The dangers in pulling out of Iraq

Max Boot, a military historian, argues against leaving Iraqis to fight their own civil war in today's Wall Street Journal.

Here, he says, are issues that bear serious consideration:

In the ensuing chaos, it is quite possible that al Qaeda terrorists would succeed in turning western Iraq into a Taliban-style base for international terrorism. Although the momentum at the moment is running against al Qaeda in Anbar Province, the tribal forces who are now cooperating with the Iraqi government would be incapable of defeating al Qaeda on their own. If the U.S. were to pull out, the tribes would likely go back to cooperating with al Qaeda for the sake of self-preservation. And a handful of American Special Operations Forces operating from far-off bases would be helpless to stop the terrorists because they would lack the kind of human intelligence now generated by U.S. troops on the ground.

. . .Daniel Byman and Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution, two serious Democratic analysts, issued a sobering study in January called "Things Fall Apart: Containing the Spillover From an Iraqi Civil War" that should be required reading for anyone calling for a pullout. Messrs. Byman and Pollack studied a number of civil wars stretching back to the 1970s in countries from Congo to Lebanon, and found that they are never confined within the borders drawn neatly on maps.

Civil wars export refugees, terrorists, militant ideologies and economic woes that destabilize neighboring states, and those states in turn usually intervene to try to limit the fallout or to expand their sphere of influence. "We found that 'spillover' is common in massive civil wars; that while its intensity can vary considerably, at its worst it can have truly catastrophic effects; and that Iraq has all the earmarks of creating quite severe spillover problems," they write. No surprise: After all, Iraq, with its oil wealth, has far more to fight over than Congo or Lebanon or Chechnya.

While a civil war is the most likely outcome in Iraq, it is not inevitable. Contrary to the common myth, Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis have not been at daggers drawn since the dawn of time. Until fairly recently, they lived peaceably side by side; intermarriage was common and major tribes still have both Sunni and Shiite components. The slide toward civil war occurred because of an implosion of central authority and a breakdown of law and order that allowed demagogues on both sides--the likes of Moqtada al Sadr and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi--to posture as the defenders of their sectarian groups. That dynamic, while strong, could still be reversed if the Iraqi government, with American support, were able to offer ordinary people what they most ardently desire--security.

He concludes:

The surge strategy may be a long shot but every alternative is even worse.

Now on bluster, cowardice, and finally depravity

As usual, James Taranto over at the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web, makes the right calls.

Referring to Ayman al-Zawahiri's latest video in which he boasts: "We ask Allah that [the Americans] only get out of [Iraq] after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson," Taranto writes:

Of course this is bluster. According to this chart, the total number of coalition combat deaths in the Iraq war stands at 2,968, or 718 a year on average. At that rate, the count would reach 200,000 in the year 2282 and 300,000 in 2421.

But, as Taranto concedes, Zawahiri does have a point. As Taranto writes:

America does have a yellow streak. Think of all the politicians and commentators who supported the Iraq war with their votes and words, then switched sides once the going got tough. If opinion polls are to be believed, somewhere between 25% and 40% of the public did the same.

But, as Taranto goes on to say, "if America is irresolute, al Qaeda is cowardly in its own way." According to this CNN report Al Qaeda is now targeting little girls:

American soldiers discovered a girls school being built north of Baghdad had become an explosives-rigged "death trap," the U.S. military said Thursday.

The plot at the Huda Girls' school in Tarmiya was a "sophisticated and premeditated attempt to inflict massive casualties on our most innocent victims," military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said.

As Taranto concludes:

America's cowardice and al Qaeda's are as different in their origins as in their forms. Ours grows out of strength and comfort; theirs, out of weakness and depravity. Both, however, are dangerous to civilization.

Col. Marc wonders why Americans are tired of fighting the war in Iraq

When the vast majority have no sense it's even going on. From inside the Green Zone, Col. Marc writes via Hugh Hewitt:

I have not been following the news much, just too busy, but occasionally while in the Dining Facility the TV has on CNN. Mostly at the time I am there it is Lou Dobbs. He and some other media outlets have talked about the war weariness of the American people. I have heard him speak of the Presidents poll numbers being down because the American public is tired of four years of constant war. I don't understand it.

I want to look at this war in perspective. First, why is the American people weary of the war. They certainly are not fighting it. The great majority are not even involved or knowledgable of this war. The war is being fought by a very few of the American people. It is they who sacrifice and defend the nation. Of the 300,000,000 people in the US only about 1.5 million are in any way engaged in fighting this war. That is the 150,000 who are overseas deployed in a war zone and the 1.35 million who support or have rotated into and out of the war zone for their combat tour. That is .05% of the Nation carrying the burden of the war. All of those who are making that sacrifice are doing so as volunteers because they believe in the nation in its greatness and in the mission that we are doing. The American people are not even asked to sacrifice for the conduct of the war. There is no rationing, there is no limit on travel, there is no censorship. I can post this email to you and say anything I want as long as it does not contain classified material or contain insubordinate statements. There is no one cutting and pasting my letters. The taxes are not up because of the war. They may go up, but that is a Democratic tactic to gain a bigger budget. It is not to fund the war effort. In fact they want to unfund the war, yet taxes would still go up.

