Whenever I think of the way the US left Viet Nam, I imagine the scene from the beginning of Raiders of The Lost Ark when Indiana Jones is running through the jungle to his waiting pontoon plane, being chased by local natives, scrambling across the beach yelling “Start the plane! Start the plane!”, swinging on a vine and landing in the lagoon, swimming up to the pontoon and grabbing hold while the plane starts off down it’s watery runway for takeoff as spears and arrows land all around.
I get a similar emotion when I think of the Blackhawk Down situation in Mogadishu.
And I am starting to get the feeling that the situation in Iraq will be the same now that the Democrats are taking over.
It may not be politically correct, but I hope the US takes advice from John Robson.
What would Caesar do in Iraq? I ask not only because it was in that region that Julius Caesar came, saw and conquered. I ask because Imperial Romans habitually thought clearly and acted decisively on geopolitical questions.
As democratic politicians too often do the opposite, let me offer a simple, Caesarean solution to cut through the trouble and deliver Western security interests alive and well.
…
My plan A that won’t happen is the coalition troops grab their stuff and leave … through Syria. About 200,000 heavily armed, highly trained, really annoyed U. S. and other coalition troops stomp Bashir Assad’s regime flat, hang a left through Lebanon to demolish Hezbollah, then sail home from Haifa waving a sign saying: “Don’t make us come back and do that again.” I call this plan Caesarean because it’s the sort of thing Imperial Rome would have done to extricate itself from Iraq while inspiring salutary caution in its enemies, especially following the provocative assassination of Pierre Gemayel in Lebanon. But you know it’s not going to happen and you know why.
Far from being the ogre of Michael Moore’s fantasies, the U. S. lacks even the hard-headed sang-froid of imperial Britain, let alone Rome.
To expand Robson’s point, I think the Democrats lack the sang-froid of Scooby Doo and Shaggy when their box is out of Scooby Snacks.
Robson goes on with a plan B that makes a lot of sense to me.
…devise a Plan B that could happen. Namely that the U. S partitions Iraq into Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite countries and leaves at least the latter two.
This plan is also Caesarean, and not just because Iraq est omnis divisa in partes tres. Yes, I realize it would require some people to relocate, but moving beats dying in a bloody civil war. Meanwhile my proposal has three decisive geopolitical virtues for the coalition (beyond the PR plus that if sectarian violence persists it will be clear who’s to blame).
First, whatever the various domestic and foreign insurgents in Iraq want, it clearly isn’t partition. Second, once done it would be extremely hard to undo. Third, it lets the coalition depart without fleeing, leaving in splendid Roman fashion at least one client state very keen on U. S. support.
John Robson writes for the Ottawa Citizen and can be heard every Friday morning with Steve Madely on CFRA between 8am and 9am. He also has a new book
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
There’s a widely held view that Clinton’s decision to evacuate/withdraw from Mogadischu emboldened the terrorists and that makes sense when you think about it. Outstanding inroads being made by the Ethiopian army at present whereby their tactic was to “secure the borders.” They’re predicting they can take down the approx. 3500 radical terrorists in approx. two weeks according to credible reports.
John Robson’s talking about the “sanctity of borders” being respected and established. And whether the now expected troop surge can accomplish this remains to be seen.
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
Personally, I like Plan B with Plan A as the “departure” component…
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
On another venue which I frequent, a Turkish Muslim (non-practising) is arguing that all of the borders in the area of Iraq are artificial since they were “created” by Great Britain at the end of the Ottoman Empire and therefore not observed by Arabs. As far as he was concerned, the conflict in Iraq was all about oil and power.
So partitioning the country, by his “logic” would only set the stage for yet another war.
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
Mac, Robson addresses your comment about setting the stage for yet another war with his comment
“(beyond the PR plus that if sectarian violence persists it will be clear who’s to blame)”
What I love about his plans is that they both let them leave with some dignity.
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
I was referring to the Turkish guy’s logic, not Robson’s logic. Both of his plans work for me… although I must admit I find the former more appealing than the latter. Trying to get the Iraqis to agree to formal partition will be like one person trying to herd 100 hungry cats past the fish market.
If Dubya has simply blasted Iraq into rubble and left Saddam in charge of a smoldering rubble, it would have served as an abject lesson (something the semi-civilized understand) whereas this exercise in trying to win hearts & minds doesn’t make sense to the warrior cultures.
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
Mac (and others). I like plan A as it gets them completely out and returns the American military to its’ glory.
I wonder if there is someone who could be a Pied Piper of hungry cats for plan B? al-Maliki is already showing he is too gun shy to take the role of PM on.
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
Well, first of all, remember what happened to the Romans…
Second, the Democrats will be much harder headed than many suspect. In fact, comparisons between CPC and GOP which I find on some blogs to me are specious – the CPC is much more like the DP. The trick is to work smarter, not harder.
The whole fiasco that is Iraq was predictable from day one. However they manage to extricate themselves, I feel the damage that has been done will never be undone and the suffering of the Iraqui people will not be alleviated, regardless of the course. Far from winning hearts and minds, and again as predicted, Iraq is now a major recruiting centre and theatre for Islamic terrorists.
To advise the invasion of other sovereign nations absent any act of war in the wake of the disaster that is Iraq is irresponsible. As for partitioning, I agree that is unlikely to be a viable option.
I’m afraid this complex problem requires a complex solution based on logic and strategic reasoning. Fortunately, there are many intelligent Americans who may, just may, be able to develop one which restores the reputation of the US on the world stage.
At least I hope so.
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
I agree. The US should act more like the Romans. If they killed more of the descenter, like going through Syria and all, there would be a lot less people to complain about what they are doing.
Partition is not a good idea. it is Biden’s idea and so they shouldn’t do it, because it gives a radical Shia south as a victory prize to Iran, plus all that oil, which was the thing we needed in the first place.
We should support the Sunni, so they can take over the oil in the south, defeat the Shia and sell it to s and not the Chinese
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
Apparently Baghdad’s been dissected by Iraqi/US policing/military analysts into nine zones where they say 80 percent of the insurgents are active — taking out 50-100 civilians/soldiers per day. It’s inner city “guerilla warfare” if you will, involving knocking-on-doors of highrises on city streets.
These nine zones will each have their police/military headquarters from which the Iraqi forces/police will operate from taking the lead role supported by U.S. troops. This plan is workable, but what might be considered for full impact are additional NATO units — maybe 10,000 from various countries.
Baghdad, population six million approx. — so you’re looking at say Toronto multiplied by three. So approx. 400,000 troops/police have the task of going door to door in city of that size is a challenge that can best be done with “overwhelming force” if internationals could determine their duty to participate. The U.S. gov’t/military and U.S. citizens have unfairly borne the lion’s share of redressing terrorism.
Even now as U.S. has given notice, I’d venture the insurgents are leaving Baghdad for other locations/cities and no doubt other insurgents are filing in from Iran, Syria well supplied with Russian armaments.
The Bush plan requires international response in terms of offering up additional troops.
No reports today of casualties, mass murders in Baghdad?
Another thing — while the operation is underway a curfew of all automotive stays in place. It should be in place now to contain the insurgents that are probably already leaving.