Lower Expectations, Set a Date, and Leave -- Retired Army Col. Bacevich

[Khephra]

Those of us who experienced Vietnam firsthand are perhaps too quick to shout quagmire at the first sign of a war going awry. Iraq is not Vietnam. Comparing the two may offer a useful device for discomfiting the Bush administration, but it provides little in terms of policy analysis.

So forget Vietnam. Instead, listen to what today's military leaders, innocent of personal involvement in that earlier war, have to say. Gen. John Abizaid, the theater commander, has forthrightly categorized the situation in Iraq as a "classical guerrilla-type campaign." Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces actually fighting that war, tells us that resistance is increasing and that the enemy is becoming progressively more sophisticated.

What is implied by this assessment? Guerrilla wars tend to be protracted, as this one almost certainly will be. They also tend to be ugly, politically complex and morally ambiguous -- qualities on display daily in Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle. Guerrilla wars consume resources at a prodigious rate. Moreover, they do not play to the strong suit of either American soldiers, who are impatient to finish the job and go home, or the American people, who are impatient, period.



more....................

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11048-2003Oct10.html

[4dsc]

1. But this differ's from PNAC ideal's...

how can neocon's build an imperialistic empire if start to retreat now??

[joeybee12]

2. I've come to the conclusion we can't simply leave

It's not about saving face, either. It's because if we leave--after raping a country--the hatred towards this country will skyrocket. We need to kiss the UN's ass, and let them have control so our soldiers are not sitting ducks, and also so the world does not become even more dangerous.

[Sagan]

3. Wrong on a couple of points...

First off, on "making it Kofi Anan's quagmire".. Anan and the UN doesn't want it. That much is obvious. They didn't want the war in the first place.

Secondly, regarding this quote:

"Third, establish a schedule for drawing down U.S. forces and stick to it. Among other things, a phased reduction of the U.S. presence would make clear that this is not a neocolonial occupation of indefinite duration. In doing so, it will deprive the insurgent cause of its chief claim to legitimacy -- the notion that only violence will drive the Americans out."

This is naive. After U.S. troops are gone, Iraqi insurgents will merely fall to squabbling among themselves for power, or Iraq will break up. The Iraqi militants will not just breathe a sigh of relief and hang their muskets over the fireplace when U.S. troops are gone.

All in all, this is a remarkable piece of cynicism and denial. We broke it, let someone else pay for it. Shame, shame.

[terrisel]

5. We Broke It and we may have to Pay Someone Else to Fix

I believe the Bush-Iraq War is Lost. Our government is going to want to leave before the big push. They remember the ignominous leaving of Saigon-helicoptors plucking desperate people of the roof of the compound as victorious Viet Cong are arriving in the city.

Bush will soon declare victory in Iraq (once again) and the UN will go in at the request of the Iraqis. The US will have to contribute money to the rebuilding but give up most of its presence there and most of the contracts.

The US has lost in the middle east and that is why Bush is opening a fight with Cuba. Awhile back Cuba had started accepting euros on the same basis as dollars. Menacing Cuba is an attempt to menace Venezuela, the oil producer.

I believe that a lot of people of influence in the US know that Iraq is lost and they want to fall back on their plan to dominate the Americas.

Britain is going to have to decide whether to become part of the European-Russia Bloc or a European outpost of the Americas Bloc. I suppose people of influence in Britain are telling themsselves
that Britain can be a bridge.

In any case the new world order-largely unplanned by anyone-is about continental blocs not an American Oil Empire in Asia with gated Houstonian executive communites in Baghdad (Sugarland East).

[bpilgrim]

7. actually the UN appears willing to help

if some reasonable conditions are met... shoot they hundreds of operations up and running right after the 'war' 'ended'.

and whos saying we wouldn't be expected to continue to pay for the reconstruction?

we need to turn political authority over to the un asap and then begin to transition our troops out for regional and international ones.

but the neo-CONs will have none of it.

between iraq and a hard place ;->

peace

[teryang]

4. It's a bitter harvest...

We do need to set a date (real soon) and go home.

This is like Vietnam to the extent it is a neo colonial effort. Colonialism went out with WWII. Vietnam was the object lesson. People shouldn't forget it. The fact that we lord it over central America and Grenada doesn't mean colonial efforts in Asia or Africa are going to be successful. Our current leadership including some in the armed forces still think that they can reverse the historical verdict of Vietnam. That was a trauma they can't get over. I guess this is why this writer tries to take the tangential approach, to avoid the knee jerk right wing response which is the legacy of failure in Vietnam by trying to defuse it.

Many DOD professionals particularly in the Air Force and the civilian contracting side have been working their way up to this dubious adventure small war by small war. Now they have bitten off a piece they are going to choke on. The further we get away from home, the more costly and less prospect of success we have. Everyone acknowledges there is no justification for greater mobilization. That the war is a political failure was known by many here before it started. Further military efforts only prolong the inevitable and increase the costs in human sacrifice.

The consequences of bad judgement in going to war cannot be overstated. The notion that once you have embarked on such a course that there must be some way to "fix it" is pure hubris (like the original formulation of the plan to go to war). Sunk costs are no costs. The failure to recognize this is a very human flaw in logic. We have no alternative but to get out and support UN efforts to try to stave off humanitarian diaster while the Iraqis sort it out the hard way. Once it is sorted out, American corporations will have to compete for Iraqi resources the old fashioned way, they will have to pay for it.

It's to bad that the oil companies, the defense contractors, media moguls, so called "think tanks," and the neo cons screwed everything up. That's life in the real world. GET OUT NOW.

But you know what the real irony is, they want to expand the conflict to other countries cover up the ongoing policy diaster. As in Vietnam, the litany of fools is "we weren't wrong, we just didn't go far enough."

[KoKo]

6. Thanks for this. The site also (you have to click in the box on the right

has the views of three other Retired Military big wigs. Their comments are an interesting read also.

Hopefully someone will pay attention, but I don't know who. Shrub doesn't read, Condi would rather shop, and Cheney spends most of his time playing poker in his bunker.

maybe a few Congresspeople, or some of the PNAC folks. But, hopefully more and more people with some stature speaking out will get those "squatters"in the WH to wake up.