Joanna
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Guardian (London) - November 29, 2005
>
> Nowhere to run
>
> After what has been described as the most foolish war in over 2,000
> years, is there a way out of Iraq for President Bush, asks Brian Whitaker
>
> There is a remarkable article in the latest issue of the American
> Jewish weekly, Forward <http://www.forward.com/articles/6936>. It
> calls for President Bush to be impeached and put on trial "for
> misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war
> since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost
> them".
>
> To describe Iraq as the most foolish war of the last 2,014 years is a
> sweeping statement, but the writer is well qualified to know.
>
> He is Martin van Creveld, a professor at the Hebrew University in
> Jerusalem and one of the world's foremost military historians. Several
> of his books have influenced modern military theory and he is the only
> non-American author on the US Army's list of required reading for
> officers.
>
> [rest of the article at
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1653454,00.html>;
> original follows]
>
> ----
>
> Forward (New York) - November 25, 2005
>
> Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War
>
> By MARTIN VAN CREVELD
>
> The number of American casualties in Iraq is now well more than 2,000,
> and there is no end in sight. Some two-thirds of Americans, according
> to the polls, believe the war to have been a mistake. And
> congressional elections are just around the corner.
>
> What had to come, has come. The question is no longer if American
> forces will be withdrawn, but how soon - and at what cost. In this
> respect, as in so many others, the obvious parallel to Iraq is Vietnam.
>
> Confronted by a demoralized army on the battlefield and by growing
> opposition at home, in 1969 the Nixon administration started
> withdrawing most of its troops in order to facilitate what it called
> the "Vietnamization" of the country. The rest of America's forces were
> pulled out after Secretary of State Henry Kissinger negotiated a
> "peace settlement" with Hanoi. As the troops withdrew, they left most
> of their equipment to the Army of the Republic of South Vietnam -
> which just two years later, after the fall of Saigon, lost all of it
> to the communists.
>
> Clearly this is not a pleasant model to follow, but no other
> alternative appears in sight.
>
> Whereas North Vietnam at least had a government with which it was
> possible to arrange a cease-fire, in Iraq the opponent consists of
> shadowy groups of terrorists with no central organization or command
> authority. And whereas in the early 1970s equipment was still
> relatively plentiful, today's armed forces are the products of a
> technology-driven revolution in military affairs. Whether that
> revolution has contributed to anything besides America's national debt
> is open to debate. What is beyond question, though, is that the new
> weapons are so few and so expensive that even the world's largest and
> richest power can afford only to field a relative handful of them.
>
> Therefore, simply abandoning equipment or handing it over to the
> Iraqis, as was done in Vietnam, is simply not an option. And even if
> it were, the new Iraqi army is by all accounts much weaker, less
> skilled, less cohesive and less loyal to its government than even the
> South Vietnamese army was. For all intents and purposes, Washington
> might just as well hand over its weapons directly to Abu Musab
> al-Zarqawi.
>
> Clearly, then, the thing to do is to forget about face-saving and
> conduct a classic withdrawal.
>
> Handing over their bases or demolishing them if necessary, American
> forces will have to fall back on Baghdad. From Baghdad they will have
> to make their way to the southern port city of Basra, and from there
> back to Kuwait, where the whole misguided adventure began. When Prime
> Minister Ehud Barak pulled Israel out of Lebanon in 2000, the military
> was able to carry out the operation in a single night without
> incurring any casualties. That, however, is not how things will happen
> in Iraq.
>
> Not only are American forces perhaps 30 times larger, but so is the
> country they have to traverse. A withdrawal probably will require
> several months and incur a sizable number of casualties. As the
> pullout proceeds, Iraq almost certainly will sink into an all-out
> civil war from which it will take the country a long time to emerge -
> if, indeed, it can do so at all. All this is inevitable and will take
> place whether George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and
> Condoleezza Rice like it or not.
>
> Having been thoroughly devastated by two wars with the United States
> and a decade of economic sanctions, decades will pass before Iraq can
> endanger its neighbors again. Yet a complete American withdrawal is
> not an option; the region, with its vast oil reserves, is simply too
> important for that. A continued military presence, made up of air, sea
> and a moderate number of ground forces, will be needed.
>
> First and foremost, such a presence will be needed to counter Iran,
> which for two decades now has seen the United States as "the Great
> Satan." Tehran is certain to emerge as the biggest winner from the war
> - a winner that in the not too distant future is likely to add nuclear
> warheads to the missiles it already has. In the past, Tehran has often
> threatened the Gulf States. Now that Iraq is gone, it is hard to see
> how anybody except the United States can keep the Gulf States, and
> their oil, out of the mullahs' clutches.
>
> A continued American military presence will be needed also, because a
> divided, chaotic, government-less Iraq is very likely to become a
> hornets' nest. From it, a hundred mini-Zarqawis will spread all over
> the Middle East, conducting acts of sabotage and seeking to overthrow
> governments in Allah's name.
>
> The Gulf States apart, the most vulnerable country is Jordan, as
> evidenced by the recent attacks in Amman. However, Turkey, Egypt and,
> to a lesser extent, Israel are also likely to feel the impact. Some of
> these countries, Jordan in particular, are going to require American
> assistance.
>
> Maintaining an American security presence in the region, not to
> mention withdrawing forces from Iraq, will involve many complicated
> problems, military as well as political. Such an endeavor, one would
> hope, will be handled by a team different from - and more competent
> than - the one presently in charge of the White House and Pentagon.
>
> For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war
> since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost
> them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from
> office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If
> convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins.
>
> ---
>
> Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew
> University, is author of "Transformation of War" (Free Press, 1991).
> He is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading
> list for officers.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>