November 11, 2004
GEEZ, EVEN GEORGE WILL CLIMBING ON BOARD?:
Some tentative optimism in Iraq (George F. Will, November 11, 2004, Sacramento Bee)
Officers here believe that the problem of foreign fighters in Iraq has been vastly exaggerated — that only a few hundred of 10,000 people detained in Iraq are foreigners. In Fallujah, a Darwinian dynamic may be at work — survival of the most dangerous. That is, many insurgents fled before the Marines came, while the stupid ones stayed. The core of the insurgency — former regime elements — may include a few who want to return to the good old days of the seventh century, but many more who want to return to the good old days of power in Baghdad and shopping at Harrods in London.Abizaid believes radical Islam today is roughly akin to Bolshevism in 1890 and fascism in 1920 — there is time to stop its rise, but it must be stopped. Military success is certain. The enemy dare not mass. In Vietnam, American battalions suffered defeats. In Iraq, there has been no platoon-size defeat, and regular U.S. infantry units perform tasks that would have called for Delta Force skills a decade ago.
Abizaid laconically dismisses the idea that U.S. military energies are being depleted by "nation-building" duties: "We're doing more fighting than fixing. The enemy gives us ample opportunity to fight."
But while almost 3,000 Americans died on 9/11, there have been fewer than half that many military deaths in three years since the post-9/11 fighting began, in Afghanistan. And one reason why terrorists have killed no Americans in America since 9/11 is that, as one officer puts it, "we're so much in their knickers abroad."
Success in Iraq, people here believe, is contingent on three ifs: if Iraqi military and security forces can stay intact during contacts with the insurgents; if insurgents are killed in sufficient numbers to convince the Sunni political class that it must invest its hope in politics; if neighboring states, especially Syria, will cooperate in slowing the flow of money and other aid to the insurgency. If so, then America can — this is the preferred verb — "stand up" an Iraqi state and recede from a dominant role.
Nothing like re-election to make the most reluctant members of your own party suddenly discover your hidden charms. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 11, 2004 4:52 PM
I like George Will, but he deserves to break his ankle climbing on this bandwagon. He's been unceasingly, wearingly negative about Iraq for months on end.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at November 11, 2004 7:09 PMHe's a Reaganaut. Didn't like Bush the Elder, doesn't like Bush the Younger.
Posted by: joe shropshire at November 11, 2004 11:14 PMHis criticisms of Old Bush were truly trenchant and like me he is skeptical of Bush's intentions in Iraq. If Bush were really in favor of 'democracy', he'd have split the place into its three provinces and simplified the nonsense we're facing now. However, the Saudis don't want a Shia State on their border, because their population is about 25% Shia. Sadly, given a choice between rational policymaking and saving American lives or kowtowing to the Saudis, it seems that Dubya is reverting to family-type and kissing Saudi butt.
Posted by: Bart at November 12, 2004 6:24 AMBart, I think Michael Moore is auditioning for his new movie.
Afghanistan just had an election. They didn't need to split up the country. Why shouldn't Bush think the Iraqi election will be just as successful?
If it doesn't fare well, let them split up the country themselves. That worked in Czechoslovakia.
I see no conspiracies necessary to explain Bush's faith in democracy.
Posted by: Randall Voth at November 12, 2004 10:00 AMRandall,
Because Afghanistan has been a place for about 7 or 8 centuries, while Iraq has only existed since the evil Empire of the 19th century, Britain, got hold of three forlorn Ottoman provinces after WWI, and decided to cobble them together into a Frankenstein monster of a country.
Letting them split up the country peacefully won't work because the parts aren't equal. The oil is in the Shia South and the Kurdish North. The Kurds want out now, why don't we just let them?
You have to back away and ask in whose interest keeping the place as a unified state is? It's not in the interest of the locals and it's not in the interest of the US, as long as we get the oil it could be one state or 500.
Posted by: Bart at November 12, 2004 11:10 AM