I've noticed that a number of analysts are saying things about the Iraq War along the lines of this: "one strategic aim of the Iraqi enemy is similar to the strategic aim of the North Vietnamese, during the Vietnam War: defeat the enemy by undercutting its political support back home."
Formulations like that imply that this goal is somehow unique. War is politics by other means, as the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz famously argued. Ultimately, the goal in any war is to convince the enemy to make a political decision favorable to one's own goals - whether that goal is a small piece of territory or unconditional surrender.
And I would also note that the more immediate aim of the Iraqi guerrillas is to demonstrate to Iraqis that the occupying power can't provide basic safety and security for Iraqis who cooperate/collaborate with the occupation authority.
There's also a lot of talk along the lines of "we're in Iraq now, and we can't just leave." It's usually put in terms of US "credibility" instead of our obligations as occupiers under international law.
But it's worth asking, why not? I don't think immediate withdrawal is a good option right now. But I seriously wonder what we're likely to gain by continuing the occupation. And whether it's right to keep our soldiers in combat for years when prospects for a good outcome are limited.
Because I think US credibility on our willingness to conquer and occupy Middle Eastern countries is much less important to our national security than credible airport screening. Or a credible computer system at the immigration service to flag foreign visitors who may be high terrorism risks.
Josh Marshall reports that there is considerable speculation among leading Democrats and Republicans that Bush and his political team may insist on an early troop withdrawal. Newt Gingrich was fretting publicly about that earlier this month.
If Bush and Karl Rove decide on that approach, they will have to find some half-credible way to call it a victory. But expect to see supportive arguments along the lines of those from Amitai Etzioni.
2 comments:
I don't think an immediate withdrawal is a good option either. With no military left to speak of and Saddam still running around somewhere (???), the possibilities for instability in the region are endless. I think we have a duty to get this country back on its feet.
I do object to giving Bush a blank check for reconstruction, especially when a lot of the money seems to be going straight to Halliburton and Bechtel. At the least, the tax cuts for the wealthy should have been rolled back...
Yeah, the crony capitalism aspect of this is one of the most appalling things about it. It's a real mess. I'm trying to fight the temptation of thinking there is some good way out of it. Because there probably isn't. And the lack of realism about the whole thing has been stunning.
Post a Comment