I think mounting casualties and the administrations shifting rationales for, invading Iraq have had a far greater effect upon the anti-war movement. The reasons for continuing our current policies, “to leave now, would dishonor the sacrifices of those who have died, or they cannot be allowed to have died in vain”, is on face illogical and disingenuous, if it is not illogical then there are over 58,000 reasons to invade Viet Nam.
Some members of the administration had long held a view of a permanent US presence in the Middle East, especially one that would allow for one in direct proximity to oil reserves. Iraq was a target of convenience; it would fulfill long-term strategic aspirations. Announce a policy of preemption; present a series of suppositions and conjectures about, 9/11, Saddam and an Ossam, add a UN resolution, and then denounce the UN for not defining serious consequences, as war, and it is off to Iraq.
Strategic decisions are made on hard evidence, not supposition; you may have to make tactical decisions on best available information as they require immediate attention, but strategic issues are not of an imminent nature. The 9/11 Commission report does not provide the hard tactical or even strategic evidence for the invasion of Iraq, and as time passes it appears more likely that, this administration, took that lack of hard contrary evidence as confirmation of their predisposed views, in other words, there is no evidence against it so that is evidence for it.
The bottom line is the UN did not sanction the invasion, this was a decision made by this administration unilaterally. With no disrespect to our “coalition” partners it is the US bearing the brunt of the casualties and the expense of invading Iraq.
The question now is how to bring about the best possible outcome in Iraq. Current policies have resulted in fewer hours of electricity, more deaths and violence, less potable water, lower oil production, and greater sectarian division then before the war. The draft constitution’s rejection by the Sunni representatives does not bode well, and the only contingency being offered is “stay the course”. Well the administration’s course has led us on to the reefs of reality, either you come up with a different idea or your ship gets pounded to pieces on the reef.
To leave now would be wrong, not because of those who have died, but because of the average citizens in Iraq. Powel was right, “you break it you own it”, because of the sectarian and tribal rivalries, animosities, and divisions it will be years, perhaps decades before the Iraq will be stable and self governing. Trying to internationalize the current situation, is like calling the plumber after trying to fix it yourself, it always cost more, especially when the plumber is the UN, and you have berated them for the last five years, or NATO where two of the largest members, France and Germany were less than receptive to the invasion and were chastised vehemently for their opposition.
This administration has isolated us as regards Iraq, if the outcome is to be positive it will have to be at our initiative, and “staying the course” is not working. To succeed we will need to deploy 50 to 100,000 additional combat troops, and systematically secure an area and then extend outward from this secured area, securing weapons caches and destroying resistance when met. Currently we patrol and temporarily occupy, then when we leave the insurgency returns, much as in the early days of Viet Nam. By the end of Viet Nam, we had learned to maintain a permanent presence in the village, extend the secure perimeter, destroy resistance, and the village was ours, but leave and the VC were back the next day. Staying the course is not a plan for success it is face saving rhetoric for a poorly planned strategy. You can blame the media, or the antis or the man in the moon, but the real fault, if we fail, is this administration and its’ leaders.
Life is no joke but funny things happen
jon
