December
06, 2006
"The real difficulty in changing any
enterprise lies not in developing new ideas, but in escaping from the old
ones." John Maynard Keynes
A
ray of realism appeared in the confirmation hearings for Secretary of Defense
nominee Robert Gates before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Gates himself
said that the US was not winning in Iraq, a statement with which everyone
agreed except the White House.
The
US, however, is not out of the woods. The question remains: what will be the US
government’s response to the lost war and the terrible calamity that Bush has
created in Iraq?
Many
Americans are still
fighting the Vietnam war. They see Iraq through the lens of the futile
Vietnam misadventure and express their dismay that America will lose another
war because "the Democrats will cut and run like they did
in Vietnam." These Americans have forgotten that it was a Republican administration
that got the US out of Vietnam and that it was the Democrats who committed the
US to that conflict. Moreover, Democrats are not showing a cut and run
propensity.
For
example, Silvestre Reyes, the incoming Democratic chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee, says the US cannot withdraw from Iraq until it has
dismantled the militias. Reyes wants to put 30,000 more US troops into Iraq to
dismantle the militias. Reyes has forgotten that sending more troops was the Democrats’ policy in Vietnam, a policy whose
only result was that more Americans lost sons, fathers, husbands, and brothers.
Obviously,
sending more US troops will not succeed in dismantling the Iraqi sectarian
militias. However, a US attempt to dismantle the militias will result in the
militias joining the insurgency and turning on the US troops. The situation
would deteriorate, not improve. It is frightening that the incoming chairman of
the House Intelligence Committee does not understand this.
The
appearance of a ray of realism about Iraq in the Senate Arms Services Committee
does not mean that the US will escape catastrophe. At the Armed Services
Committee hearing (Dec. 5), some senators said that US troops must not be used
in a civil war between Iraqis, but that the troops have to stay until stability
is created. Senators have the idea that US troops can be shorn of their combat
role, but remain to train the Iraqi army so the Iraqi government can put down
insurgency and civil war.
However,
in civil war each side has a government and an army. Which side will the US
support? If the US sides with the Sunnis against the majority Shiites, it will
be throwing in its lot with the insurgency that has been killing its troops and
find itself arrayed against the more numerous Shiites backed by Iran. If the US
favors the Shiite majority, the US will anger its Sunni allies in the Middle
East.
Indeed,
civil war between Sunnis and Shiites, with or without US involvement, could
easily spread throughout the Middle East. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was not the
only country where Sunnis hold political sway over Shiites. By invading Iraq,
stirring up extremism, and setting in motion sectarian violence, the Bush regime
may have opened Pandora’s Box of civil war throughout the Middle East.
The
neo-conservative
Bush regime lacked the brains to understand that defeating Saddam Hussein’s
army would not give the US control over Iraq. Whatever minimum control the US
might once have had is gone. The US army in Iraq has so little control that it
cannot even provide sufficient security for President Bush to meet in Iraq with
Prime Minister Maliki.
Since
the US army has no control, provides no security, and does not know who it is
fighting, US troops simply provide targets for insurgents. They are
accomplishing nothing positive and should be withdrawn. US troops in Iraq serve
one purpose: They are a provocation that foments Islamic extremism and creates
dangerous instability throughout the Middle East.
The
senators and Robert Gates haven’t got this far in their comprehension. The
question is whether they will see the light before US troops are forced to pay
a higher price for their government’s stupidity.
A
minority of Americans still believe the US can defeat the Iraqi insurgency if
only the US would use enough force. Americans hear this from neo-conservatives
and from the right-wing crazies of talk radio. These are the same Americans who
believe the US could have won the Vietnam War by invading or nuking North
Vietnam.
The
US probably could have defeated North Vietnam on a one-on-one basis. However,
just as General MacArthur’s invasion of North Korea
brought in the Chinese, a US invasion of North Vietnam would have been an
extreme provocation for the Soviet Union and China and could have ended in
nuclear war.
Many
Americans have the absurd notion that the only limit to US power is the will to
use it. This absurd idea provides the Israeli lobby with a vocal American
minority that is easy to exploit in behalf of "standing tough"
in the Middle East. The main reason that neither Republicans nor Democrats can
come to their senses about Iraq and America’s disastrous Middle East policy is
that the Israeli Lobby will not let them.
Right-wing
Israeli governments suffer the same delusion as neo-conservatives about
limitless US power. They believe that the power of their lobby can ensure that
American power will be used to destroy all of Israel’s enemies.
The
US is likely to remain mired in Iraq until Israelis cast out this delusion. No
amount of US power can make it possible for Israel to both steal Palestine from
Palestinians and have peace. No number of US invasions of Islamic countries can
win "the war on terror." As long as right-wing extremism
prevails in Israel and as long as the US interferes in the internal affairs of
Muslim countries, the formula for calamity remains in place.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.