The Kissinger Option
The case for pulling out of Iraq, it seems, grows ever stronger. And from an ever widening chorus of voices, as this piece for the conservative, hawkish, pro-Bush doctrine blog, The American Thinker illustrates.
Besides it being clear that victory in Iraq is not an option for the United States, it is beginning to also become clear that a US pullout will mean a defeat for our enemies, and possibly even a strategic gain for us. As the Saudi government is now openly declaring, if the US were to leave Iraq, it would step in to support the Sunni militias the same way Tehran has done with the Shi'ites. What could be better for the United States? We swallow the bitter pill of humility, admit that it was a mistake, and remove ourselves from the conflict. We no longer incur the costs in blood and treasure of fighting a war in which victory is both undefined and unreachable. Meanwhile, our two greatest enemies, Shi'ite Islam, as represented by Iran, and Sunni Islam, as represented by Al Qaeda and its sugar daddies in Riyadh, tear each other apart for us.
This is the shrewdness of Henry Kissinger's foreign policy. Like any government program, warfare run by states has a near 100% failure rate. Clear victories in wars which are not defensive in nature are exceedingly rare. The United States, the world's largest superpower, has won no clear victory since World War II. In Korea, we fought to a stalemate, in Vietnam we were clearly defeated. We won momentarily in Desert Storm, but the very action of invading Iraq in 2003 demonstrates the failure of the 1991 war to "stabilize" the region through punishing Saddam without removing him from power. In Iraq, it seems that we are headed for another clear defeat, like the one we suffered in the Vietnam campaign.
In Vietnam, Henry Kissinger recognized a war that could not be won, and got the United States out. At the same time, he used shrewd diplomacy to turn the US' two greatest enemies of the period, Red China and the Soviet Union, against one another. While both nations were communist, Kissinger used their different theories of communism and their rivalry for status of the leader-nation in the communist empire to make them enemies of one another, for the benefit of the US, which would go on to win the Cold War without suffering another major conflict.
We can do this today as well. Saudi Arabia (and its lackey Al Qaeda) and Iran are both nations with Islamist governments. However, they are from different flavors of Islam, Saudi Arabia is Sunni and Iran is Shi'ite. They are ethnically different, the Saudis are Arabs and the Iranians are Persians. They speak different languages, Arabic and Farsi, respectively. And they are certainly rivals for the leadership position in the Islamic community.
What keeps them from each other's throats? The presence of the United States military in Iraq, which currently takes the brunt of both of them, hit on one side by Shi'ite militias such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, and the Saudi-linked Al Qaeda on the other.
The removal of the US military will leave them to squabble over the smoldering ruins of Iraq. Make no mistake: Iraq will be, as Vietnam was, an unmitigated defeat for the United States. But just like Vietnam, it will be just as large (if not larger) a defeat for our enemies. An internecine Islamist conflict in Iraq will give the US time to breathe and recuperate, and dash forever any dreams of a united Islamic ummah to confront the west.
The American Thinker ultimately rejects using the Kissinger option, saying that it is not worthy because there is still some hope left for democracy in Iraq. I hardly need to rebut that ridiculous assertion, but I will do so anyways.
Their argument can really be summed up with this quote:
"The United States is morally and humanely obligated to see it through --- unless the situation deteriorates so greatly that the policy cannot be sustained. We are not there yet, but we could be, by 2008."
How far, exactly, would the Thinker like the deterioration to go, before we admit our mistake? Iraq has no unified government, it has no military, no police force, no system of laws or courts that are enforceable, and it is racked by militia violence. There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq is ever going to return from this state, and much that it will not. Furthermore, if it ever does, it will certainly be far too late, and at far too high a price tag, in both blood and treasure, to ever use as an example for the rest of the Islamic world.
Warfare is a government program. As usual, the government program as failed. And again, as usual, the solution to the problem is to do away with the program all together. It's time to take the Kissinger option.
Besides it being clear that victory in Iraq is not an option for the United States, it is beginning to also become clear that a US pullout will mean a defeat for our enemies, and possibly even a strategic gain for us. As the Saudi government is now openly declaring, if the US were to leave Iraq, it would step in to support the Sunni militias the same way Tehran has done with the Shi'ites. What could be better for the United States? We swallow the bitter pill of humility, admit that it was a mistake, and remove ourselves from the conflict. We no longer incur the costs in blood and treasure of fighting a war in which victory is both undefined and unreachable. Meanwhile, our two greatest enemies, Shi'ite Islam, as represented by Iran, and Sunni Islam, as represented by Al Qaeda and its sugar daddies in Riyadh, tear each other apart for us.
This is the shrewdness of Henry Kissinger's foreign policy. Like any government program, warfare run by states has a near 100% failure rate. Clear victories in wars which are not defensive in nature are exceedingly rare. The United States, the world's largest superpower, has won no clear victory since World War II. In Korea, we fought to a stalemate, in Vietnam we were clearly defeated. We won momentarily in Desert Storm, but the very action of invading Iraq in 2003 demonstrates the failure of the 1991 war to "stabilize" the region through punishing Saddam without removing him from power. In Iraq, it seems that we are headed for another clear defeat, like the one we suffered in the Vietnam campaign.
In Vietnam, Henry Kissinger recognized a war that could not be won, and got the United States out. At the same time, he used shrewd diplomacy to turn the US' two greatest enemies of the period, Red China and the Soviet Union, against one another. While both nations were communist, Kissinger used their different theories of communism and their rivalry for status of the leader-nation in the communist empire to make them enemies of one another, for the benefit of the US, which would go on to win the Cold War without suffering another major conflict.
We can do this today as well. Saudi Arabia (and its lackey Al Qaeda) and Iran are both nations with Islamist governments. However, they are from different flavors of Islam, Saudi Arabia is Sunni and Iran is Shi'ite. They are ethnically different, the Saudis are Arabs and the Iranians are Persians. They speak different languages, Arabic and Farsi, respectively. And they are certainly rivals for the leadership position in the Islamic community.
What keeps them from each other's throats? The presence of the United States military in Iraq, which currently takes the brunt of both of them, hit on one side by Shi'ite militias such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, and the Saudi-linked Al Qaeda on the other.
The removal of the US military will leave them to squabble over the smoldering ruins of Iraq. Make no mistake: Iraq will be, as Vietnam was, an unmitigated defeat for the United States. But just like Vietnam, it will be just as large (if not larger) a defeat for our enemies. An internecine Islamist conflict in Iraq will give the US time to breathe and recuperate, and dash forever any dreams of a united Islamic ummah to confront the west.
The American Thinker ultimately rejects using the Kissinger option, saying that it is not worthy because there is still some hope left for democracy in Iraq. I hardly need to rebut that ridiculous assertion, but I will do so anyways.
Their argument can really be summed up with this quote:
"The United States is morally and humanely obligated to see it through --- unless the situation deteriorates so greatly that the policy cannot be sustained. We are not there yet, but we could be, by 2008."
How far, exactly, would the Thinker like the deterioration to go, before we admit our mistake? Iraq has no unified government, it has no military, no police force, no system of laws or courts that are enforceable, and it is racked by militia violence. There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq is ever going to return from this state, and much that it will not. Furthermore, if it ever does, it will certainly be far too late, and at far too high a price tag, in both blood and treasure, to ever use as an example for the rest of the Islamic world.
Warfare is a government program. As usual, the government program as failed. And again, as usual, the solution to the problem is to do away with the program all together. It's time to take the Kissinger option.
posted by Ben-T | 2:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home