The abuse of historical analogies is also annoying. Iraq is nothing like Germany nor Japan, nor the South in 1865.

I do not consider the historical analogies to be abused. One of the main criticisms of the post-OIF aspect of our Iraq involvement that I agree with is that we didn’t take enough time or commit enough troops to ensure that the place would be secure enough to allow for an optimal transition to a new government.

Historically, it has taken us several years, up to a decade, of direct control over a conquered land before we’ve been able to successfully turn it back over to the locals. In Iraq, we started trying to turn it back over after two years, three at most, and before we’d made sure that the opposition elements had been sufficiently squelched. While we can’t go back and change that now, we can recognize that by historical standards we’re still in a transitional phase and not be so ready to take our ball and go home.

I think we made a bad call WRT Iraq. Assuming that’s true–it may not be, but I think the evidence indicates that it is–what do we do about it? Sticking around because we’ve put so much effort into it ignores the economic law of sunk costs.

This argument rests on the assumption that there won’t be any long-term benefit from maintaining a long-term commitment to changing the old status quo, not only in Iraq but in the region as a whole, and I can’t share that conclusion. Whether the experiment, or gamble, of trying to introduce the idea of representative government in a place where tyranny has been the rule will succeed or not is probably not something we’ll know for sure until decades from now – and that’s assuming we don’t quit in 2008.

What is a known quantity, however, is that falling back on the way things have been before – propping up “acceptable” dictatorships and opposing “unacceptable” ones – hasn’t worked in the past, and shows no promise for the future. We’ve intervened in Iraq twice now. If we leave this time without doing anything to fundamentally change the situation politically, I feel confident that we’ll be headed back there for a third time. That kind of repetition without resolution is what I would consider a sunk cost.

This does not feel like winning to me. And I’m not simply “invested in defeat” or anything like it.

I’m not saying you’re invested in defeat. My basic point is that if we bail out this year or next year, which seems to be the increasingly popular trend of thought among our faltering political class, our enemies as well as our allies will perceive it as an American defeat. Our enemies will be emboldened, our allies discouraged, our credibility seriously damaged and our security endangered. That’s what I mean when I claim that by pulling the plug in Iraq, we’ll end up realizing precisely what we’re seeking to avoid.

One thing I think we can both agree on is that there are few if any guarantees if we persist in this endeavor. You may be right in the end, it could all be an exercise in futility.

On the other hand, if we approach this struggle with the same persistence that we did with the Cold War – which took about 50 years to see through, cost us around 100,000 combat casualties, and at times looked unwinnable – then we may ultimately prevail against Islamism like we prevailed against Soviet-style Communism.

At the risk of abusing some more historical analogies, if we gave up on confronting Communism after Korea or Vietnam, the world might be a very different place today (and not for the better). Likewise, if we give up confronting Islamism in the middle east now, the only thing I’d feel confident of is that we’d have little or no chance of defeating it.

The Blue State

As I post each morning, here are some of the political stories that
might not be worthy of their own posts, but are nonetheless newsworthy:

President Bush turns 61 today.

Joe Lieberman could back a Republican in the race for the White…

Don’t tell me!

I knew that I would figure out all this weirdness eventually.

Or just MAYBE I entered the Twilight Zone?

Must be one or the other.

Shouldn’t that be MY line as I AM a Vet and you express disdain for MY opinion AND even for me personally just because I present an opinion contrary to yours?

Am I on Candid Camera?

“Adding to the event’s accommodationist tone, some of the president’s top female aides, including Frances Townsend and Karen Hughes, wore makeshift hijabs as they listened to him in the audience. In brief, it feels like “déjà vu all over again.” As Diana West puts it, “Nearly six years after September 11 – nearly six years after first visiting the Islamic Center and proclaiming ‘Islam is peace’ – Mr. Bush has learned nothing.”"

“Almost 30 years after Islamists first attacked Americans, and on the eve of three major attempted terrorist attacks in Great Britain, the president’s speech reveals how confused Washington remains.”

Speak it brother Infidel Pride!!!

“On supporting this war – it’s won already. What’s our remaining goal(s)?

