Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Iraq: A Civil War We Can Still Win --the Delusional C. Krauthammer

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-08-06 03:13 PM
Original message
Iraq: A Civil War We Can Still Win --the Delusional C. Krauthammer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701616.html?referrer=email&referrer=email&referrer=email

Iraq: A Civil War We Can Still Win

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, September 8, 2006; A17



As the Democrats turn themselves into the antiwar party, as popular support for the war continues to sink, as some who initially signed on to the war now heap scorn on the entire Iraqi project, the question of immediate withdrawal must be confronted. There are two rationales for withdrawing from -- let's be honest, abandoning -- Iraq: (a) Iraq is not worth it, and (b) worth it or not, the cause is lost.

The first rationale was articulated most recently by John Kerry: "Iraq is not the center of the war on terror. The president keeps saying it is. The president keeps trying to push that down America's throat. It's wrong, it's a mistake and it's losing us the ability to do what we need to do in the region." This is absurd. If the United States leaves, the central government in Iraq will collapse, and the beneficiaries will be Iran, Syria and al-Qaeda, the three major terrorist actors in the world today. It would not just be a psychological victory but also a territorial one. Al-Qaeda would gain a base in Mesopotamia; Syria and Iran would share spheres of influence in what's left of the Iraqi state.

We might come out of this with an independent Kurdistan that could be a base for U.S. military power, but it would be a shrunken presence in a roiling area, a tragically small consolation prize.
One can argue that we should therefore have left Saddam Hussein in place. That assumes a stable and benign status quo ante . Both assumptions are false. But assume for a moment that the critics are right. That's the argument that should have been made -- that Kerry should have made -- four years ago, before he voted yes, before he voted no, before he voted yes on the war. At this point, it is simply indisputable that the collapse of Iraq's constitutional government would represent an enormous gain for the forces of terror.

The other rationale for withdrawal is that the war is lost and therefore it is unconscionable to make one more American soldier die for a cause that cannot be salvaged. It is a serious argument from which we have been distracted during the past several months by the increasingly absurd debate over the meaning of the term "civil war," and whether Iraq is in one.

Of course it is. It began when the Sunni minority, unwilling to accept the finality of the Baathist defeat, began making indiscriminate war on the Kurdish-Shiite majority that had inherited the country as a result of the U.S. invasion...Iraq is not Spain in the 1930s or America in the 1860s, but whether the phrase "civil war" is to be used is irrelevant. The relevant question is, can we still win, meaning can we leave behind a functioning, self-sustaining, Western-friendly constitutional government?...The vast majority of Sunnis are fighting not for ideology but for a share of power and (oil) money. A deal with them is eminently possible and could co-opt enough Sunnis to greatly shrink the insurgency. Even now, the insurgents have the capacity to massacre civilians and kill coalition soldiers with roadside bombs, but they have never demonstrated the capacity for the kind of sustained unit action that ultimately overthrows governments and wins civil wars. (See Castro, Mao, North Vietnam.) Our ambassador in Baghdad has been urging the Maliki government to make the bargain. He has also been urging it to get serious about the growing internal threat of Sadr's Mahdi Army, which is responsible for much of the recent sectarian violence and threatens to either marginalize or supplant the central government.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

THE WISHES OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO WEIGHT IN THIS ARGUMENT.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-08-06 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. Revised title: A civil war Iraq can still win for us
I think that's much more accurately representing Mr. Krauthammer's views.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greenman3610 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-08-06 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. watching neo cons gradually come to grips with reality
is like watching a baby learn to walk.

There's a lot of crying, and they have to scoot on their butts for a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC