Quote:
Originally Posted by nabilfannoush
An answer or a suggestion? That's the million dollar question everyone's hoping for an answer. One thing for sure: The Bush Administration and armed forces don't have it, or even get it. One can't help but think that the moment an American soldier, good honorable capable soldier that he is, set foot on Iraqi soil it was already too late.
|
The answer is so obvious that we gloss past it as if it was a pipedream. It's total commitment. That is to say, commitment of whatever it takes to turn the tide; only when the tide is turned can the commitment be deemed adequate. We are not at that point and have never been, in part because of the early Rumsfeld policy of limited commitment. You cannot fight a war or an insurgency successfully with a commitment limited by non-military considerations.
I don't see that it is too late yet, but if the waste inherent in partial measures continues, a withdrawal is not only inevitable, but ought to proceed immediately. Partial measures by their nature don't achieve lasting progress. They just bleed a nation dry of resources and will, and leave it impotent to deal with future threats. The US is becoming the mouse that roared. Lack of follow through is being added to its international profile.
We are in a dilemma. Apparent lack of lasting progress has swung public opinion around to where it believes we cannot succeed, yet it opposes the commitment necessary to succeed. Congress follows, as is expected in a representative democracy, by offering up an insipid compromise that simultaneously demands progress by fall but virtually blocks the level of commitment needed to achieve success. It's like continuing to build a highway that you know you won't finish.
Quote:
|
What's worrisome is that there are noises in the White House about an increase in US forces there. This has long ceased being a solely military situation and such an increase for the reasons I've stated above will only complicate the situation further. This has to stop, or Vietnam, Northen ireland and post-soviet Afghanistan will pale by comparison
|
The noises will continue to be noises because at this very moment there is no political will in Congress to fund the level of commitment needed to succeed. An October Surprise is always possible, a Gulf of Tonkin event to swing public opinion around. But I agree with you, it has to stop as it is. I feel the same way about Iraq as I did Vietnam. If we aren't willing to do what it takes to win, end it, for logically it makes no sense to continue when you know you are going to quit short of your goal.
Just a personal note. I take a hardline on fulfilling our objectives, whether they are military or political, for three reasons:
first, I believe it is more wasteful of time, material and life to put one foot in rather than two;
second, I believe the prevention of future conflicts depends heavily on the world's perception that we back up our threats to the hilt;
and third, I believe that following the principle of both-feet-in-or-none will make us much more selective in chosing when to use military force in the future.
Personal note: I am always uneasy shooting my mouth off about things that involve people dying when my life is not on the line. We have guys over there facing violent death everyday. I wonder what I would think about it all if I had to join them tomorrow. What do the military pros here think about it from their perspective--how the pols act and when public opinion is against what you're doing, so on?