I'll See Your Soul and Raise You
Posted March 29th, 2006 by Chip Bok
Click Image to Enlarge.
A government report claims Russia gave classified information to Iraq before the 2003 invasion. Foreign Affairs says that Saddam thought France and Russia would prevent an invasion out of economic self interest. The battle plan information may have influenced Saddam to avoid direct resistance and instead follow an insurgency strategy. William Arkin in the Washington Post thinks it's all a Spy vs Spy game. Both sides spy. The U.S. knows it so it lets the Russians steal bad information hoping it will get passed along to Saddam.
Not exactly soul searching is it?
March 29th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Iraq's forces were decimated in the first Gulf War. There was no reason whatsoever for Saddam to think a second war with the US would turn out any differently. For Saddam to back down in front of his people would have meant the end of his regieme just as surely standing and fighting would have done. Study the culture. So Saddam used the only weapon he had which was just a variation of Ali's rope-a-dope of George Foreman. Let your opponent in close, let him bang away, and when he tires, you go on the attack. Saddam also figured he could have at the very least, a firm enough grip on Bush's ankles to drag him down with him. In the Arab culture vengence is as powerful as victory. Saddam's feet may sway in the breeze one day, but by that time the only way to describe our victory in Iraq will be to call it pyrrhic.
March 30th, 2006 at 5:48 am
As impressed as I am with the word "pyrrhic" I suspect it should be capitalized in that you're referring to Pyrrhus's victory at Asculum, not poetics.
That said, by the time Saddam is executed, it will still be way too early to tell if any victory we claim comes at too great a cost. What Bush isn't telling us is that we'll need to be in Iraq at least a generation or two for cultural changes to take any kind of hold. After all, we're still in Korea, Japan and Germany, more or less.
March 30th, 2006 at 9:07 am
I've seen Pyrrhic used both capitalized and not but perhaps
the uncapitalized usage was incorrect as well. I'm a little surprised you seem to think that this war still has the potential
to have positive "cultural" changes. There are times when smackdowns are necessary, but for the most part violence begets violence. Colonialism always leaves scarring.
March 30th, 2006 at 11:45 am
I'm not convinced the war has potential for positive cultural changes and I'm sure it doesn't in the next few years, as politicians like to pretend.
Colonialism always leaves scarring, sure, but war and colonialism are the way of history. We've fallen into a trap of thinking history has stopped, that things will evolve peaceably if we just communicate with one another. Groups like the Taliban disagree and there's really no reasoning with them about it. They're right, in a way–history hasn't stopped, things still hang in the balance, violence still begets change.
Cultural change is what we're going for in the Middle East, and what we have been going for over there for the last century. I don't know if it will work but I'm not sure it's necessarily a bad thing, either. I just wish a politician would admit how long it's going to take.
March 31st, 2006 at 9:13 am
"I just wish a politician would admit how long it's going to take"
Ha Ha Hahahaha Ha…Politicians are about as likely to do that as they were to voice their true feelings about this fiasco when it began. Politics is all about avoiding reality and when confronted with it, distorting it.
April 2nd, 2006 at 5:58 pm
I gotta side with Batman on this one. Changing the culture in Iraq wasn't even mentioned until all of the other ridiculous rationalizations Bush floated out for the war were shown to be utter BS. There's no other agenda in Iraq now other than coming up with some sort of warm and fuzzy PR line like "Peace With Honor" and then hanging onto the chopper rails as the last Chinook leaves Baghad.
April 4th, 2006 at 3:31 am
You're probably right but leaving Iraq anytime soon would be a terrible mistake. For whatever reason, we're there now and the sooner we realize we need to be there more or less permanently, the better.
I don't mean to say our troops should be patrolling the streets five years from now, but the U.S. has a responsibility to invest in Iraq's future. If that happens, it would probably have to start with a large, Subic Bay-type military installation.
Without some outside help, it is truly frightening to imagine how unstable the Middle East will be in 50 years or so, when the oil and water are gone.
April 4th, 2006 at 9:27 am
"the U.S. has a responsibility to invest in Iraq's future."
Why?
April 4th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Because we recently trashed the country and toppled the Iraqi government. It's also in our best interests.
April 4th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Any idea at what point we're throwing good money after bad ?
Have you already forgotten the joke that we're rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq… building new hospitals, schools, roads… providing health care, jobs and education for the Iraqi people.
And if it works there, we're going to try the same thing in this country.
Seriously, yes we have a moral obligation to right the wrong of Bush's failed foreign policy gambit, to the point heaping
an incredible tax burden on the American taxpayer for untold years to come. Will we get our money's worth? WIll we retain some moral highground? Not bloody likely.
April 5th, 2006 at 4:37 am
We sure won't retain any moral highground if we decide to stay or leave based on the question, "will we get our money's worth?"
April 5th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
As I said, at some point either today, tomorrow, or five years from now, there will be a realization that Iraq is "not worth it" whether it be in dollars, lives, or limbs.
I get the feeling that you feel that there is still some sort of chance of redemption or success in Iraq and that you won't let go of that ideal until the cost offends even you.
April 6th, 2006 at 3:51 am
I'm not sure redemption or success are the right words but I definitely believe the U.S. shouldn't cut and run. That would damage our credibility in the Middle East far more than say, a president who stammers.
Unfortunately, we probably will cut and run. Politicians and Americans in general are much more interested in the next election than the next 50 or 100 years. These are major historical events but we're unreliable and that's what our enemies count on.
What do you think will happen if we withdraw from Iraq? Does it matter?