So I ask you how are you all weary of the war? How is it impacting you? Only those who fight it and the few who are related or friends of those in the war zone are really impacted by the war. The casualties are not even heavy. Certainly not the 480 a day during WWII. Those who have given their lives for the safety of the nation in a large part are forgotten by the public at large, only their loved ones know the weariness of loss. Not the public. So again how is the nation weary of the war? Many of them don't even know what is going on over here. They don't pay attention.

What I think is that the news media likes to make the public weary of the war. They constantly mis-state the situation and constantly speak of the weariness. Well I have been here for 41/2 months I work every day. I am tired and separated for my friends and family but I am not weary of the war. Nor are my brother and sister Soldiers Sailors Airmen and Marines. We know the cost and we know what we buy every month we are here. We kill more of the terrorists we draw them from all over the Middle East and kill them here. We have chosen the place and the time for this fight and now the American people must stand up and support their soldiers in the conduct of a war that was voted upon and approved by the Representatives of those same people. The Congress and the people committed us to this war, not just The President. Once you have committed your army to the field you must support it in the field. To do anything else puts us at great risk while fighting to defend you. Tell Harry Reid and Lou Dobbs the war is not lost and you are not weary of it. I am not ready to end this in defeat, so can you do any less?

"American neocon" wins French presidency

First, who says immigrants can't succeed in France?

Nicolas Sarkozy, the 52-year-old son of a Hungarian immigrant was just elected president of the Republic.

His wife has foreign roots too according to the Agence France Presse, which describes the new French first lady as being of Jewish-Spanish ancestry who was quoted as making it abundantly clear back in 2004 that she did "not have a drop of French blood in my veins."

Being pro-American apparently didn't hurt the French president-elect either. 53 percent of the French voted for someone referred to by friends and foes alike as "the American," according to Agence France Presse, because of "his unabashed praise of US society, its dynamism and meritocracy."

Some people have even gone so far as to describe Sarkozy as an "American neo-conservative with a French passport."

So what is this new American neocon French president going to do? According to the French news agency:

France's new leader is expected to pursue Chirac's policy on Iraq by upholding calls for a deadline for US troop withdrawal, as well as on Iran and the Middle East peace process.

Though he says he will fight for tough sanctions to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, he opposes military intervention. While seen as close to Israel, he insists he gives equal importance to Palestinian statehood and Israeli security.

As to other areas of interest to readers of this blog: Sarkozy is said to "fiercely oppose" Turkish entry to the European Union as it would mean the "death of political Europe" -- to quote the AFP report again.

And in other regions of concern, the AGF reports:

Sarkozy has promised an overhaul of relations with France's former African colonies, tacitly criticising Chirac's "personal" ties with the leaders of questionable regimes.

He also says France's military presence in Africa -- 10,000 soldiers in five permanent military bases -- should be kept to a minimum, handing over to an African Union force when possible.

On Africa's bloodiest conflict, in the western Sudanese region of Darfur, he has called for "urgent" action, warning that Khartoum would be made to face international justice for its actions in the region.

Sarkozy strongly opposed calls by election rivals for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics to force China -- Sudan's most important international ally -- to back international action in Darfur.

But he has vowed as president to confront rights violations committed by powerful allies -- citing the question of political freedoms in China and the in Russia's war-torn southern republic of Chechnya.

Is Iraq Vietnam yet?

Too bad I can't find the cartoon that mocked all the endless comparisons between the Iraq war and Vietnam that showed the kids in the back seat of a car traveling cross-country with the caption: "Are we there yet?"

But in an attempt to answer that question, here are some sobering thoughts from yesterday's Washington Post.

As fighting in Iraq enters its fifth year, an increasing number of experts in foreign policy and national strategy are arguing that the biggest difference may be that the Iraq war will inflict greater damage to U.S. interests than Vietnam did.

Here is a sampling of what these experts told the Post:

Former defense secretary William S. Cohen: "In terms of the consequences of failure, the stakes are much bigger than Vietnam. The geopolitical consequences are. . . potentially global in scope."

Ret. Air Force Gen. Charles F. Wald: "It makes Vietnam look like a cakewalk. . . Worst-case scenarios are the most likey thing to happen."

Gary Solis, Vietnam War vet and former instructor on the Law of War at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point: "Most of my military acquaintances agree that the issues in our departure from Vietnam will pale beside those that will be presented by an Iraq withdrawal."

But do read the whole thing. You'll even find a counteropinion or two.