WMD – check
Odai/Qusay – check
Saddam Hussein – check
Zarqawi – check
Elections – check

Democracy? They have a new constitution – not based on our values, but theirs – namely shariah. Under this set-up, Chaldeans and Assyrian Christians are fleeing to (of all places) Syria (while the US plans to take in 7000 Iraqi Muslim refugees). Which of them – Shia or Sunni – are
pro-US? Shia? They are mainly supporting Iran and Hizbullah. Sunni? They are either supporting Saddam’s Baathists, or Zarqawi’s al Qaeda. Kurds? Sure, they are the most grateful of the lot, but we aren’t supporting a separate Kurdistan. So which of the people who we are trying to support actually deserves it?

And once again – what’s our mission _now_? Resolving whether Mohammed’s rightful successor was Umar or Ali? If there is a civil war between pro-Hizbullah Shia and pro-Ikhwan Sunni, whose side should we pick? Should we even stop such a fight, were it to break out?

Remember the 80’s war between Iran and Iraq? Did we end up any worse off due to millions of fanatics on both sides getting killed? Remember the 60’s proxy war between Egypt and Saudi Arabia in Yemen? Was that a good or bad thing for Infidels?

Bottom line – if there is an internecine war between Infidel hating Muslims and Infidel hating Muslims, why is that a bad thing for Infidels? If two or more of our enemies are busy destroying each other, why should we even bother stopping them?

Want to know my exit strategy for Iraq? Exit is the strategy. What will result is a civil war between Shia and Sunni. Initially, it’ll be in Iraq. Then, inshallah, it’ll spread to Saudi Arabia, where the Shia in al Hasa province can rebel. Let all that Saudi cash that funds madrassahs and CAIR in the US be diverted towards containing their restive Shia, and in the meantime, let Iran’s cash flow to their science project and Hizbullah be diverted towards encouraging Shia rebellions in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Bahrein. Once we have these 2 US hating groups at
each others throats, we can then keep arming at a low level either side so that neither gains the upper hand.

Note that we do not have a dog in this fight. The only dog we have is that fight itself.

Feed that dog.”

After all, as Michael Savage said on his show today, it is war that Bush REFUSES to quit (good), but one which he also equally REFUSES to win (idiotic).

Instead of making nice and taking off his shoes at the Islamic Center and either encouraging or tolerating abusive courts martial of our fighting men and tying our troops’ hands with rules of engagement designed by lawyers rather than fighters and — generally — attempting to fight some half-assed “kinder and gentler war” in Iraq (as well as Afghanistan), Bush has cost us trillions, over 3000 lives, and VICTORY in a third-rate country.

Bush should try a little gutsy leadership and take out Sadr and do some missions on the Syria and Iran for their meddling — and that is just for starters.

Bush is a pussycat and the enemy (both within and without) knows it. The American people know it, as well, and he is losing their support. They want a fighter, not a Saudi royalty hand-holder, leading this war.

To end — as I started — with Savage again: If Bush didn’t have the cojones to WIN this war, then why the hell did he ever start it.

Nice guys finish last in wartime: Exhibit “A”: George W. Bush.

Very likely correct. Bush is a milestone that Republicans must cut themselves loose from. Both amnesty and tarbaby Iraq.

In the recent election in France, Sarkozy distanced himself from Chirac, even running against him to a degree, and won. Had he not done so, Royal would likely have won.

History seldom repeats itself, but it often rhymes.

OK, dude, you’re all over the place. (I don’t have a narrow, one track mind, so sue me.) You’re spamming (Spamming? Huh?) posts in broken cryptic English (Well maybe slightly cryptic at times, but broken? Huh?) and using quotations and italics so haphazardly (Pointedly, not haphazardly), I can’t tell [what] the hell you are talking about. (You see but you do not observe. “Impressive” rebuttal though.)

MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 9:43 PM

OK, dude, you’re all over the place. You’re spamming posts in broken cryptic English and using quotations and italics so haphazardly, I can’t tell the hell you are talking about.

