Ritter analysis of losing the war in Iraq

[eridani]

Hard to find anyone with more inside knowledge of the players.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/19190/

The historical parallel that best underscores the current disaster-in-the-making is not the Vietnam War but rather Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Originally intended to rid Lebanon of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Israel's subsequent occupation led to the creation of Hizbollah as a viable force of political and military resistance. The Hizbollah was so effective that Israel was forced to unilaterally withdraw its forces from Lebanon in May, 2000. The 18-year occupation not only failed to defeat the PLO, but it also created an Islamic fundamentalist movement that today poses a serious threat to the security of Israel and the Middle East region.

In Iraq, history may very well produce the same result since neither the Bush Administration nor a possible Kerry Administration shows any inclination to withdraw from Iraq in the foreseeable future. And so the course of American involvement in Iraq and its inevitable consequences are clear. We will suffer a decade-long nightmare that will lead to the deaths of thousands more Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. We will witness the creation of a viable and dangerous anti-American movement in Iraq which will one day watch as American troops unilaterally withdraw from Iraq every bit as ignominiously as Israel did from Lebanon.

The strength of this anti-American resistance depends on how long the United States chooses to "stay the course" in Iraq. The calculus is quite simple: the sooner we bring our forces home, the weaker this movement will be. And, of course, the obverse is true: the longer we stay, the stronger and more enduring this by-product of Bush's elective war on Iraq will be.

There is no elegant solution to our Iraqi debacle. It is no longer a question of winning, but rather mitigating defeat.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. Doing what is right, rather than doing what is convenient.

There is no elegant solution to our Iraqi debacle. It is no longer a question of winning, but rather mitigating defeat.<<

Woulda been much simpler to fight the terrorists rather than a country... or to put some effort into reducing the conditions helps to create terrorists... but that would involve doing what is right. We have some very stubborn people in control of various situations around the globe.

[Disturbed]

2. J. Kerry and J. Edwards

I strongly feel that Ritter is correct. I feel that Kerry/Edwards will, if elected, try in vain to get more Intl. support and if they are as smart as they seem to be they will withdraw ASAP. The people of Iraq have been colonized before and they will fight to get that yoke off of their necks. As long as US Forces are there, they will die and be maimed. The US & the UK will not subdue Iraq. If Syria &/or Iran is attacked by BushCo before the US election, all Hell may break lose in the ME. It may happen.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. "J. Kerry and J. Edwards"

The people of Iraq have been colonized before and they will fight to get that yoke off of their necks.<<

Yes they have.... and I am sure it sux to have that happen. Just think... how many of the disbanded army could have fit the bill for some of the 10's of thousands of jobs that have been "created" in Iraq.. paying god knows how much for menial labor... or even a non-existant position, (see Hallibuts corruption articles/whistleblowers) I personally know someone whose friend was making 8/hr here as a secretary.. making 80,000/yr over there... private security guards making hundreds if not thousands of dollars a day??? Come on people!!!

For what they are paying just one outsider... they could have employed a dozen or more Iraqis... talk about waste.... and I have read examples of how the Iraqis have done it cheaper in many instances.

Soooooo yeah I am sure they are enjoying the "occupation" and all the corruption/scandals/injustice that it has provided them.

Found at www.brusselstribunal.org

"Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators. Your wealth has been stripped of you by unjust men ... The government of Iraq , and the future of your country, will soon belong to you. ... We will end a brutal regime ... so that Iraqis can live in security.”
General F. S. Maude, commander of the British forces, to the people of Mesopotamia , 1917

[CWebster]

3. but..but that would be demanding "purity":

"In Iraq, history may very well produce the same result since neither the Bush Administration nor a possible Kerry Administration shows any inclination to withdraw from Iraq in the foreseeable future."

[enough]

4. "Getting it wrong, again."

snip>

The transformation of the political dynamics inside Iraq, however, has gone largely unnoticed in the West. It certainly seems to have escaped the attention of the Bush Administration. And the recent "transfer of sovereignty" from the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to the new Iraqi government of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi reflects this lack of understanding.

snip>

The Pentagon today speaks of a "marriage of convenience" between Islamic fundamentalists and former members of Saddam's Ba'athist regime, even speculating that the Islamists are taking over Ba'athist cells weakened by American anti-insurgency efforts.

Once again, the Pentagon has it wrong. U.S. policy in Iraq is still unable or unwilling to face the reality of the enemy on the ground.

The Iraqi resistance is no emerging "marriage of convenience," but rather a product of planning years in the making. Rather than being absorbed by a larger Islamist movement, Saddam's former lieutenants are calling the shots in Iraq, having co-opted the Islamic fundamentalists years ago, with or without their knowledge.

One look at the list of the 55 "most wanted" members of the Saddam regime who remain at large reveals the probable chain of command of the Iraqi resistance today. It also underscores the success of Saddam's strategic decision nearly a decade past to disassociate himself from Ba'athist ideology.

snip>

fascinating article, thanks.

[Capt_Nemo]

6. Overall good article but I think Ritter gives Saddam too much

credit as a strategist.

Saddam didn't give up on strict secularism as a carefuly thought
strategy. It was a half baked measure huriedly put into practice
to save his own ass, and whose consequences he never managed to
control.

[yodermon]

7. But what happens if we just Up and leave?

Conventional wisdom says: more chaos, more terrorist breeding grounds, etc (like that's not the case now). But seriously, has anyone tried to analyze (on the level of this Ritter article, eg) what would Actually Happen if we were to just pull out? UN peacekeepers? Would the Iraqi population react any differently to them than to US troops, in light of what ritter says? etc.

[eridani]

8. Sadr the hothead buys into UN peacekeepers

If the US would give up control, I'm betting that would be a more popular option with others as well.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_20-4-2004_pg1_5

Sadr also indicated through his spokesman that he favoured the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force in Iraq “on condition that it be made up of Muslim countries or countries which did not join the occupation of Iraq such as Russia, France or Germany”.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1089933.htm

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Sadr has called for the sending of UN peacekeeping troops to Iraq and demanded the immediate withdrawal of US-led occupation forces.

"It is in the interest of the whole world to send peacekeeping forces under the UN flag," Qais al-Khazaali, who is spokesman for Sadr's Mehdi Army militia, said in an interview with Bulgarian television.

" the occupation forces must withdraw from the occupied regions and must release political prisoners. The war will thus end."