Coming Home at Last?
Asked if the United States might send still more troops to Afghanistan, if the Obama surge is not succeeding by year's end, Vice President Joe Biden answered, "I do not believe so."
So, that is it. Biden is saying the 100,000 U.S. troops in theater or on the way is our limit. If Kabul and the Afghan army fail with this investment of American forces, they will be permitted to fail. All the chips we are going to commit are now on the table.
And a series of critical deadlines is approaching.
By the end of August, all U.S. combat troops are to be out of Iraq. Only 50,000 "training troops" are to remain, but all U.S. forces are scheduled to be withdrawn by the end of 2011.
In December, a review takes place of Afghan war strategy. Next July, U.S. withdrawals are to begin, though, since naming Gen. David Petraeus as his field commander, President Obama and his cabinet have emphasized that the withdrawals will be "conditions-based."
We will walk, not run, to the exit.
But if we are topping out in Afghanistan, and the U.S. troop presence in Iraq is already less than half of the 170,000 after the surge of 2007, it seems America is on her way out of both wars.
What did they accomplish—and at what cost?
Saddam and his Baathist regime were overthrown, the dictator was hanged, elections were held, and a government that reflects the will of a majority of Iraqis put in its place.
Cost to the United States: More than 4,200 U.S. dead, 35,000 wounded, $700 billion sunk. In the Islamic world, the Iraq War led to pandemic hostility toward America. At home, the war led to the rout of the Republicans and the election of an anti-war liberal Democrat.
If Obama is indeed leading America into socialism, the War Party that led us into Iraq can take a full measure of credit.
And what is the cost to the Iraqi people of a U.S. invasion and occupation and seven-year war, the end of which is nowhere in sight?
Perhaps 100,000 dead, half a million widows and orphans, 4 million refugees, half having fled their country, devastation of a Christian community that dated to the time of Christ and the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis from Baghdad.
Four months after elections, they have no government, and bombs that kill dozens still go off daily. And, when the Americans leave, a civil and sectarian war may return. The breakup of Iraq along ethnic and religious lines remains a possibility. The price of liberation is high.
And what did the Iraqis do to deserve this? Did they attack us?
No. They had nothing to do with 9/11 and had complied with the U.S. demand to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction years before the U.S. Army stormed in to discover and destroy those weapons.
And we wonder why these ungrateful people hate us.
The Afghan War was, at its inception, a just war.
If the Taliban would not turn over bin Laden and those who plotted the mass murder of 3,000 Americans, we had a right to go in after him, as Woodrow Wilson had a right to send Gen. John Pershing into Mexico to find and kill Pancho Villa after he murdered Americans in New Mexico.
But after the defeat of the Taliban by the Northern Alliance, the overthrow of Mullah Omar and our failure to capture or kill bin Laden at Tora Bora, we decided to stay on and convert the most tribalized and xenophobic land on earth into an Islamic democracy and strategic ally.
We will soon enter the 10th year of this war. And though 100,000 U.S. and 50,000 NATO troops are committed, the Taliban are winning—because they are not losing. They are more numerous, more deadly and more resourceful than they have been since their ouster in 2001.
Even Gen. Stanley McChrystal said the war was a draw. And Biden says we have reached the limit of our commitment.
Thus, what we are looking at is endless bleeding, now running at 60 dead U.S. soldiers a month, with no American military or political leader willing to say when the bleeding will stop or the war will end.
And the home front is visibly eroding. A majority of Americans now believe the war is unwinnable or not worth the cost, and a growing minority in Congress wants out. Some NATO allies are departing. Others are setting deadlines for withdrawal.
As for the Afghans we leave behind, who committed themselves to America's war, they will, when we depart, suffer the fate of the "harkis" in Algeria, the South Vietnamese army and boat people, and the Cambodians we left behind to the tender mercies of the Khmer Rouge.
Have the politicians, journalists and think-tank geniuses who dreamed up these wars suffered ignominy and disgrace?
Not at all. They are debating and devising a new war—with Iran.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
Thanks, Pat. This article needs to be read and spread far and wide. And for the very reasons you mention:
"Have the politicians, journalists and think-tank geniuses who dreamed up these wars suffered ignominy and disgrace?
Not at all. They are debating and devising a new war—with Iran."
