A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
April 13, 2004Altogether More DangerousTacitus has a fascinating long historical post on the insurgencies and guerrilla wars of the past half-century that were militarily unsuccessful. He's reminding us, basically, that we can win a war against guerrillas if we're committed to doing so. I fear, like him, that we're not prepared psychologically for this, nor have we really figured out what's at stake. It's fine to say the Iraq war "wasn't about terrorism". It is about terrorism now, regardless of what it was originally -- the fortunes of radical Islamic groups are very much in play on the streets of Iraq. Here's his final point: The third point that needs illustrating is that many of these military defeats above were, for the guerrillas, political victories. The FLN took power in 1962, and Vietnamese communists imposed their tyranny upon a prostrate South in 1975. We must never forget that the primary cause of their triumph was the willful abdication of their enemies in the absence of absolute compulsion. Identifying and being conscious of the psychological and social factors that transformed victory into defeat in these prior cases is a necessary first step toward inoculating the American public from such failings in this one. Don't think it's not necessary: I can easily go to dKos or any one of a multitude of other sites -- including comments on this one -- and give you ample examples of hand-wringing and anguish over American war crimes, or massacres of Iraqi civilians, or calls for outright appeasement, or declarations of our inevitable defeat. These things bear little relationship to reality; what's pernicious about them, though, is that they can become reality -- self-fulfilling prophecies of failure and shame. This is the flip side of the mindless, stupid pro-war cheerleading that so often goes on (and frequently accuses me of "losing my nerve," or worse, when I discuss malign developments): but at least that has the virtue of optimism, and some grasp, however tenuous, of our fundamental power as a nation and a moral force. The defeatism, the reflexive pessimism, is altogether more dangerous.Posted by William Swann at April 13, 2004 01:56 PM Comments
Spot on. What else is there to say? Posted by: bk at April 13, 2004 02:40 PMNot much. One of his more brilliant and timely posts. I haven't looked at the comments over there -- but I'm curious. Posted by: William Swann at April 13, 2004 02:50 PMNice echo chamber you have here. It is about terrorism now, regardless of what it was originally... It is? Who says? I see a bunch of Iraqi Shias running around as guerillas with RPGs and AK-47s killing our troops because we closed a newspaper and want to arrest their Iraqi clerical leader. You and Tacitus must have x-ray eyes and can see the terrorist link. Where is it? By the way, what Tacitus thinks it will take to "win" involves two or three brand-new US combat divisions, plus a lot more US funds for reconstruction, for ten years. For what? Warbloggers' wounded pride? Some kind of national exercise in ego? Posted by: Mithras at April 13, 2004 10:39 PMIt is? Who says? I see a bunch of Iraqi Shias running around as guerillas with RPGs and AK-47s killing our troops because we closed a newspaper and want to arrest their Iraqi clerical leader. You and Tacitus must have x-ray eyes and can see the terrorist link. Where is it? I think we must be reading different news reports. It's pretty well established at this point that al Qaida is operating in Iraq. In fact, pretty much anyone in the region who wants to be in Iraq is there -- we have little control over the borders. We know the operatives are there, and we suspect they've been involved in a number of the suicide bombings. I can go find all the news stories about this, if it helps. More importantly, if we leave Iraq the conditions for al Qaida are likely to be favorable. We may see civil war, or perhaps a radical Islamic republic. We may see a moderate government for a time, followed by civil war and/or a radical government. Under most of these scenarios, Iraq and the region as a whole become a nice breeding-ground for terrorism. By the way, what Tacitus thinks it will take to "win" involves two or three brand-new US combat divisions, plus a lot more US funds for reconstruction, for ten years. For what? Warbloggers' wounded pride? Some kind of national exercise in ego? I think we need to look at this question seriously and carefully. Yes, it will take more troops, lots of money, lives lost, and injuries into the thousands. Furthermore, if we stay, we may or may not win. I have little trust in the Bush team to lead this to a positive conclusion. They may, after having stumbled around with all the wrong choices over the past year, find their way by trial-and-error to something effective. (Let's say, for example, they manage to negotiate with Sistani and other moderates to find a popular interim leader.) I have little trust that such a thing will happen, but it is at least possible ... along with a few other reasonably positive scenarios. We should look very carefully at the consequences of failure. A quick withdrawal has profound implications that will shape our relations with the world for the coming decades. It will, more or less, close the book on our relations with the Arab world -- they will conclude we do not follow through on our promises ... and we will have essentially withdrawn from the region. I don't agree with the Bush folks that going into Iraq was a justifiable gamble that we could remake the region. I do see now, though -- now that we've gone in -- that our credibility and our future are profoundly connected with the future of Iraq. Basically, I sense that losing a battle in the center of the region has all kinds of nasty ripple-effects. We should understand them clearly before making such a choice. It's far more than "a national exercise in ego". Posted by: William Swann at April 14, 2004 10:10 AM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
