The only thing worse than saying something when one has nothing to say is being unable to say something when one DOES have something to say. Thank you, Oscar Wilde.
Anyway, I have been trying to get this posted for over a week, so I apologize if it no longer seems to be timely news.
I heard a report on NPR well over a week ago which hasn't attracted any other attention that I have found--which shocks me--and which ought to make us all scratch our heads in collective confusion. The report is that the latest military brilliance from the Dubya administration is to convert the war in Iraq to a situation "akin to that in Korea."
This has to be one of the all-time great "things that make you go wha?!?" The report was all about how many in the highest US military echelons now support the notion that if we draw down US troop levels and deploy them similarly to the way we deploy our troops in South Korea, we can establish and keep the peace.
Has no one at the Pentagon looked at a map lately? The dividing line on the Korean peninsula is nice, neat, fairly straight and short--and is anchored on both ends by large bodies of salt water. How could we deploy a reduced number of troops in Iraq in a similar fashion? Given what has been alleged about Iran supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents, I suppose that would mean a line along the Iran/Iraq border . . . which is much longer and harder to maintain than Korea's . . . and which is much easier than Korea's to circumvent, literally, by going around the ends. (Think Germany going through Belgium to avoid the Maginot Line and invade France.) Besides, I don't think it would win us any friends or influence people in Iraq or Iran.
We could deploy our reduced troop levels in a ring around Baghdad . . . around the parts of Baghdad we want to protect, anyway. But that means allowing ourselves to be surrounded by the enemy. (Think West Berlin during the Cold War.) That could be very exciting. West Berlin, with all its palpable intrigue and danger, was a really cool place to visit when it was behind the Iron Curtain. But the rest of Iraq, along with the rest of the Middle East, is not like western Europe in the 40s-90s. Somehow, I am not sure we could (1) establish and maintain lines of supply; (2) establish and maintain safe access road corridors; (3) establish and maintain stable governments for both Baghdad and the rest of Iraq.
Besides, if we could do that in Iraq, wouldn't we have done it already? Isn't that what we've been trying to do since the mission was allegedly accomplished way back in 2003? What in the world makes us think that by adopting a "Korean model" we suddenly have a solution for the quagmire in which Dubya has stuck us?
This "Korean model" is neither a good nor appropriate one for Iraq. The physical geography of the Middle East alone makes it impossible. Though I can see how Dubya would be attracted to the notion of the parallels between North Korea and Iran, seeing as how those two states were prominent in his "Axis of Evil" State of the Union address. And THEY both have WMDs. Maybe, if we were going to "make the world safe for democracy," we should have invaded one of those places instead of getting revenge on Saddam Hussein, who dissed Dubya's daddy.
Showing posts with label On the war in Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label On the war in Iraq. Show all posts
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Thursday, January 11, 2007
It's The Bee Gees vs. George Gershwin
Either it's a tragedy or it s'wonderful. Take your choice. Better yet, s'tragedy--in honor of all those who mispronounce "strategy"--and in dubious honor of all those who misuse it. Like our president.
I'll give Dubya this: I never thought the words "mistakes" and "mine" and "responsibility" would pass his lips in the same sentence . . . and yet they did last night during his speech revealing the new US strategy in Iraq. Not that his owning up to his errors made (or makes) a difference. I would be thrilled if Dubya's plan to put 20,000 more US troops in harm's way would help end the Iraq debacle--especially if it ended it favorably for the US. But I am not sanguine about its chances for success.
More troops with greater presence equates (to me and to many others more expert in military affairs than I) to more anger on the part of the insurgents . . . and more targets for them to hit . . . and more strife and needless bloodshed, not less.
In Iraq, we are in position not unlike the US's position vis-a-vis slavery in the early 18th century as analyzed by Thomas Jefferson. When you are riding a tiger, you don't want to hang on, but you cannot bring yourself to let go. There is deadly danger in any option you choose once you've foolishly put yourself in the position in which you find yourself.
A wholesale withdrawal would only embolden the terrorists who want to harm us. Staying only irritates those terrorists further. (Besides, they've not been able to solve their problems and settle their feuds for thousands of years . . . what the heck made us think we could do it for them?) An escalation that is more of a slow motion wave than a genuine surge will only prolong the agony. Too bad we can't call a mulligan and start over by not going into Iraq in the first place. [Gershwin wins again: You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to . . . let's call the whole thing off!--Ed.]
I grieve for our troops, who are struggling valiantly to do the impossible. If they succeed, all they do is breed resentment against the US. If they fail, they die. And I confess to not having any ideas at all about what to do. Well, that's not exactly true. If we aren't going to withdraw immediately, retrench, get new people into office in 2008, and go about rebuilding America's reputation in the world, we need to go in with overwhelming force and stomp out every last one of the terrorists in Iraq now. Not that we'll succeed. Terrorists are like cockroaches in that for every one you see, there are 10 you don't. But if we can overwhelm the visible terrorism long enough to get out (relatively) cleanly and let the Iraqis deal with their own problems, we've made the best of a very bad situation.
