When will we learn?
How true. James Wolcott: Death in the Afternoon:
The parallels between Iraq and Vietnam are striking. In both cases, faced with an assymetric threat. In both cases, unwelcome.
What we need to have is some new thinking. Maybe the three states idea should be resurrected. Do the Turks want into the EU? Then, maybe they'll just have to get over their fears of Turkish Kurds wanting sovereignty with their Kurdish neighbors in Iraq. If states rights were so important to the U.S., maybe something similar is needed in Iraq.
We should set aside our fears of an Islamic theocracy in the Shi'a south. With the Sunnis disengaged from the elections, Iraq will be dominated by the Shi'a regardless. Whatever political forces take the helm in January, they will inevitably be heavily influenced by the Ayatollas anyway. So, let them do so in their own Shi'a state.
The Baathist insurgents in the Sunni Triangle have resorted to terrorist tactics, because they think it the only way to preserve any chance that they can regain their prominence. So what. Give it back.
Let them sort out the mess on their own, without U.S. forces.
Would this work? Who knows. Who cares. What is certain is that the present course is leading us towards another protracted engagement of our brave young warriors for years to come, just as we faced in Vietnam.
Sun Tzu said:
"We're hearing some of that now, and we'll hear more of it ahead. But face it, those troops in Vietnam did die in vain, as did the Marines who died in the barracks in Beirut, as do most of the men and women who die in war. Most wars are unnecessary, waged on the basis of lies, power, and fear; to justify the unnecessary deaths, the funeral services float the soft consolation that the body lying in the flag-draped coffin died for Peace, or Democracy, or the Good of the Country. When often they died because too many fools wouldn't admit they had made a ghastly mistake and kept perpetuating that mistake even after they and all the world recognized the mission was futile. How many more soldiers and civilians are going to die in vain in Iraq to prove that those who died before them didn't die in vain?"What really bothers me is that those who refute the comparison with Vietnam by asserting that "we aren't seeing the levels of casualties we did in Vietnam" seem to forget that Vietnam lasted for over ten friggin' years! In the first 5 years, there were a total of 1,864 killed in action with 7,337 wounded. In Iraq, we're nearly at that level after only two years, and thanks to modern medicine and protective body armor, the rate at which our troops are being wounded rather than killed is actually much higher.
The parallels between Iraq and Vietnam are striking. In both cases, faced with an assymetric threat. In both cases, unwelcome.
What we need to have is some new thinking. Maybe the three states idea should be resurrected. Do the Turks want into the EU? Then, maybe they'll just have to get over their fears of Turkish Kurds wanting sovereignty with their Kurdish neighbors in Iraq. If states rights were so important to the U.S., maybe something similar is needed in Iraq.
We should set aside our fears of an Islamic theocracy in the Shi'a south. With the Sunnis disengaged from the elections, Iraq will be dominated by the Shi'a regardless. Whatever political forces take the helm in January, they will inevitably be heavily influenced by the Ayatollas anyway. So, let them do so in their own Shi'a state.
The Baathist insurgents in the Sunni Triangle have resorted to terrorist tactics, because they think it the only way to preserve any chance that they can regain their prominence. So what. Give it back.
Let them sort out the mess on their own, without U.S. forces.
Would this work? Who knows. Who cares. What is certain is that the present course is leading us towards another protracted engagement of our brave young warriors for years to come, just as we faced in Vietnam.
Sun Tzu said:
There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
...
Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist
only seeks battle after the victory has been won,
whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights
and afterwards looks for victory.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home