I got a very nice flame war to start with my last post on Iraq, so I think this calls for another! (Sue and I measure success of a post by how many comments we get. So if you are reading our posts and not commenting, then know that you are directly contributing to making us feel like losers).
From the comments, it's obvious that I need to clarify something here before continuing my discussion. At least for me, when I say "we", as in "we need to stay in Iraq", I mean we as a country, or as in the soldiers that are executing public policy as set forth by my democratically elected representatives. I'm not saying we should all move to Iraq and build Wal-Marts and turn all of Saddam's old palaces into really great band camps (with all the ensuing sex-ed and braces and that chick that played Willow on Buffy being naug...er...you get the idea).
Not speaking for anyone else, but I would be willing to tell any war-widow or war-mother out there that their husbands/sons were fighting and dying for a greater good. Invading Iraq was possibly a mistake. Let's not make it worse by running away from the mistake we made in invading. To imply that we cannot win because everyone in Iraq is a religious/cultural nut job is like saying every Republican is a religious/cultural nut job. It's just not true. I really believe that the majority of people just want to make a living and go about their lives and make life easier for their children, just like everyone in this country. Call me crazy, but I still believe most folks are rational. Rational people will look at the situtation and agree that if the current Iraqi government can provide security, then they will support it. If not, then they will support whom ever can. Democracy is great, but security is always a higher concern for man. Maslow's Hierarchy of needs for example places "safety" as the highest consideration of man after physiological needs (food, drink, air).
See, this is why history is important. Iraq is unfolding exactly like nearly every insurrection. The rebels take the tried and true strategy of hiding in the population, lashing out at high profile targets, and then trying to melt back into the population. Their goals are to try to:
(1) force the occupation to take shots at civilians in hopes of turning public support to their cause
(2) create a general feeling of "unsafety" ( woo hoo, my very own word! ) by damaging high profile targets in hopes of convincing people that the occupation cannot establish safety.
If they can achieve either goal, then the rebellion has a shot at getting the population on their side, and hence winning both politically and militarily. (1) has not occurred because the US army has show remarkable restraint with this war. It appears the US military actually took some lessons from Vietnam:
- kill zones = bad
- winning without local support is impossible
- In an insurrection, the military can only buy you time for a political solution
- building schools and roads is far more effective than dropping yet another 500 lbs bomb
(2) has occurred to an extent, but because the military has shown restraint and has done a relatively good job with their own security (not withstanding the 2000+ dead soldiers), the insurgents have resorted to more and more attacks against civilians. This is both good and bad for them. While it does further the goal of making people feel unsafe, it has the negative effect that people generally will not support those who are killing their neighbor.
I guess what all this talk boils down to is that when anyone says we should just withdrawal immediately from Iraq, what they are really saying is that the war on the ground is now unwinnable. I'm not convinced that Iraq is unwinnable. But it is a war that requires patience and persistence. If the US can prevent the insurgents from executing any really large scale attacks and keep the political process moving, I still think Iraq is winnable.


