Obama is preparing for his 2012 re-election bid. Everything he does from now on is aimed at that. He'll campaign that he won the wars the Republicans lost and brought the troops home.
"He’ll campaign that he won the wars the Republicans lost and brought the troops home."
Well, if he could actually do either of those two things it would be an improvement over the gib(guy in back) who landed on the aircraft carrier to tell American troops that major combat operations were over in Iraq --- ten years ago!!!!
Who would get the deed to the Green Zone almost 700 million dollar
complex would be another question?
So George W. Bush can't expect boulevards to be named after him in Baghdad or Kabul. At least he won't end up as Valerian.
If, as Pat Buchanan argues, Afghansistan was, at its inception, a just war, then so too were the Crusades. At least the intrepid Crusaders eventually had enough sense not to wring their hands in despair muttering "if we pull out what will be the cost". After their fourth foray it dawned on them that folly is like the proverbial rainbow - the only reward gained from chasing after either is the passing of time.
Excellent piece by Pat, as usual. Two quibbles: Sunnis being run out of Bagdhad would be religious cleansing as opposed to ethnic cleansing. Also - regarding the just war - the Taliban asked for evidence that Bin Laden was behind 9/11, then they would turn him over or at least attempt to arrest him and try him. At the time of the invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. suspected Bin Laden but any real evidence only came later.
"But after the defeat of the Taliban by the Northern Alliance, the overthrow of Mullah Omar and our failure to capture or kill bin Laden at Tora Bora, we decided to stay on and convert the most tribalized and xenophobic land on earth into an Islamic democracy and strategic ally."
Milking the he-goat into a sieve.
An excellent piece.
This is a poor analysis from a man who is often very acute in his observations.
The most far-fetched remark is "If Obama is indeed leading America into socialism, the War Party that led us into Iraq can take a full measure of credit." It is like attributing the rise of Nazism to failed policies of the preceding German republic.
The war in Iraq was not the major cause of the election of Obama. That there is not rioting in the streets today against Obama's handling of the wars proves that. The down turn of the economy was just as important. So far Obama has just followed Bush's projected policy plans. The war certainly did not cause the nomination by Democrats of a socialist-leaning candidate. Another important reason for Obama's election is the poor judgement of Republicans in nominating McCain who inspired very little enthusiasm in voters.
Invading Iraq was a serious blunder but not for the reasons Pat indicates. Removing Saddam without the prospect of a powerful government to take his place all but guaranteed that militant Muslims will assume power when American forces are gone. Saddam was the power holding the divisive pieces of the country together (in the same way that the power of the Soviet Union held Yugoslavia together). To the extent that the Iraqis are devote Muslims they will never put a western style democracy (or republic) above devotion to that religion--sharia law, etc.
KSmith, "a full measure of credit" does not equal "the major cause," and I don't think Buchanan's essay here purports to be his full examination of why invading and attempting to stay in Iraq was wrong.
KSmith above has it right. The proximate cause of Obama's victory was McCain's nomination. Unless I am mistaken, the recordings of McCain's enemy collaboration have been sealed, and apparently prove McCain should have been tried for treason, not nominated to run for President. His reported sexual indiscretions, shady start in Arizona politics, vile temper, obvious narcissism, made him an easily turned asset but disastrous candidate. I've been a lifelong registered Republican, but no longer feel a trace of loyalty toward the party, which is nearly corrupt as the Democratic Party. The GOP is also the party that gave us the outright, total lies that lead us into Iraq. War on Terror, my ass.
KSmith, are Iraqis devout Muslims?
Saddam Hussein was a member of the Ba'athist Socialist Party, which was dedicated to keeping Islam out of politics as far as possible. He created a secularised regime and an education system built on making sure that Iraqis were as secularised as possible.
Most of all, he was brutally killing villagers who wanted an Islamic state in Iraq.
So after such radical secularisation over so many years, do we believe Iraq is a highly religious nation? I doubt it. Certainly, the Shi'ias have now taken over, and it's going to be a pro-Shi'ia government now, but the old Ba'athists running the previous anti-religious government are still there and would still keep things the old way.
"Have the politicians, journalists and think-tank geniuses who dreamed up these wars suffered ignominy and disgrace?"
Answer of course is no - being a neocon means never having to say you're sorry.