“The United States has no stake in bringing together Sunni and Shi’a. The Bush Administration, unable to recognize its mistakes about Islam and about Iraq, appears determined to continue to invest more and more, of money and material and men’s lives — to pursue a wrong course. In this respect it reminds one of the stubborn, crazed policy pursued during the hideous trench warfare of World War I, for no reasons that made sense, but because, once the thing started, no one could figure out how to stop it.”

That is a quote from Hugh Fitzgerald, colleague of Robert Spencer. The Robert Spencer who is a guest blogger here.

rho – “This does not feel like winning to me. And I’m not simply “invested in defeat” or anything like it.

Some on this site seem to think that if someone does not think that “we” should stay in Iraq until Sunnis and Shiites get along or hell freezes over, which ever comes first, that they are “invested in defeat”.

The stakes are high. But let there be no confusion: We are here to win, and we are winning. The tribes have awoken, the enemy is fractured but still fighting tenaciously, and the Iraqis are working with us to ensure a stable province in Anbar.

070630-2BN6MAR-1188A-ALLJAH307web
Seemingly every day something momentous is achieved: a school is opened; security in Fallujah is strengthened; local tribesmen join the fight against Al Qaeda.

So please, with all sincerity, enjoy the Independence Day celebrations. Spend time with your families, savor your hamburgers and hotdogs, have a cold one (or two) for us. We will be here, doing that which must be done.

That’s what we’re here for.

http://fightin6thmarines.vox.com/library/post/thats-what-were-here-for.html

The Fightin 6th Marines

Romeo13, you are just being silly now, as I never said that I had “limitless knowledge of the military” or ANYTHING like that. A LOT less than that, but quite a bit MORE than just from “stripes” as “LakeRuins” said or as “TheEJS” implied by striking out one of my dd214’s. What is it with all the ad hominems from some people here anyway?

Master Chief Petty Officer Airdale???

I didn’t even think about what it meant. I wasn’t in the Navy, although I did manage to go to very nice restaurant on a Navy base in the Danang area a couple of times in 1971-1972. Those Navy guys really knew how to live.

I believe 80,000 was their goal. I believe 90% had diplomas. I believe that leads to a 70% retention rate.

To begin with, I never said that all the factions would “degenerate into mass genocide” as soon as we leave. Those are your words, and I disagree with your assumption.

Fine, you didn’t say it. Plenty of others have, and you certainly imply dire consequences. Chalk it up to hyperbole, the point stands: a region so susceptible to such things is not likely ripe for democracy.

One of the main problems we have had with the post-Saddam Iraq campaign is its hurried quality. We’ve been so eager – over-eager – to avoid charges of “neo-colonialism” that we’ve short-changed the reconstruction process. We took more time, for example, to reconstruct the south after the Civil War; we took more time to help the Japanese and West Germans to establish their own governments after World War II.

The abuse of historical analogies is also annoying. Iraq is nothing like Germany nor Japan, nor the South in 1865.

Your rear-view mirror analysis of the situation is quite correct. There was a power vacuum post-Saddam; there is no, or little enough, democratic tradition in the region; and warring factions leave little room for popular political advancement in the central government due to in-fighting. The problem is, all of these were objections raised at the beginning of this adventure by various people. And they were dismissed then as either racist, overly pessimistic, or fevered imaginings poisoned by Bush-hatred. (I noticed you were quick to bring up BDS yourself. You might be interested that I was a war supporter until not so long ago. While it may be easier to discount people who disagree with you as lunatics, it doesn’t make you right.)

I think we made a bad call WRT Iraq. Assuming that’s true–it may not be, but I think the evidence indicates that it is–what do we do about it? Sticking around because we’ve put so much effort into it ignores the economic law of sunk costs. If it is a big mistake, is it because America is bad, or dangerous? No. But it may be an indication that American exceptionalism is not an exportable commodity. Will it stop or cause more terrorism to leave? I have no idea, but the Glascow car bombs–and the London tube bombs before it, and untold foiled terrorist attacks in this country–demonstrate that we’re not preventing new terrorist attacks. And for this uncertainty we’re expending, as you said, a lot of blood and treasure.

This does not feel like winning to me. And I’m not simply “invested in defeat” or anything like it.