I'm waiting with interest to see if the Bush administration can successfully head off public debate over whether we should withdraw from Iraq without ever defining why we're there in the first place. The White House "strategy for victory" defines victory as the following state:
"Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism."
I wish all that would happen too. It was very generous of us to invade in order to help Iraq become peaceful, stable, and secure, although it seems to have been a bit counterproductive. I think the "full partner" thing may be a little outbreak of honesty...is it shorthand for having a puppet government in the heart of the Persian Gulf? I'm can't see how that would actually help America, but from the Cold War we know U.S. policy elites are fond of such constructs.
The whole thing is more than a little surreal. Especially the stuff about staying until the Iraqis learn how to fight. The Iraqis definitely already know how to fight, they seem to do a fine job so long as they're fighting against our troops and not for them.
Our current situation there is so 20th century...straight out of the post WWII guerilla war playbook for a poor country against a rich one. France in Algeria and Vietnam, the U.S. in Vietnam, Israel in Lebanon, Russia in Afghanistan, there are essentially no cases of a major power subduing a determined guerilla resistance in a foreign country by force of arms. In every case the foreign power has tried to arm and prop up a puppet government, and in every case that government has been weak and corrupt despite the obvious military ability of the population. It tends to be the most corrupt elements who cooperate with the invader.
The X factor in Iraq is the possibility of a closer alliance with the Shi'ite majority. In Vietnam we were allied with a Catholic ruling group that would never be anything but a disliked minority. But if we become the de facto allies of the Shi'ites in consolidating their power over the Sunnis, then we may eventually get a determined and motivated army on "our side", at least nominally. Of course we'll then be participating in a civil war and probably helping the Iranians too, but never mind.
What a mess. The Syrians and/or the Iranians could probably help if we were willing to offer them a genuine say, they know the culture and territory. I'm sure they don't want their neighborhood trashed any more than it already has been. But we don't seem disposed to look in that direction. Our consistent hostility to Iraq's neighbors is a telling indicator that we are still less interested in seeing a peaceful, stable Iraq than an Iraq that furthers some mysterious geopolitical scheme. After all this, do we really know what that scheme might be?
Marcus