God help me, I am beginning to think we need Douglas MacArthur and Curtis LeMay to come back from the dead and throw a few nukes around. And that scares me most of all.
I'll give Dubya this: I never thought the words "mistakes" and "mine" and "responsibility" would pass his lips in the same sentence . . . and yet they did last night during his speech revealing the new US strategy in Iraq. Not that his owning up to his errors made (or makes) a difference. I would be thrilled if Dubya's plan to put 20,000 more US troops in harm's way would help end the Iraq debacle--especially if it ended it favorably for the US. But I am not sanguine about its chances for success.
More troops with greater presence equates (to me and to many others more expert in military affairs than I) to more anger on the part of the insurgents . . . and more targets for them to hit . . . and more strife and needless bloodshed, not less.
In Iraq, we are in position not unlike the US's position vis-a-vis slavery in the early 18th century as analyzed by Thomas Jefferson. When you are riding a tiger, you don't want to hang on, but you cannot bring yourself to let go. There is deadly danger in any option you choose once you've foolishly put yourself in the position in which you find yourself.
A wholesale withdrawal would only embolden the terrorists who want to harm us. Staying only irritates those terrorists further. (Besides, they've not been able to solve their problems and settle their feuds for thousands of years . . . what the heck made us think we could do it for them?) An escalation that is more of a slow motion wave than a genuine surge will only prolong the agony. Too bad we can't call a mulligan and start over by not going into Iraq in the first place. [Gershwin wins again: You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to . . . let's call the whole thing off!--Ed.]
I grieve for our troops, who are struggling valiantly to do the impossible. If they succeed, all they do is breed resentment against the US. If they fail, they die. And I confess to not having any ideas at all about what to do. Well, that's not exactly true. If we aren't going to withdraw immediately, retrench, get new people into office in 2008, and go about rebuilding America's reputation in the world, we need to go in with overwhelming force and stomp out every last one of the terrorists in Iraq now. Not that we'll succeed. Terrorists are like cockroaches in that for every one you see, there are 10 you don't. But if we can overwhelm the visible terrorism long enough to get out (relatively) cleanly and let the Iraqis deal with their own problems, we've made the best of a very bad situation.
God help me, I am beginning to think we need Douglas MacArthur and Curtis LeMay to come back from the dead and throw a few nukes around. And that scares me most of all.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Mess O'Potamia
(And with apologies to Jon Stewart for borrowing his pun . . .)
I am in serious curmudgeon mode today, it seems. I have had the exceedingly politically incorrect thought that what we really ought to do about the Middle East is this: we should sneak in and disarm/steal all the nukes on both sides (for our own protection), and then get out completely. Let the Arabs and Israelis fight it out amongst themselves until no one is left standing.
That's what they really want to do, anyway, it seems. We are never going to have lasting peace in the Middle East until the people there realize that revenge is NOT sound political policy. So far, for more than 7,000 years, that hasn't occurred to many people there, and I doubt it will become a popular concept there any time soon.
So let them kill each other off. Without nukes, no one there can destroy or even set off the rest of the world to destroy itself . . . if they can't learn to play nice, the heck with them.
Now, I know this is totally unrealistic. For one thing, it would be impossible for us to go in and safely take out all the nukes lurking around; for another, it's a terrible abrogation of our responsibility as a leader of the so-called Free World to help others (who want our help) to live in peace and some semblance of security.
But we can't just spank their bottoms and send them to Time Out in the corner, now, can we?
And there is no good solution without changing the fundamental mindset of both sides. Until they all learn that revenge is not the way, there's no hope for lasting peace.
Besides, our attempts to "help," like by invading Iraq, haven't done much except tip the balance of power to the more extreme Arabs in other countries like Syria . . . and Iran. So we're probably making things worse overall, not better.
It has been wisely noted that politics is the art of the possible. So far, Middle East peace seems impossible. And this is why I am not ever running for public office. I know what I'd like to say and to do, and I know what I'd be able to say and to do. There's no overlap.
The ultimate lesson is this: Ronald Reagan's push to end the Cold War is going to go down in history as Not A Good Thing. For, whether you liked the USSR or hated the USSR, you have to admit that the USSR was able to keep a lid on the Arab/Islamist fundamentalists and their desire to destroy the world if they couldn't have their own way. [I note this last in light of Hezbollah's stated desire to start WWIII.--Ed]
Better the enemy you know than the enemy you don't know. Better the enemy who understands certain basic concepts (such as "we are all on this Earth together, and we have to learn to live with one another even if we don't like one another, if we ourselves are to survive") than the enemy who couldn't give a damn about anything but glorious martyrdom and immolation.
