War on Iraq in general

Remove all ads!

There are two things that can really help Bush politically, and they should be achievable, but will require an effort: First, catching Saddam and making a sizable dent in his resistance effort. That will really score him points politically here. Bin Laden would be better, but appears to be much harder. It's certain by now that Saddam is still in Iraq, probably directing the daily attacks.

The second will be getting more Europeans to partner into the rebuilding of Iraq. If he can get the countries he ignored and falsely believed were irrelevant in the beginning, it will give him some excuse to begin to cut-and-run from Iraq. Despite the big talk in the beginning about "as long as it takes," if he suffers too much politically he will look for a quick exit. The thing is, time is on Bush's side, since he has a year to pull off a few tricks that may save his sorry political hide.

 

Bush would not be able to catch Saddam, there are many still loyal to him. And bush would not except anyon's help outside the coalitition of the willing.

 

Another aspect of catching Saddam and the impact of his seizure is that perhaps the bulk of the resistance does *not* come from the old "baathist" guard, and that actually is a thing most observers start to think. And if they're right - what will the capture of Saddam change? If so, it'll only be a US propaganda victory, a tactical success.

When the allieds eventually conquered Berlin in WW-II, they blew up Hitler's Reichskanzlei - Bremer instead moved into Saddam's old palace to reside there ... Wolfie boasted to want to sleep in Tikrit, Saddam's old hometown (that provocation didn't pass unnoticed it seems) ... the US are seen as an occupation force, and that is the key problem. The US proclamations "We won't leave!" don't make their promise to only bring freedom and self-determination to the iraqis more credible - and it is simply unlikely that the US would accept the shiite majority's likely vote for an islamic republic, so that the US claim for democratisation can't be very credible in the eyes of the iraqis either.

Interesting enough, the brits haven't lost a soldier in 7 weeks, primarily this can be attributed the their significantly better cultural prowess. On nice example of the lack thereof here - and anyway, Austria, Australia - where's the difference? Yeah, two bloody letters ...)

While the brits patiently consulted elders and tribal and religious leaders to make them suggest their followers to keep the peace, the US continue to kick in doors, harass the population, hide in fortified positions and isolate from the population, adding to their alienation with the iraqis.
Even though there was some improvement there, the damage is done already. If it can be repaired, who knows that? I really hope so; if not the whole place will blow up in Bush's face and become the place for a generational commitment for US troops.

 

Or maybe it's because of their location. All of the attacks have been confined to a relatively small geographic location. By contrast, the US 101st Airborne hadn't fired a shot or had incident in over a month (the last I saw a couple of weeks ago). Does this mean the 101st Airborne got special cultural sensitivity class? Or maybe they're just located in a safer area? Most of the British are in the south. Most of the 101st is in the north. The attacks are between Baghdad and Tikrit.

 

Certainly their location, in the shiite south, is a significant reason for the absence of attacks. But there is IMO a deeper reason, hinted on by US-british differences about how to improve security in Iraq ... or who's actually the enemy.

 

Interesting, Ragusa. Your link is not too far off on those "Ghosts of Vietnam" as described:

Here's what Professor Robert K. Brigham has to say about the NLF (National Liberation Front, aka Viet Cong or VC):

The National Liberation Front


Here's another "ghost":

Here's another take on the reasons for and probable outcomes of the war in Iraq.

[ November 03, 2003, 15:57: Message edited by: Sojourner ]

 

Just a thought ... considering the unexpected resistance in Iraq against US occupation, and the neocon's ambitious plans and visions for a new middle east - it could well be that only the iraqis have saved the US from committing an even worse stupidity than attacking Iraq: Invading Lebanon and Syria as well ... Now that they are busy, stretched thin and bound that has become impossible for the next time.

But for now, no Bush wars 'till 2004 ... until after the elections - as I value peace, prudence and diplomacy - hopefully not re-election ...

 

Ragusa.

Why would the USA want to attack or invade Labanon or Syria?

 

You haven't checked the two links above, have you? If not, I strongly recommend so, they are both quite instructive. They actually lay down the neocon vision to "reshape" the middle east.

The peace between Israel and the Palestinians is seen as key to peace in the middle east, insofar they don't much differ with the traditional understanding in foreign policy. However, the neocons believe in a sort of Domino Theory, that change in Bagdad, Damascus and Beirut will induce change along the whole region. They think that diplomacy is for sissies and that the remaining superpower shouldn't hesitate to devote it's superior warmashine to find a solution for political problems.
They have traditionally advocated regime changes* as a means to achieve this goal, they did so for Lebanon, Syria and not only Iraq. The idea is, that by crushing Iraq, Syria and Lebanon (considered as supporters or bases for terrorists) they can make the middle east favourable to a peace agreement between the Israelis and Israel - with the military sucesses disencouraging the palestinians. Then the only arab states who in one or another way support Palestinians, be it only morally, would be gone:
Syria is the protector controlling Lebanon where the only undefeated, even victorious liberation group is: The Hizbollah. Lebanon is Hizbollah's territory and even though they just devoted themselves to liberating Lebanon they are still seen as a threat by Israel - eventually it was them who drove out the crack Israeli army with their superior training and equipment out of Lebabanon.

IIRC Wolfowitz or Perle, can't remember, put it that way: "The road to peace goes through Baghdad and Damascus." More bluntly it is: Only after we have crushed all potential enemies of Israel we can dictate a peace on our terms, and that will end terror. The neocons aren't stupid but they are ideologues - they believe in that, just as they believed that conquering Iraq not only would be a cakewalk but that regime change was easy. Just plug in Chalabi and play on.
The chaos in Iraq made "playing on" impossible. Good for Syria and Lebanon. But even now you can note the steady flow of neocon accusations to Syria, for the next round. For them the game's not over, it's just scheduled for another day. They aren't ready yet. Well, for a hammer every problem looks like a nail.

IMO it is loonie talk to advocate preventive war. Not only that the term alone is stupid - a war to prevent war necessarily doesn't prevent war ...

* Why regime change? Again, because that's something the winner can do on his terms, and offers the advangtage to dictate - impossible with normal diplomacy.

[ November 06, 2003, 23:16: Message edited by: Ragusa ]