NOW WHAT? IS MC CAIN RIGHT?
"You can't fool all the people all the time" ---Abe Lincoln
"The Devil always over-reaches" ---Spanish Proverb
"There is a thin line between steely resolve and mulish obstinancy, and the signature failing of the Bush administration where Iraq is concerned may be the simple fact that it has never understood this, that it crossed the line a long time ago without thought or hesitation and never looked back." ---Leonard Pitts Jr. (in the Statesman Journal, 11/14/06)
Senator Mc Cain said on Meet the Press that there are really only two options open to us in Iraq: either win or get out. The only way we can win, he said, is by substantially increasing the number of troops we have there. Then we must start in Anbar Province (currently held almost completely by the insurgents), clean them out town by town, hold those towns and move out-ward from them to clear the region. Once that is done, we can pacify the rest of the country.
How many troops will that take? Mc Cain won't say: that's up to the generals. Clearly it will
require a lot of troops! Probably at least double what we have there now. Gen. Shinseki, you will recall, testified in Congress that it would take three or four hundred thousand troops to do the job. He was ridiculed and forced into retirement for his honesty and courage.
Sen. Mc Cain cannot guarantee a favorable result if we follow his plan. Indeed, the British tried this back in the 1920s and failed. I recently answered an editorial in the Albany Democrat-Herald as follows:
"Your editorial (11/10/06) states well the questions we now face in Iraq.
Certainly we all wish the choices were better, and the prospects for peace more
promising. As you say, our hope for an overall victory in Iraq is probably not in
the cards.
As you also state, "having a plan does no good if we cannot carry it out." The
reason we can't carry it out is because there is no civil order there, on which to
build a social compact. The divisions are too deep, the hatreds too intense, the blood-
letting too widespread and determined.
We are afraid to leave, aware of the increased violence that will surely follow
our departure. And we rightly dread that. But will it be any different if we wait a year
to leave? Or two years? Once we are gone, scores will be settled, the law of the jungle
will prevail. A new Saddam will emerge, is my guess, probably wearing a religious
turban, and backed by Iran.
While we tread water, and buy time (to do what, we haven't a clue) our young
people continue to die. It cost us 104 dead and three or four hundred wounded in
October. Can we afford to lose 100+ each month for another year? Two years?
Indefinitely? For what? To save face? To protect some politician's feelings? To
impress the terrorists? No one can say.
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
"You can't fool all the people all the time" ---Abe Lincoln
"The Devil always over-reaches" ---Spanish Proverb
"There is a thin line between steely resolve and mulish obstinancy, and the signature failing of the Bush administration where Iraq is concerned may be the simple fact that it has never understood this, that it crossed the line a long time ago without thought or hesitation and never looked back." ---Leonard Pitts Jr. (in the Statesman Journal, 11/14/06)
Senator Mc Cain said on Meet the Press that there are really only two options open to us in Iraq: either win or get out. The only way we can win, he said, is by substantially increasing the number of troops we have there. Then we must start in Anbar Province (currently held almost completely by the insurgents), clean them out town by town, hold those towns and move out-ward from them to clear the region. Once that is done, we can pacify the rest of the country.
How many troops will that take? Mc Cain won't say: that's up to the generals. Clearly it will
require a lot of troops! Probably at least double what we have there now. Gen. Shinseki, you will recall, testified in Congress that it would take three or four hundred thousand troops to do the job. He was ridiculed and forced into retirement for his honesty and courage.
Sen. Mc Cain cannot guarantee a favorable result if we follow his plan. Indeed, the British tried this back in the 1920s and failed. I recently answered an editorial in the Albany Democrat-Herald as follows:
"Your editorial (11/10/06) states well the questions we now face in Iraq.
Certainly we all wish the choices were better, and the prospects for peace more
promising. As you say, our hope for an overall victory in Iraq is probably not in
the cards.
As you also state, "having a plan does no good if we cannot carry it out." The
reason we can't carry it out is because there is no civil order there, on which to
build a social compact. The divisions are too deep, the hatreds too intense, the blood-
letting too widespread and determined.
We are afraid to leave, aware of the increased violence that will surely follow
our departure. And we rightly dread that. But will it be any different if we wait a year
to leave? Or two years? Once we are gone, scores will be settled, the law of the jungle
will prevail. A new Saddam will emerge, is my guess, probably wearing a religious
turban, and backed by Iran.
While we tread water, and buy time (to do what, we haven't a clue) our young
people continue to die. It cost us 104 dead and three or four hundred wounded in
October. Can we afford to lose 100+ each month for another year? Two years?
Indefinitely? For what? To save face? To protect some politician's feelings? To
impress the terrorists? No one can say.
jgoodwin004@centurytel.net
posted by John Goodwin at
2:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home