Post #129

Subject: Iraq, Real Reality, Pt. IV

... 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]….

MotherJones: So you think they need to duke it out internally?

AZ: I think they're gonna have to do it. You know, if you look at the history of this world, they get to the point where they've exhausted themselves in bloodshed and they finally come around and figure out a way to work together. And as long as we're involved in this thing we add to the problem. The short-term security benefits that we create are not long lasting, because you can't be there forever.

[But,...but,...the surge is working, the surge is working.... :p]

We are doing things that practically are losers. If you've ever had experience teaching tactics, you can watch and see war games, you can see how military commanders get sort of sucked into marginal success that in the long run will be failures. Where you're killing the enemy, you're draining the enemy, but you're paying a hell of a price for it. And if you project it out into the long run you see that this is a Pyrrhic victory at best, but you're being sucked in because you are moving forward in some ways. And you lose sight, you become myopic in looking at this, you lose sight that this is a loser tactic and you need to do it with a new approach. I heard that some of the nocons were saying that if we were willing to suffer these kinds of casualty rates for about 10 years we could prevail. Well, give me a break. That just is not sustainable. And it's not victory in the end.

[And how many of those casualties neo-cons propose will be named Bush? That’s why I’ve never believed in Bush’s war – he can’t even recruit at his own dinner table! :p Seriously, there are many reasons. to oppose the Weasel’s War, but his own family’s lack of support has always struck me.]

We are fighting tactically. We interpret victory by body count, by how many cells break down, how much leadership you kill. Meanwhile, the Osama bin Ladens of the world have this endless flow of angry young men pouring into Iraq, willing to blow themselves up. You're going to make no strategic difference, and you're back to the Vietnam mentality that maybe you can win this war from the bottom up if you can kill enough of them.

[We killed over a million North Vietnamese but lost that war. It is really disappointing to hear a Vietnam veteran say “the surge is working, the surge is working.” Yes, I’m talking to you, John McCain. I thought you’d know better.]

MJ: You say we've got a five-to-seven-year effort ahead of us.

AZ: I don't mean five to seven years in terms of our commitment. This is five to seven years for the Iraqis to come to grips with their own internal civil strife. Nobody's going to march on Baghdad and plant a flag and say, "I've won; I rule Iraq." That's not gonna happen. The Shiites aren't going to dominate the Sunnis; the Sunnis are no longer going to dominate the Shiites. And the Kurds certainly aren't going to collapse; we wouldn't let that happen, and I don't think the Turks would let that happen either. So the end state in this thing is that there is no positive end state. It's going to be, from here on out, three entities that'll form at best some sort of federal system with at least initially a lot of autonomy at the local level.

[In other words, the Biden plan. :p]

It's going to take courage to say, "I'm not leaving Iraq; I will restructure the strategy but I'm not leaving." If you're a Republican, you're admitting the failure of this administration, and if you're a Democrat, you're not playing into the popular mood of withdrawal.

[Except for Ron Paul, the Republican line is “let’s kick in a few more Baghdad doors.” That attitude lost us Vietnam. Why do Republicans seem Hell-bent on losing Iraq? Democratic candidates for President – for the most part – embrace Clintonian containment! :p]

MJ: Do you think it's going to take a new administration to solve the situation?

AZ: The new administration will have an opportunity regardless if it's Democrat or Republican because what I sense out there, all over the world, is they're so hungry to reestablish positive relationships with the United States; they're so hungry for us to take a different kind of leadership role. But you can't continue to suffer the casualties in this sort of sinkhole that goes nowhere. It's important to reestablish the regional security arrangement, the old Gulf coalition that we've broken by going into Iraq. They like the idea of American support and security assurances as long as they don't come with a heavy military presence or preemptive actions that become more destabilizing.