This is the most hilarious thing I’ve seen in a long time: Tom Hayden, notorious 60s guy and lover of all things Marxist, has a blog in which he reveals (big surprise) that Iraq is a big, fat, quagmire just like Vietnam:
There are three scenarios to prepare for:
First, the US occupation may collapse with the defeat of the US-trained and US-financed Iraqi security forces. The answer to the Times question – what do they want? – can be inferred from the battlefield. “They” want to force the US conventional forces into an impasse, then destroy the US strategy of “Iraqization”, of substituting Iraqi blood for American blood. The insurgents probably are closer to this outcome than the American media will report. If Iraqi soldiers and police cannot be sufficiently motivated to kill other Iraqis, the client regime will collapse and sue for peace, an extremely dangerous situation.
Second, and most likely, an indefinite quagmire will continue for the time. The insurgency will go on. The 150,000 American troops will remain, frustrated bbut not defeated. By next year, the number of dead American soldiers and military contractors will pass 2,500, the number of wounded 20,000. The client regime will not extend its authority – not to mention basic services – to a majority of Iraqis. American diplomats will be isolated, and world public opinion will descend to new levels of disgust with all things American. This means a tough year for President Bush in next year’s Congressional elections. Even if the Democratic Party remains silent, increasing numbers of American voters will favor something like immediate withdrawal.
Third, facing quagmire, the US will escalate – the policy which was followed in Vietnam. This escalation could come any week now; with Israeli collaboration, the US bombs Iran. Or the US bombs North Korea. Or another possibility: somehow American citizens are attacked again due to an intelligence “lapse”. In any scenario, the immediate political result would be renewal of the draft, which would lessen the pressures on the Pentagon in Iraq.
You can’t make shit up that’s funnier than this. Like Karl Rove said: “Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers, conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.”
If you substitute “Tom Haydens” for liberals and “most people” for conservatives you’ve got it right.
So, er, um, what’s your exit strategy?
It surely can’t be “wait til a strong democratic Iraq emerges,” because such an Iraq might be a big threat to the United States as oil supplies decline without a clear replacement in sight.
Another exit strategy might have been “internationalize the occupation,” but nobody who’s anybody will want that while Bush and Blair are around.
Another exit strategy might be cut and run, but then again, that puts a whole sh*tload of oil in the hands of whoever’s strong enough to control it.
As the inimitable Oliver Hardy said, “Well, here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten us into.”
What do you think it should be? Chances are it’s pretty close to that already. Tell us.
Today Australia will leave East Timor a viable independent country, after taking over about 1998 in the face of terrorist/fringe attacks and bloodshed that stymied the newest nation. They leave freely, as committed originally, under UN auspices, and they leave behind a good feeling on the part of the East Timorous (yes, I’m freewheeling there). A good example if ever there was one.
That’s pretty close to the Administration’s “exit plan” as I understand it:
1) Install a stable, democratic government with a Constitution and an elected government.
2) Train and equip an Army.
3) Build some US military bases
4) Draw down the coalition force.
As we still have troops in Germany, Korea, and Bosnia, we’ll probably maintain some sort of a presence in Iraq for many years.