Constructive gadfly
Published on December 14, 2005 By stevendedalus In Politics

There are some antiwar cohorts, and strangely together with liberal hawks, who are getting cold feet in the stream of politics calling for withdrawal. The worst instance of this is Fareed Zakaria, Newsweeks’s renown analyst and critic of the war since its outset. He hedges over its “timing” when events in Iraq are no worse now than previously. He seems to have visions of mass panic in Vietnam during the Ford administration’s directive to pull out. Zakaria notes that since there has been no sudden spike in American deaths — what’s a few a week, after all — the Democrats are being Machiavellian in hitting Bush while he’s down and drawing his blood. On the contrary, the antiwar movement from the beginning has always been about the blood of the troops in a war poorly planned and undermanned. Of course, Zakaria would argue that was then; I would argue it is the result of now since lack of troops means our dependence on Iraqi forces.

Zakaria argues that this shameless political move is ill-timed in light of the coming Iraqi elections and should be what we do now — since oddly Condoleezza Rice is now in charge of the war! — and not dwell in the shortcomings of the past. He implies that while our policy is now “on firmer footing,” political opposition could “precipitate disaster.” He presumes that the opposition is calling for a “panicked withdrawal.” Zakaria artfully uses Ambush Alley, a scourge to US Troops for two years, now secured by Iraqi forces, while ignoring the implicit removal of US occupational checkpoints along the way from the airport to Baghdad.

This famous analyst, until now calm and open-minded, smells disaster in the withdrawal on the one hand, but on the other, withdrawal serves as a “useful purpose” when Iraqi leaders “realize they could be on their own, without the United States to blame.” Zakaria should know better than to attack straw as though Murtha and his ilk panicked. Old Marines invented “strategic withdrawal.”

 

Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: December 14, 2005.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Dec 30, 2005
If we end up pulling 20,000 troops from Iraq, and it ends up lengthening the war, will you still be calling it a good move? Or will you be trashing Prs. Bush for doing it, even though you back the idea now?
Your premise is wrong: it would not lengthen it if we were gone--civil war is none of our business. Besides, the 20,000 is already a given.


In WWII the Germans didn't withdraw troops after they basically handed us some of our nations worst losses in battle.
The Germans did strategically withdraw unable to hold onto their gain in order to fight another day. If we fell back where insurgents couldn't take potshots at us, I beleive the Iraqis would no longer have an excuse to prolong the in stability.
on Dec 30, 2005
There's no doubt a president's voice is ubiquitous, nevertheless, in a republic there is still room for dissentin peace time or war. Technically as the only nationwide elected official, he certainly has the capacity to presume he speaks the popular will, of which I am not a part.
on Dec 30, 2005
I meant, why does a push forward automatically mean there should be an incremental withdrawal?
---Parated2K

Because the Left doesn't want a Bush Admin victory, that's why.
That's how they think; any success should willingly be tempered with failure. Look at their social programs, for God's sake. A few decent victories in the past, yes, but failure all around, and they still hang on to them.
That's why we lost Vietnam, really. We'd "sanitize" a village of its VC or NVA troops, then leave instead of setting up a garrison to hold the position and squeeze them out, denying them territory, as good military strategy would suggest. The enemy would then simply slip back in and use the village again. Brilliant, no? That's what they want in Iraq, too.

If we end up pulling 20,000 troops from Iraq, and it ends up lengthening the war, will you still be calling it a good move? Or will you be trashing Prs. Bush for doing it, even though you back the idea now?
---Parated2K

I vote it'd be the latter.



civil war is none of our business
--stevend

You say that now. When/if it happens? You'll be pointing your finger and saying "I told you so!" along with the rest of them.

The Germans did strategically withdraw unable to hold onto their gain in order to fight another day.
--stevend

Where? The only way the Germans backed off was if they were faced with overwhelming opposition. This finally happened in 1943 on the Eastern front, and mid-late 1944 on the Western. Before that, they held on with an iron grip to every inch of ground they took.
And they knew how to control the populace, too. Cruelly, brutally and quickly. Could we do the same in Iraq? Nope. You wouldn't like that, would you? I wouldn't either, truth to tell, but you do have to admire their efficiency on some levels, at least.
Rommel sure wasn't allowed to "strategically withdraw" in North Africa, despite all his desperate communiques to Hitler in Berlin. He had to be pushed the whole way to Egypt. And he was...very effectively. For that, we have generals like Patton and Montgomery to thank...men who knew how to fight a war.


If we fell back where insurgents couldn't take potshots at us, I beleive the Iraqis would no longer have an excuse to prolong the in stability.
---stevend

You know, from what I keep hearing, it's not so much the Iraqis we're fighting anymore. It's the foreigners; thugs in dirty nightshirts who come in across the borders to resist democracy, with TNT strapped across their chests and AK-47s in hand. Their lives are insured by obscenely wealthy Arab monarchs who smile sadly and shake their heads at the terror, and take our money for oil. They then use that oil money to pay the thugs' families a reward if they die killing innocent people or Americans. When are you going to get that message?
on Jan 08, 2006
Before that,
Doesn't speak well for Germans who quickly folded with a few months of D-Day.

It's the foreigners; thugs in dirty nightshirts who come in across the borders to resist democracy, with TNT strapped across their chests and AK-47s in hand.
Gen. CAsey wouldn't agree; there are many Iraqi Sunnis still fighting.

vote it'd be the latter.
Wasted vote.

Because the Left doesn't want a Bush Admin victory, that's why.

a horrid lie!
The enemy would then simply slip back in and use the village again. Brilliant, no? That's what they want in Iraq, too.
That's what is now happening even with the 20,000.
2 Pages1 2