Quote:
Originally Posted by Hard-Driver
. . . The new way forward is to get Iraqis to fight for themselves. Unless that country is willing to stand up for itself, there can never be success there. . . .
|
Driver, that idea makes me a mite grumpy and I'll tell you why.
1. "Fight"[ing], and "stand[ing] up" imply that there is a conflict in Iraq for which a warfare solution can succeed in terms favorable to the US interest. That solution has been tested these last five years with results apparent to even the most strident supporters. Absent US involvement, there
was no war but without the US [post-surge if you will] the Iraq Civil War will re-ignite*. In the end, Iraqis have nobody to fight but themselves.
2. Another factor that makes me grumpy is the idea that Iraqi leaders have the
least interest in fighting for themselves. What constitutes “themselves” in a culture that places tribal allegiance and sectarian identity ahead of nationality? [“Iraq” as a nation was imposed upon mesopotamia by British decree supported by British guns.]
3. After the US departs Iraq the terrorists who were attracted by the US presence will depart for richer western targets. In the end, US military blood can be spent in Iraq or civilian blood can be spilled in the western world. We have a classical tiger by the tail [I dare not utter “quagmire”, the term having been used in another context.].
* - Please don't take that prediction as coyote prescience. It may easily be supported/refuted in about four or five years on the nightly news.