U.N.-TENABLE. George Bush has made a hash of Iraq. The Democratic criticisms, however, only look good by comparison because they haven't been implemented. Then they would stink on ice.
I'm not trying to make a name for myself posing as a liberal attacking liberals. I trust nobody will mistake me for Christopher Hitchens or Mickey Kaus. For one thing, I don't write as well. For two, I'm not pimping for jingoism.
For months I've warned about bad anti-war arguments _ad nauseum_. It's possible that bad arguments will elect a Democrat. But they will still be bad arguments, and they will lead to bad policy. I'm talking about the fantasy that somehow "internationalizing" the occupation under the aegis of the United Nations will create a different dynamic. I utterly fail to see how.
The attack on Italian soldiers is only the most recent indication, albeit a horrific one. Previously there were attacks on the U.N. itself. Now if the insurgents favored internationalization, they would confine their attacks to Americans. Instead they seem to be aiming for the opposite -- to isolate the U.S. as the supreme and only Occupier. What basis is there for thinking that a reconfigured Occupation would create a different military situation on the ground? ALL of the critics are wrong on this, including Kucinich.
The inescapable fact is that if force doesn't work when exerted by Americans, it won't work in someone else's hands either. Perhaps the U.S. will get lucky and nab Hussein. That might make a difference. Maybe counter-insurgency will start to work. Right now, the proffer of statistics on U.S. 'success,' combined with deep paranoia in news management (e.g., preventing news coverage of the return of dead soldiers), reminds me of the old 'body count' days. We've seen this movie before.
Unless the U.S. murders everyone in Baghdad and the "Sunni triangle," Saddamists are going to be the default power there. There is an illusory control over the Kurdish and Shi'a areas. The U.S. doesn't control them; it's just that the inhabitants choose not to engage in open rebellion at this juncture. Wouldn't be prudent.
It's true: withdrawal will have ill consequences for the national interest. So will staying in.
I'll leave to scholars the reasons why subjugation in Iraq doesn't seem to be working, while colonialism in other places and times did. It is easy to debunk parallels to Germany and Japan. Defeated Germans had good reason to ally with the U.S., seeing as how the Russians had gobbled up half the country. Japan also had an up close and personal look at the Soviets on their own doorstep. For these among other reasons, I would say occupation went smoothly.
On the other side, we can hear some griping about politicians hampering the sufficiently brutal use of force. "Mow 'em down" Trent Lott for instance. This is how to liberate people? The only residual justification for the whole shootin match? Duh. People who obsess on the use of force never can figure out international politics. The U.S. has important interests that get worked out in the political sphere. It can't do just anything. It can do a lot, but there are limits. One needs to know these going in.
Also it helps to know in advance how many god-damn people you are going to need, and be sure you will have them. A friend tells me of a relative who has nearly finished engineering school. He's in Air National Guard. He's just been told he'll be on active duty until well into 2005. That brilliant "war cabinet." They made a great picture in TIME Magazine. Too bad they are clueless. Too bad for us. Too bad for that engineer.
This does not imply a defensive strategy in re: terrorism. But failure to occupy Iraq won't prevent the U.S. from murdering anyone it perceives as a threat, anywhere in the world. Anti-terrorism is much cheaper than colonialism. The entire Homeland Security budget is under $40 billion. You all know how much is going to be spent on Iraq this fiscal year.
How do we get out? By getting out. It's painful but simple. Out means out. You put one foot forward, then the other, and keep going until you're in New Jersey eating a Big Mac.
<http://maxspeak.org/gm/archives/00001588.html>