I never used to want to die, ever, because I always wanted to see how everything turned out. [Yes, I sometimes read the last page of a novel first.--Ed] But I am beginning to think I no longer want to know.
Will someone please explain to me what the heck is so wrong with "live and let live"?
I am in serious curmudgeon mode today, it seems. I have had the exceedingly politically incorrect thought that what we really ought to do about the Middle East is this: we should sneak in and disarm/steal all the nukes on both sides (for our own protection), and then get out completely. Let the Arabs and Israelis fight it out amongst themselves until no one is left standing.
That's what they really want to do, anyway, it seems. We are never going to have lasting peace in the Middle East until the people there realize that revenge is NOT sound political policy. So far, for more than 7,000 years, that hasn't occurred to many people there, and I doubt it will become a popular concept there any time soon.
So let them kill each other off. Without nukes, no one there can destroy or even set off the rest of the world to destroy itself . . . if they can't learn to play nice, the heck with them.
Now, I know this is totally unrealistic. For one thing, it would be impossible for us to go in and safely take out all the nukes lurking around; for another, it's a terrible abrogation of our responsibility as a leader of the so-called Free World to help others (who want our help) to live in peace and some semblance of security.
But we can't just spank their bottoms and send them to Time Out in the corner, now, can we?
And there is no good solution without changing the fundamental mindset of both sides. Until they all learn that revenge is not the way, there's no hope for lasting peace.
Besides, our attempts to "help," like by invading Iraq, haven't done much except tip the balance of power to the more extreme Arabs in other countries like Syria . . . and Iran. So we're probably making things worse overall, not better.
It has been wisely noted that politics is the art of the possible. So far, Middle East peace seems impossible. And this is why I am not ever running for public office. I know what I'd like to say and to do, and I know what I'd be able to say and to do. There's no overlap.
The ultimate lesson is this: Ronald Reagan's push to end the Cold War is going to go down in history as Not A Good Thing. For, whether you liked the USSR or hated the USSR, you have to admit that the USSR was able to keep a lid on the Arab/Islamist fundamentalists and their desire to destroy the world if they couldn't have their own way. [I note this last in light of Hezbollah's stated desire to start WWIII.--Ed]
Better the enemy you know than the enemy you don't know. Better the enemy who understands certain basic concepts (such as "we are all on this Earth together, and we have to learn to live with one another even if we don't like one another, if we ourselves are to survive") than the enemy who couldn't give a damn about anything but glorious martyrdom and immolation.
I never used to want to die, ever, because I always wanted to see how everything turned out. [Yes, I sometimes read the last page of a novel first.--Ed] But I am beginning to think I no longer want to know.
Will someone please explain to me what the heck is so wrong with "live and let live"?
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Gin Rummy
Of all the gin joints . . . in all the world, why did [Rumsfeld] have to walk into mine?
I see that Sec'y of Defense Donald Rumsfeld tried to offer information, comfort, and support to our troops in Kuwait who are awaiting further deployment to Iraq. In this observer's not-so-humble opinion, he did not do a very good job. [Yet he is the one Cabinet official Dubya is adamant about keeping. Makes you wonder, I hope.--Ed.]
When asked why the soldiers had to sort through scrap piles to get metal to use as armor-plating for their vehicles, two of the several answers Rummy offered were: (1) you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want; and (2) you can put all the armor in the world on a vehicle and it can be blown up anyway.
>>ahem<< This is leadership?!?!?
I have an acquaintance who considers things like this, shrugs his shoulders and says, "Even Rome declined and fell."
True, but does it have to happen while we are alive?
We can do better, people. We'd better, if we expect to survive the next four years and beyond.
Excuse me, but I am going to go cower in the corner for a while. And maybe have a gin or two. Or three. Or more. I, for one, am afraid. I am very afraid.
I see that Sec'y of Defense Donald Rumsfeld tried to offer information, comfort, and support to our troops in Kuwait who are awaiting further deployment to Iraq. In this observer's not-so-humble opinion, he did not do a very good job. [Yet he is the one Cabinet official Dubya is adamant about keeping. Makes you wonder, I hope.--Ed.]
When asked why the soldiers had to sort through scrap piles to get metal to use as armor-plating for their vehicles, two of the several answers Rummy offered were: (1) you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want; and (2) you can put all the armor in the world on a vehicle and it can be blown up anyway.
>>ahem<< This is leadership?!?!?
I have an acquaintance who considers things like this, shrugs his shoulders and says, "Even Rome declined and fell."
True, but does it have to happen while we are alive?
We can do better, people. We'd better, if we expect to survive the next four years and beyond.
Excuse me, but I am going to go cower in the corner for a while. And maybe have a gin or two. Or three. Or more. I, for one, am afraid. I am very afraid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)