabotage and seeking to overthrow governments in Allah's name.
The Gulf States apart, the most vulnerable country is Jordan, as evidenced by the recent attacks in Amman. However, Turkey, Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Israel are also likely to feel the impact. Some of these countries, Jordan in particular, are going to require American assistance.
Maintaining an American security presence in the region, not to mention withdrawing forces from Iraq, will involve many complicated problems, military as well as political. Such an endeavor, one would hope, will be handled by a team different from ?- and more competent than ?- the one presently in charge of the White House and Pentagon.
For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins.
The multiple levels of stupidity in this article would take a lot of my time to categorize fully, but let me just say that the invasion was necessary and right. With the numerous truly unjust wars in the past couple of thousand years, to term this one the most unust war since the Caesars is absurd. What, for instance, about Saddam Hussein's annexation of Kuwait?
Let me just pick the easiest target in this extremely foolish article and ask on what grounds anything connected with this war would create grounds to impeach the president. The Constitution says the president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and so in order to be impeached, first the president must literally commit a crime, that is, a violation of a specific statute on the books. The author is living in a dream world.
Brandon9000 wrote:The multiple levels of stupidity in this article would take a lot of my time to categorize fully, but let me just say that the invasion was necessary and right. With the numerous truly unjust wars in the past couple of thousand years, to term this one the most unust war since the Caesars is absurd. What, for instance, about Saddam Hussein's annexation of Kuwait?
Let me just pick the easiest target in this extremely foolish article and ask on what grounds anything connected with this war would create grounds to impeach the president. The Constitution says the president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and so in order to be impeached, first the president must literally commit a crime, that is, a violation of a specific statute on the books. The author is living in a dream world.
There you go again. What ruse is your opening gambit for the invasion of Iraq this time?
WMDs?
Bring democracy to Iraq?
Remove Saddam.
Enforce UN resolutions?
Which one are you going to start with? Why don't you just list them all in one post so they can be rebutted all at once so you don't litter this thread with more of regurgitations of falacious and factually debunked Rght Wing talking points?
...As to your knowledge of the Constitution:
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution's impeachment clause, and the historical application thereof leads to the inescapable conclusion that articles of impeachment can be brought against a President for his commission of high crimes against the United States.
It is the consensus among legal and constitutional scholars that the phrase "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" refers to "political crimes." While not necessarily indictable crimes, "political crimes" are great offenses against the federal government...
Public Law 234-107: AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ243.107]
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
Public Law 107-243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - [H.J. Res. 114]>>
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace
and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission
of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission
of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report
required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the
requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Approved October 16, 2002.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-721 (Comm. on International Relations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.
Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.
<all>
First, let me say I abhor the very thought of war. I went to one once, and I didn't enjoy it very much at all. I've studied quite a few of them too, and there hasn't been a one that I can think of which didn't have unintended consequences.
That said, I differ on some points of discussion at hand regarding the current conflict. To begin with, the Cessation of Hostilities in The Gulf War was merely that ... a Cessation of Hostilities. No Formal Instrument of Surrender was executed. A number of conditions were imposed on Iraq at that time, all of which, apart from withdrawl of its forces from Kuwait, Iraq has flouted. In the mind of the Iraqi Ruling Military Elite, they have been and are still at war; they never capitulated. Sadaam claims victory of a sort in that he was not crushed by The Coalition ... a claim which has considerable currency in "The Arab Street", and which has played no small part in the subsequent development of events throughout the Middle East.
I agree it would have been "Wise" to get rid of Sadaam back in '91.
He is a madman who has without provocation invaded two of his neighbors, gassed his own citizens, maintains a vicious, totalitarian regime, and fosters terrorism and unrest world wide. However, the UN Mandate which resulted in The Gulf War had as its clearly stated objective nothing more or less than the removal of Iraq from Kuwait. Once that had been accomplished, there remained no basis for the further prosecution of war. That does not diminish the fact that hostilities were halted prematurely. The purpose of war is to destroy your enemy's will and ability to make war on you. In '91, Iraq's military was left with substantial forces and material assetts. The "100 Hour War" came to an end having not accomplished the total destruction of the Iraqi Military (which circumstance, as Iraq was and is a Military Dictatorship, would have had dire consequences for Sadaam himself and his ruling Ba'ath Party, but nevermind - it didn't happen). Mostly in deferrence to the cries of "Brutality and Violence" rising from the World Press resultant from images of the destruction being wreaked upon the Iraqi forces fleeing along Route 6, the so-called "Highway of Death", an Offensive Standdown was ordered.
