|
Submitted by DemocracyRules, Dec 26, 2006 18:31
To succeed in Iraq, it is critical to clearly define our goals. Not everything is a reprise of Vietnam – even Vietnam was not Vietnam! During that war, the MSM controlled almost all information -- no internet, no blogs, no email. Vietnam was part of the cold war policy of the containment of communism. The war succeeded in slowing the communist takeover of Vietnam, stopped the takeover of most neighboring countries, worked to impoverish the Soviets, destabilized Chinas' regional hegemony, and exacerbated the acrimony and competition between the Soviets and China. Vietnam was definitely a setback in the cold war, but the biggest problem is slavishly interpreting the complex outcome as defeat, and projecting this interpretation onto all other wars. The MSM seriously promulgates the idea that tiny North Vietnam single-handedly defeated 175,000,000 Americans in combat, and "won" by becoming a full Stalinist state. Without China and the Soviets, winning in North Vietnam would have been easy - invade, occupy, and democratize. In reality, invasion might have caused war with the Soviets (probably no) or China (probably yes). Instead, the US stuck by the strategy of communist containment, ceded South Vietnam, prosecuted WWIII elsewhere, and eventually won by blocking and completely impoverishing the Soviets. Vietnam was painful for the participants and for onlookers to watch, but most hope for the day that Vietnam will become a democracy. The US and its allies have hastened that arrival, by defeating the Soviets, encouraging China to democratize, and showing goodwill to the current Vietnam government.
The current "terrorist" war is really a war with various Muslim fascists, which started with Iraq in 1991. It now resembles the cold war, with containment as the main objective – isolating Iran, Syria, South Lebanon, Palestine, other hot spots, and fighting wars only when necessary, limiting goals, and limiting duration. Concurrently, we promote democratization, and political solutions, again slowly and painfully, but it is the best way to do it. The Iraq war has had 6 phases so far: 1991 Iraq invasion of Kuwait (ultimately unsuccessful for Iraq), 1991 allied counterattack on Kuwait (successful), 91-03 containment of Iraq (mainly successful, but unsustainable), 03 invasion (successful), 03-06 peacemaking, defeating insurgents attacking US and allies (successful), 06-07 peacekeeping, attenuating effects of civil war (so far at least partly successful). The next stage will be gradual withdrawal leading to full Iraqi self-sufficiency (dates unspecified, but about 08-11). This will be successful if Iraq does not harbor terrorists which attack western allies. Containment (or re-invasion) may be necessary. Remember, the US is STILL in Japan, South Korea, and Japan (why, by the way?). You may declare Iraq as defeat, or victory, if you like, but marshal evidence to prove your point. It is not enough to shout from some headline, "WE LOST!" It makes no sense.
Wars are magnificent punctuation marks of history, with lots of social upheaval, hate, death, genocide, and geopolitical change, all concentrated into a definite time period. Peacekeeping bores the MSM, because it's mainly about minimizing social upheaval, hate, death, genocide, and geopolitical change, while spreading the whole process over long, ill-defined time periods until an insufferably bored populace give up their hate and desire for conflict. Peacekeepers cannot replace the will of a populace – they can only attenuate atrocities, while politicians, diplomats, and NGO's work to rekindle the desire for peace and stability.
So far the allies are winning the war with Muslim fascism -- no attacks on US soil since 9/11, only small ones elsewhere, Taliban on the run, Iran increasingly pushed against the wall -- we just have to stick with it. There may be no single clear "win", when walls fall, and borders collapse, but "success" occurs when human suffering declines.
Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.
|
