Responses to the previous post of this name will follow this post, but thus encouraged, I've got more to say.
If my proposal sounds edgy and radical, I'd like to point out that it has a lot of similarity to what the Bush Administration appears to be planning to do. In other words, U.S. soldiers will be withdrawn from "nation-building" duty guarding facilities, keeping order, and presenting themselves as targets to hostile forces. A quasi-sovereignty will be transferred to some configuration of Iraqis. U.S. forces will be stationed in heavily-protected enclaves and venture out at will to attack suspected insurgents. Victory will be declared, again, and the stream of progress reports will continue.
How do I know this? Because I have seen the future, and its name is Afghanistan <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46637-2003Nov15.html> . Victory in Afghanistan is like the outcome of a "capture the flag" game. The winner stands on top of a hill with a flag. The flag is the nominal control of Kabul. The countryside is under the control of totally self-interested opium and other warlords, the resurgent Taliban, or nobody. No money is coming in, and no nation is being built. U.S. forces sally forth periodically to fight bad guys. Typically the operations go well, but there are always more bad guys.
One of two main differences about Iraq is there is more money sloshing around.
"Sovereign" Iraqi governance consists of the shifting alliances of Iraqis scrambling for a piece of the loot before the bottom falls out. Funds are coming in under two different auspices. The first is the pretense of reconstruction funded by the U.S. and other governments, and ultimately by taxpayers. Contractors need local partners to get or implement their piece of the action. The second is money that seeks recompense from prospective oil revenues, again with the need for local collaborators. Corruption is certain here not because of any unusual character flaw among Iraqis, but because opportunities draw entrepreneurs. The time horizon for all such commerce is necessarily short, since security and ultimate control of the country are still open questions.
The second difference is that while continuously declaring victory and progress, the Bush Administration must absolutely prevent fall-of-Saigon <http://fallofsaigon.org/frmain.htm> .
In a nutshell, the Bush strategy is for Iraq to look a lot like Afghanistan, but under no circumstances like Saigon, before November of 2004.
The neo-cons ought to be very apprehensive about the trend of events. We can expect overtures to Democrats of the 'we broke it/we bought it' persuasion. If there is not some persuasive renaissance of democracy and prosperity in Iraq, it becomes much more difficult to justify further ventures in the Mideast, so any criticism of the invasion is best forgotten for the time being.
From the standpoint of the neo-cons, the Wilsonian internationalists, and non-ideological backers of the soldiers' mission, the incipient Bush posture ought to stand as the deepest and blackest of betrayals. It's a Republican Bay of Pigs. From the standpoint of an invasion supporter, which I would say entails a belief that the basic project is feasible (one which I don't share), the logical step is to put in more resources and more troops. What would seem to be exceptionally craven, in this light, is that the Administration refuses to use more troops because it doesn't want to admit it has miscalculated. Expanding the overall size of the military or instituting a draft would be a huge political embarrassment. Second, the Administration would rather use budget resources for other things like tax cuts, energy boondoggles, and the like. For what are hundreds of Americans dying? And what of the hundreds to come?
Everybody should hate George Bush. Even the people who got big tax cuts, 'cause those babies are coming back.
<http://maxspeak.org/gm/archives/00001590.html> *****
***** When the Americans Leave
Martin van Creveld IHT Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Iraq: a lost peace
JERUSALEM -- . . . As the promise to advance the Iraqi elections to mid-2004 shows, the United States will lose - in fact already has lost - the war. The Americans will leave the country in the same way as the Soviets left Afghanistan: with the Iraqi guerrillas jeering at them. The only question is how long it will take and how much prestige can still be saved from the ruins. That, and that alone, is the issue that still faces Bush, who is up for re-election and must somehow put this issue behind him before Americans go to the polls.
What will happen to Iraq once the Americans have left is anybody's guess. That an American-appointed government can sustain itself seems unlikely - at the moment, any member of the so-called Governing Council who so much as shows his or her nose outside the compound where they are cooped up will be killed on the spot.
Assuming that Saddam Hussein is behind the guerrilla attacks, no doubt he will try to assume control of the country again. If he is strong enough to do this, then the situation ante quam will be largely restored; imagine Saddam thumbing his nose at Bush as he did at Bush's father.
If he is not, then Iraq will probably disintegrate into three parts, a Shiite south, a Sunni center, and a Kurdish north. Judging by the fact that the last-named has never been able to overcome its tribal divisions, none of the three is likely to develop into a proper, centrally ruled state. The most likely outcome is three mini-Afghanistans that will serve as havens for terrorist activities throughout the Middle East.
Around Iraq, the states that have most to fear from an American collapse are Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Each in its own way depends on American support. All three suffer under severe social strain, whether against an ethnic background - as in Jordan, where Bedouin and Palestinians clash - or a religious one, as is largely the case in the other two.
As unrest spreads from Iraq, one or two might well see their regimes overthrown. Jordan, being small and weak, will be of concern mainly to its immediate neighbors such as Syria - which, if it tries to intervene, will have Israel to reckon with. By contrast, the collapse of Saudi Arabia, or a situation whereby Egypt turns into an Islamic republic and abrogates its treaty with Israel, would have worldwide economic and strategic implications.
In the short run, the greatest beneficiary of the war is Israel. The destruction of Iraq has created a situation in which, for the first time since Israel was founded in 1948, it has no real conventional enemy left within about 1,000 kilometers, or 600 miles, of its borders. If Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had any sense, he would use this window of opportunity to come to some kind of arrangement with the Palestinians. Whether he will do so, though, remains to be seen.
In the longer run, the greatest beneficiary is likely to be Iran, which, without having to lift a finger, has seen its most dangerous enemy ground into the dust. Even before America invaded Iraq, the Iranians, feeling surrounded by nuclear-capable U.S. forces on three sides (Afghanistan, the Central Asian republics, the Gulf), were working as hard as they could to acquire nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles to match. Now that the United States has proved that it is prepared to fight anybody for no reason at all, they should be forgiven if they redouble their efforts.
Even if the Islamic Republic were overthrown, the new government in Tehran would surely follow the same nationalist line as its predecessor. A nuclear Iran would most likely be followed by a nuclear Turkey. Next would come a nuclear Greece, a nuclear Saudi Arabia and a nuclear Egypt. Welcome to the Brave New World, Mr. Bush.
The writer, a professor of history at Hebrew University, is author of the forthcoming book "Defending Israel."
<http://www.iht.com/articles/118109.html> *****