destabilized? that’s our M.O….

Posted on Sunday 19 November 2006


Former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, who regularly advises President Bush on Iraq, said today that a full military victory was no longer possible there. He thus joined a growing number of leading conservatives openly challenging the administration’s conduct of the war and positive forecasts for it.

“If you mean, by ‘military victory,’ an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible,” Mr. Kissinger told BBC News.

In Washington, a leading Republican supporter of the war, Senator John McCain of Arizona, said American troops in Iraq were “fighting and dying for a failed policy.”

But Mr. McCain continued to argue vigorously for a short-term surge in American forces, and he gained a vocal ally in Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, another influential Republican, who said, “We’re going to lose this war if we don’t adjust quickly.”

The comments came at a sensitive time, just as the Bush administration, deeply frustrated by the persistent chaos in Iraq — where more than 50 people died in violence today — and stung by Republicans’ electoral setbacks on Nov. 7, has undertaken an intense search for new approaches to the war.

Mr. Kissinger, in the BBC interview, said the United States must open talks with Iraq’s neighbors, pointedly including Iran, if progress is to be achieved in Iraq. Mr. Bush has said the United States is ready for such talks, but only if Iran moves to halt its nuclear enrichment work. American officials say low-level talks with Syria have produced little progress.

But Mr. Kissinger also said that a hasty withdrawal from Iraq would have “disastrous consequences,” leaving not only Iraq but neighboring countries with large Shiite populations destabilized for years.
Kissinger 1boringoldman Says Victory in Iraq Is Not Was Never Possible and I’m sticking to it. Iraq is a deeply divided country, fighting the sectarian war that has plagued Islam since shortly after Mohammed’s death – it’s about succession or some such trivial thing. Iraq was held together by force of a dictator. There’s no way in the world that what we thought we could do could be done. What Kissinger and McCain are suggesting – stabilization – would require something like another Saddam Hussein. Iraqis don’t want that either. It’s like the fall of Tito in Yugoslovia. Those people had been waiting to get back to fighting for years. The Iraqi will duke it out until they tire of it, and that might be never. We didn’t have a chance.

All of Saddam’s atrocities and saber rattling were how he held things in check. He was a pro. We’re rookies. There will be no victory. There will be no stabilization. That’s not what they’re about right now. Thanks for weighing in Henry, but no cigar. Everyone’s still saying that the war wasn’t conducted well. True or not, it doesn’t matter too much in the long run to them. It shouldn’t have been fought in the first place. Like Viet Nam, there is no solution – at least no solution from our perspective. It’s like the laws of thermodynamics:

  1. You can’t win
  2. You can’t even break even
  3. You have to lose 
  1.  
    dc
    November 19, 2006 | 11:23 PM
     

    In the current issue of Foreign Policy, Joshua Muravchik, a prominent
    neoconservative, argued that the Administration had little choice. “Make
    no mistake: President Bush will need to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities
    before leaving office,” he wrote. The President would be bitterly
    criticized for a preëmptive attack on Iran, Muravchik said, and so
    neoconservatives “need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared
    to defend the action when it comes.”
    http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061127fa_fact

  2.  
    dc
    November 19, 2006 | 11:26 PM
     

    Meant to head the above comment with this:

    Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?

    THE NEXT ACT
    by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
    http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061127fa_fact

  3.  
    November 20, 2006 | 6:34 PM
     

    Dawn,
    Damn you’re good. I posted about these two articles, then I noticed your comments. Great minds!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.