Sunday, November 13, 2005

The Arab League solves Iraq? Not likely.

Milton Viorst, writing today in the International Herald Tribune, suggests that we might get ourselves out of Iraq with the assistance of the Arab League. He cites the "successful" end of the Lebanese civil war in the late 80's as evidence that it can be done.

Dream on! The most intractable problem working against a peaceful, united Iraq is Kurdistan. The Kurds are not Arabs. They are distinctly unhappy with having been kept in an Arab-dominated country, so they are most unlikely to view the Arab League as a legitimate power broker. It seems necessary to say this over and over; they have what they want, which is de facto separation, and they have the military means to retain it. There is never again going to be a united Iraq with the Kurds accepting "majority rule" over more than some nominal aspect of their life.

Andrew Sullivan has the bright idea that all we need is to "seal the borders" with Syria and Iran. The administration officials with whom he speaks say it can't be done, but Sullivan knows better. He knows this, we presume, based on the vast expertise in military operations that he developed as an editor of the New Republic. We have a gung-ho military in this country, and when they say they can't do something, I'm inclined to credit them.

The pattern, however, is familiar. When people talk us into a war that we're supposed to be able to win easily, and then we can't, they start to say that all we need to do is X. This doesn't mean that X is their final demand. If we did X and it was not enough, they would tell us that all we needed was Y. Or Z. Always something more.

Then when the dust settles, they'll pontificate that we lost the war because we didn't have the "will to win." It's an intellectually bankrupt strategy, harking back to Vietnam.

Speaking of Vietnam, Sullivan shares with us the news from Iraq that our troops are happy and confident, based in part on a 20:1 kill ratio. General Westmoreland must be turning in his grave. Twenty to one was roughly what we achieved in Vietnam. Which was a victory, right?

No comments: