Since Everyone Else Is Talking About It, 2007-07-13

CLOates
13 July 2007
Norman, Oklahoma 73072, USA

Since Everyone Else Is Talking About It

One of my Math for Health Careers students completed the course early (today, in fact) so that he could leave for advanced infantry training, to be followed shortly by a deployment to Iraq. He earned a better grade than he had expected. Both he and I were certainly happy about that, but having the war hit somewhat closer to home than it has before, at least to my knowledge, has prompted me to make a few observations.

0) Thank goodness, the conduct of most of the American military in Iraq and Arabia generally, has been exemplary. With several unfortunate, glaring exceptions (for which responsible upper echelon leaders have NOT been punished), our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen have carried out their duties in the manner that Americans had came to expect of their military before the Viet Nam fiasco.

1) By now, many Americans seem to have realized that it would have been better NOT to have invaded Iraq. George H. W. Bush was considerably wiser than his son on this issue. (Even if history finally grants that H.W. stopped the first Gulf War too soon, that error was mild, indeed, when compared with the strategy of W. and his hawkish coterie who have now involved us--"preemptively," no less--in a war that is highly unlikely ever to be stopped, much less won, on its current terms.)

2) One wonders where the Loyal Opposition was when the idea of invading Iraq, a country that almost certainly had little to do with the 9-11 massacre, was being sold to the American people in the first place. Breast-beating Democrats, where were you?

3) Unfortunately, it is not possible to turn back the clock and undo what's been done. It's necessary to figure out how to make the best of the current very bad situation.

4) For once, I can actually agree with George W. on one thing: to "cut and run" at this moment would be a disaster of very considerable proportions. Our credibility as a reliable partner and ally in international affairs, hardly a sparkling jewel currently, would be degraded to the point of non-existence.

5) To continue the war in its current mode is untenable. Saddam's Sunni brethren can, in all likelihood, maintain the current state of chaos for years, if not decades. That is to say, we are not likely ever to win a war to put in place an equitable, three-part government (Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd) in Iraq. One editorial writer, whose name I am now unable to remember, described this condition as being unable to "win clean."

6) That editorial writer's proposed solution was to "win dirty." By this he meant that we should set as our goal the establishment of an America-friendly government composed of the only Iraqi factions that are likely to cooperate in such a venture: the Iraqi Shiites and the Kurds. Under this strategy, our military attentions would be turned to systematically and deliberately defeating the Sunni faction, without regard to any thought of eventually bringing that faction into an Iraqi government. His argument was that, since the Sunnis are a 40% minority in Iraq, they are not going to be in power in any true democratic republic that might be established there. If the best we can get is a friendly government of Shiites and Kurds, we should do what it takes to establish that less-than-optimal, but perhaps workable, solution.

7) I'm not sure I believe that 6) above will actually be achievable, either; however, it's high time to put a strategy in place that will stanch the sacrifice of lives and treasure that endless war brings and do it, one hopes, without another "VietNam-ization" withdrawal. What is Plan B and when will we implement it? Or will we continue to act "on principles"-- principles that evidently have no contact with or feedback from reality? Ask the "principled" folks who gave us Prohibition about that one!

Does anyone have better ideas? I'm all ears.