January 16, 2007
THERE IS NO NORTH IRAQ:
Another Vietnam?: We can still lose this war, but it will have to be lost politically. (Thomas Sowell, 1/16/07, National Review)
Despite all the politicians who were demanding more troops a year ago, and who have turned around and are now demanding that no more troops be sent to Iraq, the purely military aspects of the war have gone better than in most wars.We have learned the hard way, notably in the Vietnam war, that military victories are not enough. American troops scored a big victory on the battlefield in 1968 that was presented in the American media as a big defeat -- and that began the political unravelling of the Vietnam war.
Many in the media seem to think that they did something noble, to get us out of an "unwinnable" war. But the war was unwinnable only because they made it so politically. Even after American troops were withdrawn from Vietnam, South Vietnam was able to hold off the invaders from North Vietnam.
Only after Congress cut off financial support for South Vietnam, while the North Vietnamese continued to get support from the Communist bloc, did South Vietnam fall.
Since then, even the Communist conquerors have admitted that they did not win on the battlefield, but in the American media and in the American political arena, surrounded by an atmosphere created by a defeatist media.
Most of the today's media, led by the New York Times, has been even more blatantly one-sided in their reporting. Everyone I have heard from in person who has actually been in Iraq paints a far different picture from that of the gloom and doom of the media.
Make no mistake about it, we can still lose this war, but it will have to be lost politically.
How? Are the Shi'a, he Iranians, and we all going to stand back and allow a new Sunni totalitarian to take over? The notion is too inane to be credited. It's an unlosable war--the only question remains, as it has been since the start, whether the Sunni will accede to being governed by an elected government or whether they will have to quit Iraq. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 16, 2007 8:15 AM
The war can't be lost to the Shia, but it can be lost to the Iranians.
Posted by: pj at January 16, 2007 11:23 AMNo, it can't. They demonstrated in the Iraq War that they can't play a significant role in an Arab Shi'a population.
Posted by: oj at January 16, 2007 11:27 AMBecause they couldn't defeat a large army armed with tanks, jet fighters, and chemical weapons, they can't intimidate unarmed civilians into obedience?
A fifth of Iran consists of Arab Shia; surely governing them is "a significant role."
Posted by: pj at January 16, 2007 11:30 AMThat is the point of dispute - how much can Iran affect Iraq? A lot of people would consider Iraq lost if it were to end up allied to Iran.
Posted by: Brandon at January 16, 2007 11:31 AMFirst of all, there is no war in Iraq. That ended years ago. It is an occupation.
Next, Iranians are Persians, Iraqi Shites are Arab. Since when have Arabs let Persians rule them? Iran is using the Shites in Iraq right now but they are being used also.
Iran is too weak to be a threat unless they get nukes. We can take the nuke facilities out over a weekend whenever we feel like it. An alliance with a weak, violence prone Iraq does not help the Iranians, it hurts them. Let them have Iraq if they can take it, which of course they can't.
Posted by: Bob at January 16, 2007 12:40 PM"Since when have Arabs let Persians rule them?"
There are over 2 million Shi'a Arabs living in Iran right now. No problem ruling them.
Posted by: h-man at January 16, 2007 2:49 PMBob - As h-man and I said, the Arabs of Khuzestan and other provinces are ruled by Iran. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iran_ethnoreligious_distribution_2004.jpg. There's no law of physics that Arabs can't be ruled by Persians.
It is not and will not be possible to take out Iran's nukes "over a weekend," except possibly with nuclear weapons ourselves -- even that is unlikely, and would be possible only if we had good intelligence as to the location of Iran's nukes, which we don't and won't.
Why would the Arabs in Iraq consent to being ruled by Iranians, why would they trade one master for another? The Arabs in Iran will likely want to splt off from Iran to join a majority Arab Shiite Iraq, don't you think, once they fully grasp the possibilities.
Weekend is about right. Wekif you like. Air strikes, cruise missles and perhaps special forces will destroy the 20-25 important sites, no sweat. The Mossad already has sufficent intelligence, Isreal just lacks the tools.
Posted by: Bob at January 16, 2007 4:40 PMYes, but those same wahoos will consider America lost when we're re-allied with Iran.
Posted by: oj at January 16, 2007 5:07 PMThe 80% can always dominate 20%, that's why the war can't be lost.
Posted by: oj at January 16, 2007 5:08 PMThe Iranians are even going to lose their Kurdish regions, nevermind add Arab ones.
Posted by: oj at January 16, 2007 5:58 PMAn internal population of 2 million can easily be dominated by 70 million.