At least, in Iraq? This analysis makes me think there's a good possibility that the Battle For Iraq may be very close to finishing - if not completed. But this will be a MAJOR victory in the War on Terror. Wrechard's comments are key.
The Belmont Club: Baghdad countyThere's always going to be the possibility of a civil war - but the ballot is more and more taking the place of the bullet and bomb in the ME. The next election will really seal the fate of the insurgents. They may try their hardest to blow things to hell - but the people of Iraq have already been there and they're going to fight anyone trying to shove them back down into the brimstone.Victory when it came, was both greater and less; more partial and more complete than expected. It did not take the European form of parades down the Champs Elysee, followed by a return to old and establish ways of governance. What the destruction of the Ba'athist regime did was reanimate long suppressed local and ethnic interests and channel them into competition through the ballot box -- with the occasional recourse to violence. Tremendous forces have been unleashed which critics of the war will point to as signs of an incipient civil war, but which supporters of OIF will describe as a newly liberated society feeling its way forward.
Whether OIF has wrenched events in the Middle East from their old tracks and put them on a better route remains to be seen. What is less debateable is that OIF has subtly changed America. The Armed Forces have acquired capabilities they never had before. Bill Roggio in Patrolling Haqlaniyah describes three-tour veterans who can talk politics with Iraqis. For many individual Americans Iraq is now something less than home and something more than a foreign country. For America as a whole, one thing that no politician will dispute in 2008 is that aside from being a European and Pacific power -- which it has been since the end of the Second World War -- the US is now a part of the strategic landscape of the Middle East and Central Asia.
And now, for something COMPLETELY unrelated - a victory dance! Well, maybe it isn't so unrelated - as it's a victory of technology...
J.
Comments (5)
As usual, I hope you are right, but I'm afraid you aren't. It's almost impossible for either you or I to know the reality of what's going on in Iraq. For every story I put up, you can find a counter, and vice versa. But here's what I see:
* A multi-faceted insurgency made up of folks with lots of different motives.
* No real desire on the part of even the happy, optimistic Iraqis to live in a democratic, contiguous Iraq.
* An administration that is only just now admitting that large portions of their strategy were flawed (why just now?).
* An administration that feels that it should be allowed to torture people in the War on Terror, but is willing to lie to our citizens and our allies about it.
Speaking of torture, did you see this?
-Jason (I've dropped "The Bellman" moniker as it was confusing with the name of the site.
Posted by Jason | December 9, 2005 2:45 PM
Posted on December 9, 2005 14:45
The commanders in the Pentagon are forced to declare victory, because they have no other choice.
Victory, in its classic sense does not have a place in a suppression of a civillian uprising.
The Pentagon hasnt the resources to continue the war, a draw down by virtue of depleated resources is not only likely, it is phyisically impossible to avoid, unless huge amounts of troops are reorganized from the various military bases around the globe.
The resources being spent on this war are tremendous, and the Pentagons cost benefit people are shaking their head at this war. All that equipment, sattelites, people and administrative costs can be better spent elsewhere.
The bases have been put in place so the United States can further project its military might if anyone in the region threatens United States dominance in the region.
After the withdrawl from the cities, expect a new conflict to arise within 8 months, most likely a swift victory against a defenseless nation, thus to re establish itself as an unstoppable juggernaught, and heal the harshly damaged psyches of the American People.
Posted by BenParsons | December 10, 2005 8:16 PM
Posted on December 10, 2005 20:16
And I thought I was cynical about the Democrats.
There's a slight difference between a civilian uprising and a terrorist movement. The Orange and Cedar revolutions were civilian uprisings. The Romanian revolution where Ceausescu ended up dead was a civilian uprising. The Bali bombings weren't part of a civilian uprising. Neither were the London bombings, the Madrid bombings, 9/11, or the bombings targeting civilians in Iraq. (Unless you've got some wierd-ass idea aobut a civilian movement blowing up the people making up the movement.)
And thank you for playing, but one wrong answer and BZZZ - you're out. Have a nice day, there's no prizes waiting offstage.
J.
Posted by JLawson | December 10, 2005 11:26 PM
Posted on December 10, 2005 23:26
Jerry don't be so mean to your readers ;)
Posted by rawb | December 12, 2005 9:37 AM
Posted on December 12, 2005 09:37
A reader, I'll likely not be mean to. A cut&paste troll, however, is another story.
;-)
J.
Posted by JLawson | December 12, 2005 10:00 AM
Posted on December 12, 2005 10:00