Henry Kissinger Iraq Comments

[Ezekiel]

Another small, righteous war like Vietnam that we could win if we decided to, and if people would stop declaring it unwinnable or an "illegal war."

Took the bait, huh?

Man, that (above) looks so bad -- inferring a ridiculousness of mind that cannot be truly imagined -- that reporting such as mere constipated thought would be generous.

There's no point in replying to such a statement, the rhetorical brainwashing appears complete. 

Just absolutely stupifying.  Beyond reason...

[Eleven Mike]

Declined to answer a simple question, huh?  In case you missed it:

Is there something morally or legally wrong with our decision to invade Iraq?

At least we have an example of actual ad hominem for all to now digest.  Rather than discussing the issues involved, Ezekiel chose to sling charges against an interlocuter.  Charges that cannot be substantiated.  I could claim he's been brainwashed into believing any number of things.  That Iraq was a pre-emptive war, that pre-emptive war is something new, evil and dangerous, that Bush was only allowed one reason for the war, and to claim more than one reason is dishonest, that there is some actual, international legal system that says one country can't legally invade another unless some set of conditions are met, that Iraq cannot be won, etc.

[Ezekiel]

Ezekiel chose to sling charges against an interlocuter.

Odd retort.

No charges, slung or no: your ideas are just as "valid" as any others.

They are merely asinine, in my opinion, and the opinion -- at last count -- of most Americans.  (Where was that latest straw poll...)

Nothing personal involved.

[Eleven Mike]

You could have just said, "You're wrong because you're ridiculous and brainwashed and no, I won't answer your question."

[Paddy]

Well, look at it this way.  Some 60+ years ago, the U.S. won a World War fighting on two fronts in less time that it has taken for us to lose in Iraq.  I've never believed this administration is serious about winning in Iraq, much less eliminating/reducing global terrorism.  Why is Fallujah still standing?  Why is al-Sadr still alive?   We have the best equipped most formidable military force in the history of the world.  We're unbeatable by any other force on this planet.  The problem is, Bush & Co. don't understand the purpose of the military.  They think it's a tool for social engineering and American resources and lives are worth less than the enemy's.

[The Rabbi]

Come late to the discussion, eh?
We have not "lost" in Iraq.  We're not even losing, except in the media.  The US military is very skilled at killing and destroying on a mass scale with overwhelming firepower.  This skill defeated Saddam in record time.  But the same skill is about useless in a small-scale guerilla war, which is where we are right now.  Such wars have been fought for 200 years and have a boring predictability about them.  If the U.S. prevails and continues, we will win.  This was the case in the Philippines and other places.  If the U.S. decides we are in a quagmire then we lose, as we did in Viet Nam and Mexico.  But the choice is ours, not the enemy's.

[Werewolf]

If the U.S. decides we are in a quagmire then we lose, as we did in Viet Nam and Mexico.

I understand the Vietnam reference but not the Mexico reference. Could you explain that please.

[The Rabbi]

Expedition against Pancho Villa, just before WW1.
A great read on all these wars is Max Boot, Savage Wars of Peace.  These small wars have been a staple of American history.  Reading his accounts both of the wars themselves and of the reactions to them at home is an eye opener.  All the things said about Iraq were said similarly about almost all of them.

[Darwin]

For all the arguing I've done with Rabbi on this point, I guess I basically agree with him. If we changed our tactics and overall strategy and resolved to stick this out for the ten years that insurgencies typically take, we could bring this to a positive conclusion.

But that would require both changing our tactics and overall strategy and finding the national resolve for the long ten-year slog.

There are several reasons why this is unlikely. The primary reason is that our leaders seem unable to change tactics or develop a sensible strategy. They seem unable to even identify the true nature of the conflict. When we were faced with an insurgency, the Administration denied its own eyes and refused to admit we were facing an insurgency. When we were faced with a low-grade civil war, they refused to acknowledge that fact. They had just barely admitted that we were facing an insurgency by that time. Now that we are on the verge of realizing we are facing a low-grade civil war, that civil war is threatening to erupt into a regional war, with the Saudis and Iran getting into the fight. If the administration continues with this disasterous pattern, by the time they realize that we are in a regional war, world war may have erupted.

There are other problems besides the delusional nature of our leadership. As mentioned above, we are at a point where the insurgency has become a civil war. This is a very different animal. Civil wars burn much brighter and faster than insurgencies and tend to be much bloodier. These characteristics will make the second part of the equation--rousing national support for an extended military occupation--much more difficult, if not impossible. Remember, the Soviet Union was unable to generate enough national support to maintain its troop presence in Afghanistan, and the USSR was a totalitarian state. Imagine how much more difficult the task of rousing support would have been in a democratic republic like ours.