Some days following the official cease-fire, elements of Iraq's Hammurabi Division fired on Coalition VII Corps forces, bringing about the ridiculous situation that one of the largest set-piece battles of the war ocurred after the supposed end of the war. Iraq has continued to fire on Coalition aircraft enforcing the No Fly Zones which were conditions agreed to by Iraq at the Cease Fire. Sadaam has continually stated he considers himself and his nation unbeaten and still at war.
By anology here, what happened in '91 is akin to a situation wherein someone broke into a neighbor's house, taking its occupants hostage. The neighbors banded together, went into the house, gave the intruder a sound thumping, then tossed him and his weapons into the street with a stern admonition to refrain from such activity in future. The results have been as might logically have been predicted.
There are other problems to be dealt with in the world than Iraq. None the less, Iraq is one of the major problems facing the world, and must be dealt with. While I have little reason to believe that once Iraq has been dealt with that appropriate, effective action will be taken regards other Rogue States and miscellaneous World Hotspots, I can hope. In cleaning up a mess, one must begin somewhere. If we do not begin to clean up the mess, however unpleasant and repulsive the task, we are stuck with the mess, as unpleasant and repulsive as it is. Which is the lesser ill?
All means possible should be explored, implemented and exhausted prior to resorting to the final expedient of war. However, once those means have proved unfruitful, it is time to define the mission to the military, get out of its way, and let it do the job. Unfortunately, Militaries merely fight the wars started, managed, and ended by politicians. The Military's agenda is clear; Destroy The Enemy. The motives of Politicians, however, are never so simple. Therein lies the rub.
Yes but if Bush lied to Congress would that mean impeachment?
kuvasz wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:The multiple levels of stupidity in this article would take a lot of my time to categorize fully, but let me just say that the invasion was necessary and right. With the numerous truly unjust wars in the past couple of thousand years, to term this one the most unust war since the Caesars is absurd. What, for instance, about Saddam Hussein's annexation of Kuwait?
Let me just pick the easiest target in this extremely foolish article and ask on what grounds anything connected with this war would create grounds to impeach the president. The Constitution says the president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and so in order to be impeached, first the president must literally commit a crime, that is, a violation of a specific statute on the books. The author is living in a dream world.
There you go again. What ruse is your opening gambit for the invasion of Iraq this time?
WMDs?
Bring democracy to Iraq?
Remove Saddam.
Enforce UN resolutions?
Which one are you going to start with? Why don't you just list them all in one post so they can be rebutted all at once so you don't litter this thread with more of regurgitations of falacious and factually debunked Rght Wing talking points?
The president said quite a large number of times that we needed to invade Iraq to resolve the WMD issue permanently. As for my own words, this is the only reason I have ever given for the invasion in many dozens of posts on this board.
You have a selective memory. Your tinhorn hero has embarked on a path of constant revisionism as to his reasoning for invading Iraq. He has emphasized every one of the items I listed and has moved from one to another whenever the facts prove him wrong.
As to WMD, your hero conveniently lumped in chemical and biological weapons with nuclear weapons. There is a quantum difference and it is decitful rhetoric to cast them all in the same bag. iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed by the UN or themselves, they had no biological weapons, they had no nuclear weapons or even "programs." You were lied to by your hero about this. A web of deciet was spun by selective cobbling of irrelevent facts and outright lies. It is your side's uber nationalism and blood lust that got you foaming at the mouth to go to war, and now that even the slighest scintilla of evidence is gone for your position you still cling to the lies.
kuvasz wrote:...As to your knowledge of the Constitution:
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution's impeachment clause, and the historical application thereof leads to the inescapable conclusion that articles of impeachment can be brought against a President for his commission of high crimes against the United States.
It is the consensus among legal and constitutional scholars that the phrase "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" refers to "political crimes." While not necessarily indictable crimes, "political crimes" are great offenses against the federal government...
No, crimes means crimes. A crime is a violation of a specific statute, not just "We don't like what you did."
There are many things we can't fix Kuvie, and rightwing logic is one of them.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace