Post #126

Subject: Iraq, Real Reality

... from http://www.motherjones.com – "smart, fearless journalism," an interview with General Anthony Zinni (usmc, retired), from October 2007. He was the CENTCOM commander who oversaw American troops in the Middle East from 1997 to 2000. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

Mother Jones: What do you think would be a realistic withdrawal time frame?

General Anthony Zinni: I don't think we'll end up withdrawing in the sense that everybody's coming home, because we can't leave a festering threat in the middle of this region. And obviously, the political will isn't there to continue the way we're going. No matter who the presidential candidate is and however Congress comes down, we're going to find ourselves devolving into what I would call a containment, support, or reinforcing role. And it might look something like this: U.S. forces retain bases in the Kurdish areas and Al Anbar province. And their rules of engagement, if you will, would be to go after Al Qaeda targets, gain intelligence, help secure the border, and prevent spillover. I think we would retain and maybe establish a more robust security-systems program for the Iraqis. I think what we would stop doing is getting between the militias and extract ourselves from the sectarian violence. Quit this sort of street patrolling. I think it would become sink or swim for the Iraqi forces.

[Unfortunately, this is the best we can do, a return to containment. The political rhetoric here needs to catch up to this reality. Democrats can point to Clinton’s success against Saddam – for eight years, Saddam was boxed in; he was not a threat to his neighbors or us. Of course, Republicans can point to Daddy Bush. McCain needs to drop his “we’ll be there 100 years” talk.]

If you look at the casualty-generating operations that we have, being in the streets, being on the roads where we're subject to IEDs, where we get ourselves between Sunni and Shiite militias; I think those are the things you're gonna find there's no stomach for and people are going to be looking, the political leadership is going to be looking for alternatives to not let the problem of Iraq spill over and affect our interest in the region.

[If it wasn’t for oil – “our interest in the region,” we’d leave tomorrow; of course, if it wasn’t for oil, we wouldn’t be there in the first place.]

But how do you contain it? Minimize the casualties, force the Iraqis to step up, and I think that you have to have the stomach for the fact that it's a five-to-seven-year effort and the Iraqis are probably going to get bloodied in this, but it's their civil war. It may look something like Lebanon in the mid-'80s in certain areas.

[Ha Ha – the Weasel’s War. :p That – “Lebanon in the mid-'80s” – is a long way from a blooming democracy. It is certainly not “a major strategic achievement,” as Charles Krauthammer said in his “Success Against the Axis” column, Friday, December 21, 2007 – my Post #125. In the ultimate “do over,” we WILL return to a Clintonian containment – and forget the stupidity of George W. Bush!]