Tuesday, June 28, 2005

No Exit on the Baghdad Loop

President Bush has concluded another speech on the Iraq war. Once again, there is nothing new to report, and there is no roadmap for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. The goals and missions for Iraq, as outlined by President Bush, have no end. We are fighting an ideology, and “we are hunting down the terrorists”. It doesn’t get any more open-ended then that.

But read between the lines and the essence of the President’s mission can be distilled to a single, essential point: He must win the battle of wills with Osama and any other enemy who tries to claim victory when the US withdrawals. This is a game of chess, and the simple logic of Osama’s starting move has been too much for the Bush team to unravel. It worked for Osama in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, and they are using the same tactic against Bush in Iraq. The logic is as follows:

a) Goad the US into an invasion.
b) Knowing that the US will have to leave at some point in the future (harassed or not), wait for the inevitable withdrawal.
c) Claim victory after the withdrawal.

As simple as this sounds, it is the essence of the current situation. Bush does not want to repeat the “mistake” of the Soviets in Afghanistan. If Bush leaves, he loses. Therefore he can not leave Iraq. He will not be forced out by any action of the enemies. Bush is trapped.

So how could Bush have avoided this? The obvious first choice is that he should have not invaded at all, but that is water under the bridge. There is hardly ever a good opportunity to get out of this trap. What is required is a decisive winning event, after which the US could declare victory, and start to extract itself from the quagmire. The enemies who attempt to claim victory would be discredited.

Interestingly, the perfect exit has come and gone. It was set-up by President Bush before the Iraq invasion, yet it was not used. If we recall the 48 hour deadline speech by Bush, he stated: “Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.”

To a reasonable person, this would mean that once the lawless men are eliminated, then the mission of the US would be complete. Of course, the lawless men we're talking about are Saddam and his inner circle. The victory and exit point were set. After Saddam’s sons were already killed, Saddam was captured on December 13, 2003. This would have been the perfect exit point. President Bush could have declared victory, stated that the tyrant was captured, and pulled back US military forces from direct interaction with the people of Iraq. It seems that this was what the people of Iraq were expecting. After all, President Bush had said that he only wanted to eliminate the leaders of Iraq before the war started. Remember, at this point, very few American soldiers had been killed. There was no full-blown rebellion, and the vast majority of the Iraqi people had not turned against the US. But this exit was not taken. Instead, on December 17, 2003, four days later, Operation Ivy Blizzard was launched, which left no doubt that the US forces were not done. Of course this also vindicated all of the Islamic conspiracy theories that this war was not what it seemed, and that the US was not going to leave. And we certainly did not leave.

As reference points, the infamous killing, burning and hanging from a bridge of 4 American contractors did not take place until April 1, 2004. This was over three months after the capture of Saddam. Another milestone was August 2004, eight months after the capture of Saddam, when Muqtada al-Sadr and his followers started to act up in Najaf. All of this took place long before US soldiers were killed in any numbers, and before any insurgency had truly taken hold.

The perfect exit had come and gone.

Once again, it is all water under the bridge. Will there be another exit point, when the US can withdrawal without terrorists claiming victory? Obviously, they will always claim victory at our withdrawal, but if the circumstances are right, we could exit gracefully on a positive and victorious note, and they will be taken for the loudmouth fools that they are. But judging from the President’s most recent speech, no exit is planned; just the inevitable turns around an endless loop of vague and unreachable goals, waiting out an endless battle of wills, while the American and Iraqi peoples both pay with their lives and resources.


3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear John:
Thank you for your analysis.
If you read the PNAC document you will find that these folks (Neo-cons ie. Cheney and company)have no desire to leave Iraq at all. In fact they planned on invading Iraq years ago. Yes, this is true.
What a coincidence that bin Laden was trained by the CIA to fight the USSR for Afghanistan's freedom, and now he is orchestrating a war against America for Islam! Hmmmmmmmmmmmm... something fishy here, eh?
I am very unimpressed with anything coming out of PNAC. I would even go so far to say that they are in many ways like the third reich, in their quest for empire.
Bin Laden is in cahoots with PNAC it seems, and Bin Laden was an excuse to go into Iraq for bases and oil and power.
Um duh...
The military industrial complex is bleeding America of her strength, treasury, and if we do not stop PNAC and that complex, they will cause the fall of this nation. I am becoming convinced that they do want to destroy the US and I am enraged by their actions. They are traitors to our Constitution, our troops and our people.
Why anyone believes anything coming out of this administration mystifies me.
socrates

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 12:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, bin laden was not in cahoots with sad-aam. In fact he despised sad-am. The neo-cons never wanted to catch laden. They keep using him as an excuse to bleed America of her treasury. Iraq was not involved with 9-11. Everyone who knows the facts agrees that sadaam and bin laden did not work together.
Cheney invaded Iraq solely for oil, bases, and power. He could care less about freedom and democracy for Iraq, let alone America. These neo-cons in PNAC see the earth/world as something to control rather than to love and care for. They only think of domination rather than cooperation. Enough said.

socrates

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 11:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Sir:

The American invasion of Iraq was for Israel. All the rest is moonshine.

Anonymous II

Wednesday, July 06, 2005 10:47:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home