Peter Galbraith in the NY Review of Books: "The Iraq war is lost."

[BurtWorm]

For an excellent assessment of where the war is now, and why the Democrats really are better on the war than the Bushists, follow the link:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20470

...

The Iraq war is lost. Of course, neither the President nor the war's intellectual architects are prepared to admit this. Nonetheless, the specter of defeat shapes their thinking in telling ways.

The case for the war is no longer defined by the benefits of winning—a stable Iraq, democracy on the march in the Middle East, the collapse of the evil Iranian and Syrian regimes—but by the consequences of defeat. As President Bush put it, "The consequences of failure in Iraq would be death and destruction in the Middle East and here in America."

Tellingly, the Iraq war's intellectual boosters, while insisting the surge is working, are moving to assign blame for defeat. And they have already picked their target: the American people. In The Weekly Standard, Tom Donnelly, a fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, wrote, "Those who believe the war is already lost—call it the Clinton-Lugar axis—are mounting a surge of their own. Ground won in Iraq becomes ground lost at home." Lugar provoked Donnelly's anger by noting that the American people had lost confidence in Bush's Iraq strategy as demonstrated by the Democratic takeover of both houses of Congress. (This "blame the American people" approach has, through repetition, almost become the accepted explanation for the outcome in Vietnam, attributing defeat to a loss of public support and not to fifteen years of military failure.)

Indeed, Vietnam is the image many Americans have of defeat in Iraq. Al-Qaeda would overrun the Green Zone and the last Americans would evacuate from the rooftop of the still unfinished largest embassy in the world. President Bush feeds on this imagery. In his May 5, 2007, radio address to the nation, he explained:

If radicals and terrorists emerge from this battle with control of Iraq, they would have control of a nation with massive oil reserves, which they could use to fund their dangerous ambitions and spread their influence. The al Qaeda terrorists who behead captives or order suicide bombings would not be satisfied to see America defeated and gone from Iraq. They would be emboldened by their victory, protected by their new sanctuary, eager to impose their hateful vision on surrounding countries, and eager to harm Americans.

But there will be no Saigon moment in Iraq. Iraq's Shiite-led government is in no danger of losing the civil war to al-Qaeda, or a more inclusive Sunni front. Iraq's Shiites are three times as numerous as Iraq's Sunni Arabs; they dominate Iraq's military and police and have a powerful ally in neighboring Iran. The Arab states that might support the Sunnis are small, far away (vast deserts separate the inhabited parts of Jordan and Saudi Arabia from the main Iraqi population centers), and can only provide money, something the insurgency has in great amounts already.

...

[SoonerPride]

1. The Iraq War was lost when the first bombs were dropped

It was an idiotic policy based on lies.

It had the stink of failure all over it from day 1.

[BurtWorm]

2. Say it loud and say it proud.

Because the media aren't listening and won't say it at all. So someone has to.

[Tom Joad]

3. Let's declare it another lost war and get out. NOW.

Imperialism deserves to lose.

[Maddy McCall]

4. Thanks for posting this.

I think that we as liberals sometimes fall into the trap of seeing Iraq as "another Vietnam." It is similar in many ways--limited warfare, little effort put into hearts and minds, and so forth--but it's so different in that the Shiites have control of government and there is little chance that that will change, with or without future American presence. I think it is reminiscent of Vietnam, though, in that American public opposition is strong. Blaming American people for US failure in Vietnam is despicable--I think that the failure is in the execution of limited warfare strategy, and whether or not this administration's (poorly structured) aims could have ever been fulfilled through limited warfare.

The bottom line, I believe, is that limited warfare has many pitfalls that can't be avoided by simpletons in the Bush administration; that (many) Americans went along with the Iraq War (because of patriotic manipulation of 9/11) until the folly of limited warfare in Iraq became evident; and at this point the war is lost and this administration WILL blame the people (and the Democrats) when all is said and done. Bush is destined to be a bitter old man.

As opposed to total warfare, and god knows how many people I've heard say, "I think we should just carpet bomb 'em and turn the sand to glass." Yes, there are still people who believe this. :eyes:

Oh yeah, and where exactly is Osama Bin Laden?

Sorry for my ramble...k/r for this thought-provoking piece.

[BurtWorm]

5. Amen, Maddy.

Thank you for your thought-provoking ramble. ;)