Iraq Today: Fight or Flight?
Published April 09, 2004
The right-wingers are advising ruthlessness in Iraq, and claiming that "we are militarily superior in every way."
But that claim is a big "So What?" as far as trying to reduce the threat from Radical Islamists (RI's) is concerned.
I remember one of the neocons saying, before the invasion, something along the lines of what Caligula said: "Let them hate so long as they fear" ('oderint dum metuant').
But no amount of military force is going to make Radical Islamists "fear" because to them, this is a religious war (as it appears to be to many of those right-wing extremists, the neoconservatives).
Another part of the problem is that Radical Islamists are an amorphous network so "military superiority" isn't going to work much better than it did in Vietnam. The RI's are spread even farther than the VC were, and we're going to see major acts of RI terror continuing no matter what happens in Iraq.
But, given that invading Iraq is going to go down in history as one of the stupidest political ideas ever, the US is there and it's going to have to get out some day.
One choice, favored by neocons, is to forcefully put down the current insurgency in Iraq. This could be done with more troops, bombing a few more mosques, killing more insurgents. This will increase the hate without necessarily instilling any fear in the RI's. It could stop the shooting in Iraq, but it is not going to diminish the world-wide Radical Islamist threat, and will likely increase it. Following this, the "plan" is that US will - somehow, perhaps with international help - be able to leave in a decade or two or three...
Another choice some recommend is to admit that the invasion was a bad idea and "cut-and-run," just pack up and leave right now. This would make a huge dent in the national psyche and the American reputation around the world, an immense cost. Clearly, it would also encourage the Radical Islamists.
It would, however, give the US an opportunity to regroup and think about whether invading nations is the best way to eliminate Radical Islamists who are interleaved with the citizenry of countries around the world (likely including the US). Concurrently, the US could start a counter-RI initiative, working with other countries. Besides finding RI cells and killing the members, they could do things like pressuring Pakistan on madrases, Saudi Arabia on funding, etc. This will cost less (in American lives and lucre), and in the long-run should reduce the number of RI's.
A third choice would be to put down the current insurgency, then leave.
I don't know which is the "best" choice. Whichever choice is made, there will still be Radical Islamists hating America 50 and 100 years from now. About all we can influence is how many there will be.
Thanks, Wolfie.
- Iraq Today: Fight or Flight?
- Published: April 09, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Hal Pawluk
- Hal Pawluk's BC Writer page
- Hal Pawluk's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Your list seems like a reasonable checklist for just about everyone on the American-appointed, puppet Governing Council, since virtually all lived outside Iraq before being appointed. (Kurds on the council lived in a region that was semi-autonomous even under Saddam for the previous decade.)
Chalabi, in fact, seems like a poster-boy for it.
It is war for oil. Years ago, Cheney and company realized the oil equation was going to tilt dangerously OUT of America's favor. Their estimates were somewhere around 2020.
Iraq has the second largest oil reserve on earth. Iraq HAD a leader hostile to America and her oil exploration/import rape squad.
Simple solution: Get Saddam. Install 'friendly' government. Who cares about 'democracy', human rights, barabarian murderer who killed his own people --- those were catch-phrases, sales tools, marketing slogans aimed at American voters and international observers.
It's a cliche that doesn't even register anymore, but
IT IS ABOUT OIL. ALWAYS WAS. That's why Bush wanted Clarke to find a connection on 9/12/01. That's why they drew up a plan long before 9/11.
On 9/11, I firmly believe Bush and Co. looked at the images of the Twin Towers and said to each other in privacy, "LET THE PARTY BEGIN!"
(see "American Dynasty" by Kevin Phillips for more on four generations of criminal activities by the Bush clan and their cronies)
Shark's solution: FLIGHT
it is history repeating itself
"Beyond the Euphrates began for us the land of mirage and danger, the sands where one helplessly sank, and the roads which ended in nothing. The slightest reversal would have resulted in a jolt to our prestige giving rise to all kinds of catastrophe; the problem was not only to conquer but to conquer again and again, perpetually; our forces would be drained off in the attempt."
Emperor Hadrian AD 117-138
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/14593)
I don't think it's just Radical Islamists. I have a feeling the priorities of the Iraqis are more or less;
1) get rid of Saddam (check)
2) get rid of Americans (working on it)
3) whatever their own agenda is (islamist state, kurdish state, personal gain, etc.)
The problem right now is that the big mistakes have already been made. The Americans claimed they were promoting the ideals of democracy and such. But in their actions they were not transparent, not accountable and didn't share anything with the Iraqis. What would you think if you were a jobless Iraqi sitting at home watching all that money that's supposed to be 'aid' go back to the US? When you see the way the American troops go about their policing duties (nightly razzias and such)? The way disputable killings and possible war crimes are not or badly investigated? All this can only lead to one conclusion; the Americans did not come to bring democracy. No matter how often they repeat it, it's just not credible. I'm not saying it's a 'war for oil' - I just don't know. I have a feeling it's a combination of several smaller factors. Because i just can't fathom incompetence on such a huge scale. I'm afraid the only way to solve things is though use of a time machine. Because right now they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
I think they will stay - for political reasons. So that the next administration (which will certainly be (D) unless a miracle happens in Iraq) will have to be the one that pulls out the troops and they can claim the dems lost the war (however false that would be).