MG: The Boston Globe report below supports the view that the US may not so much be trying to "win" the war in Iraq, as it is desperately trying to find a way to extricate itself from a deepening quagmire without it appearing to the world that it has been routed, which is not the "demonstration effect" the invasion was intended to have.
CC: Others will probably see it differently, but this...will be correct eventually, if not now. -------------------------------- True, Vietnam was a protracted withdrawal, effectively from the decision being made after Tet in 68, through Paris peace negotiations, removal of bulk of US forces in early 70s, and takeover of Saigon in '75. But things seem to be deteriorating even faster in Iraq. -------------------------------
John Bizwas wrote:
The US military just doesn't have the capability to occupy or reconstruct, but at what point does destruction cease to be their 'option'? -------------------- When the economic, political and national security costs of the destruction outweigh the ostensible benefits - a point that is being pressed upon the administration, as the Boston Globe article illustrates, by its closest friends as well as opponents like us. -------------------- JB: ...in the historic case of SE Asia, the US didn't officially occupy all the countries it was bombing. ------------------- You're kidding, right? The half million US troops in Vietnam weren't an "occupying power", but there at the "invitation" of the Saigon regime? ------------------- JB: Do you really think Bush and CentCom are going to let a Sunni Council and al-Sadr form a coalition government? ----------------- It won't win over the entire Sunni and Shia restistance, but it wants to split and coopt some of them. "To move forward, both the U.S. and the interim government probably will need to set aside concerns about negotiating with representatives of groups that might have actively supported the insurgency with money, weapons and foot soldiers...Before the Fallujah invasion, the coalition of Sunni groups negotiating with the U.S. insisted, among other things, on..." (WSJ, Nov 16); "Asia Times Online contacts in Baghdad confirm that Muqtada is frantically negotiating with Sistani: the crucial point is how many parliament seats Muqtada will get if he joins a united list of all major Shi'ite parties in the January elections." (Asia Times, Nov 19) ---------------- JB:At any rate, I think the only chance Iraq has of coming out of this time of abomination is indeed a Sunni-al-Sadr alliance (with some participation from Iraqi nationalist and religious Kurds) and a mild form of socialistically oriented Islamic law. ----------------- Leaving aside the "socialistically oriented", what are we arguing about then - over whether the Americans will endorse this outcome? That's the point. They may have no other choice to get their troops out other than to not only accept, but to forge, a broad coalition of the contending Iraqi forces. Probably an unstable coalition which would fall apart after they leave, but they'll cross that bridge when they come to it. Right now, it seems to be more important to get their troops out and end end the chaos. Only the appearance of a broad coalition involving elements of the armed Iraqi resistance could provide that kind of cover -- a US withdrawal "by agreement" with a new Iraqi government seen as enjoying broad popular legitimacy.
That seems to be the game plan. But all teams have game plans; the execution and lucky bounces also matter.
MG