[Rhodes22-list] Political/Historical: "Winning" the war in Iraq - long

[Robert Skinner]

"Winning" the war on terrorism:

Herb, unless and until we nail Osama and his next couple of 
levels of command, and I mean dead, destroyed, vaporized 
without any holy relics left, and continue taking heads of 
islamic AND other terrorists for the next ten years, until 
the terrorists are terrified wherever they are -- this 
"war" cannot be nor will it be won.  

It will not be won on the land by occupying armies.  It 
will be won in the minds of those who want to enjoy a 
peaceful existence, and those who would disrupt states in 
the name of any ideal.  It will be won when decent people 
will not regard harboring terrorists as the only way to 
avoid personal poverty, death and destruction.  

The world is no longer carved up into nationalistic 
fiefdoms.  Like it or not, all borders are porous.  And 
some people are both pissed off and effective.  Others will 
channel the pissed off people's disaffection to their own 
ends.  All politics may be local, but the terrorist is and 
will be international.

If ever the term "police action" (so incorrectly applied in 
the past) was ever justified, this situation is the proper 
nominee.  And the neighborhood cop better form a good 
relationship with the community, or he is dead or 
ineffective.

Concerning Iraq, specifically:

I have said in the past, and I will say again -- the 
problem in Iraq is a civil war between Kurds, Shiites, and 
Sunnis.  

Just as the czars, Stalin, and his successors were only 
able to hold Russia together with dictatorial power, so 
the politically convenient kludge of 20th century Iraq 
will only be held together by another dictator such as 
Saddam.

We must not allow ourselves to be captivated (or impaled) 
by the horns of a false dilemma -- the options for our 
relationship to Iraq are not "stay the course" or "cut and 
run".  Rather, we must strip away the political fog 
obscuring our vision and recognize the current realities 
of Iraqi socio-political dynamics.

So far, it can be effectively argued that our "help" in 
Iraq has been on the whole divisive and destructive.  It is
time to clean up our act and put force where it is needed, and 
keep our hands off where our efforts will do no good.  And, 
with the help of any and all deities and other good 
advisors, gather and attend to the intel to understand the 
difference.

/Robert
-------------------------------------------------------------
Herb Parsons wrote:
> 
> Absolutely, but that "history lesson" will likely not be seen by us.
> 
> Lincoln was not considered a great president, as a matter of fact, he was considered, in his time, a pretty BAD president. He was even deeply concerned that he would not be re-elected. The war was not popular (BTW, the thought the war would last a few weeks at best, he was wrong), nor was the way in which he was handling it. President Bush is downright soft on the way he handles criticism, compared to the way President Lincoln handled it in his day.
> 
> If we win this war, President Bush will likely be looked back on well. If not, he likely won't. However, his legacy is not really my worry. If we lose this war, it will only be because of leaving before we win. If we do that, you can bet our enemies will decide that we no longer have the stomach or will to win a war. 9/11 will seem like nothing compared to what will be headed our way.
> 
> Herb Parsons
> 
> S/V O'Jure
> 1976 O'Day 25
> Lake Grapevine, N TX
> 
> S/V Reve de Papa
> 1971 Coronado 35
> Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana Coast
> 
> >>> R22RumRunner at aol.com 11/11/2006 6:05:00 pm >>>
> Herb,
> Time will tell, also known as history.
> 
> Rummy