Won the war, lost the peace
America's military is the finest in the world. It is very good at its job, which consists of killing people and breaking things. That is why it managed to defeat the Iraqi army in a very short period of time, at an extraordinarily low cost. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines accomplished their mission of toppling the Iraqi regime and capturing Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, instead of being content with achieving the achievable, the Bush administration foolishly embraced the impossible.
The impossible is the plan that was pushed for years by the World Democratic Revolutionists, the Wilsonian crew sometimes known as neocons. The idea was that with the forced installation of a modern two-party system of limited democracy in Iraq, the close exposure to this "freedom" will cause the oppressed people ruled by surrounding Middle Eastern regimes to rise up and overthrow their totalitarian rulers - presumably with a little help from their friends - in pursuit of similar governance for themselves.
In fact, the plan sounds remarkably like the student revolutionaries' gambit in "Les Miserables." And like the administration's echo chamber in the Three Monkey Republican media, Enjolras and company were not inclined to listen to criticism of their sure-fire, guaranteed-to-succeed, most-excellent plan.
Damn their warnings, damn their lies! They shall see the people rise.
You may recall that the students at the lonely barricade waited in vain for the people to rise and were slaughtered almost to a man. You may also note that it's fast approaching two years since April 10, 2003, when American troops took Baghdad and a year since I last called publicly for the return of our troops. Since Baghdad fell, America has lost more than nine times as many troops in the post-war peace as it did in the war itself, with 1,163 post-war KIA compared to 122 wartime fatalities as of Dec. 12, 2004.. A few months ago, I wrote that optimistic comparisons to postwar Japan and Germany were foolish and inaccurate - one no longer hears even whispers of them now, only increasingly desperate assertions that Iraq is not Vietnam.
And it isn't. It's arguably worse. Fractured and divisive though it is, the Middle Eastern regimes have recognized the danger that a genuinely democratic Iraq poses to them, although not in the cartoon villain manner ascribed to them by the lapdog conservative media. Just as the militaries of Turkey and Algeria stepped in to prevent the will of the Turkish and Algerian peoples from being realized, the Arab dictators know that a democratic Iraq is not synonymous with a quiescent Iraq and they are willing do almost anything that will stop the proposed transformation.
This means America is now in a situation that approximates trying to build a quasi-democratic system in Saxony-Anhalt while being surrounded on every side by forces of the Third Reich. This is why the World Democratic Revolutionists are still pushing hard for expanding the war into Iran and Syria, because without taking the entire Middle East, America cannot hold Iraq or guarantee the continuance of any government installed there. (The same is not necessarily true of Afghanistan, which is neither Arab nor surrounded by hostile forces.)
George Bush has not made the case for World War III. The American people are already divided on Iraq and will not support an attempt at a complete conquest of the Middle East. Therefore, George Bush must do what he should have done 20 months ago, accept America's victory over the Hussein regime and bring the troops home to be honored for their historic triumph. That this triumph might taste sourly of defeat can be laid squarely at the door of the World Democratic Revolutionists, who were not content with the bird in hand and insisted on grabbing for the 10 in the bush.
And perhaps the president would do well to hear a voice in his ear, whispering, "remember, thou too art mortal." This is not only true of men, but nations, too.
My decision to speak out again on this issue was inspired by conversations with friends returned from Iraq, including one two-tour volunteer and one highly-regarded U.S. Marine Corps shooter. Despite being generally favorable toward the Iraqi freedom effort, the consensus of these combat veterans is that the conflict there has been successfully transformed into a guerilla war by the external enemies and that victory through pacification and democratic transformation is implausible.
I have no doubt that many will complain that I am not "supporting the troops" by pointing out the strategic failures of their commanders. This is utter hogwash. If anyone is not supporting the troops, it is the World Democratic Revolutionists, who would spend the lives of American soldiers in support of an objective, however laudatory, that appears to have increasingly little chance of success.