Is Iraq a Debacle?
de·ba·cle Pronunciation (d-bäkl, -bkl, db-kl)
n.
1. A sudden, disastrous collapse, downfall, or defeat; a rout.
2. A total, often ludicrous failure.
3. The breaking up of ice in a river.
4. A violent flood. Source
A lot of web commenters have labeled the US coalition military action in Iraq a "debacle." Is it possible the word does not mean what they think it means?
After 9/11/2001, it was obvious that Afghanistan was the rat's nest--it had to be cleaned out and disinfected. Iraq seemed like a ludicrous target to me. But it seemed that the US President Bush was in a hurry to depose Saddam. Only after Saddam's government collapsed did the US government seem to be aware that Iraq would have to be governed--which might not be easy. Well, hindsight is 20/20, of course.
After the US coalition was in Iraq, it became obvious that a precipitous exit would indeed be a debacle for the US and the west. Staying in place, amid a bloody civil war between three distinct groupings was a bad choice, but not as bad a choice as a precipitous retreat would have been.
Iraq can only be called a fiasco in relation to some other similar action. Vietnam? No, compared to Vietnam, Iraq has been a roaring success. Only those with no knowledge of Vietnam would make the comparison with a straight face. Iraq would become a Vietnam, a true debacle, were the US coalition to choose a precipitous retreat at this time. Certainly Al Qaida celebrated recent US elections as preludes to a debacle in their favour. Muslim extremists and supremacists in general celebrated those elections, in hope of a coming debacle.
In the current clash of civilisations between primitivism (Islam) and modernism (the west), perceptions are crucial. A primitive society built on blood feuds, petty raids, and wars of conquest, is not impressed by opponents that run away from a fight. Osama and his cohorts were most encouraged by the Clinton retreat from Somalia. A similar retreat from Iraq would be even greater encouragement.
George W. Bush is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Nor is he the dullest. Many of his most vocal critics appear far duller.
What does Bush mean by "staying the course?" Probably something far different than what his critics mean. Of course, almost no one in the world really knows what "the course" means to Bush and his planners, though the critics think they know and feel free to hold Bush and his "course" in contempt.
I am taking a lot more into account, looking at a deeper game, than most Bush critics. History may very well hold Bush in the contempt that many ideologues and critics hold him in already. Or not. All I know is there is a lot more at stake than whether Bush is President or Cheney is Vice-President of the US. The future of Europe and the west is at stake. Anything that is done by the west at this time to give aid and encouragement to the jihadis and islamic supremacists is a knife in the back of western civilisation.
This post is not an endorsement of the Iraqi action, nor of US President Bush. Rather it is a suggestion that the surface "truth" is not the same as the deeper truth. That the way events are portrayed in the media may not represent the actual events in their entirety. Most people have no knowledge of military strategies, much less the treacherous interactions of civilisations in conflict. There is more going on here than you know.
n.
1. A sudden, disastrous collapse, downfall, or defeat; a rout.
2. A total, often ludicrous failure.
3. The breaking up of ice in a river.
4. A violent flood. Source
A lot of web commenters have labeled the US coalition military action in Iraq a "debacle." Is it possible the word does not mean what they think it means?
After 9/11/2001, it was obvious that Afghanistan was the rat's nest--it had to be cleaned out and disinfected. Iraq seemed like a ludicrous target to me. But it seemed that the US President Bush was in a hurry to depose Saddam. Only after Saddam's government collapsed did the US government seem to be aware that Iraq would have to be governed--which might not be easy. Well, hindsight is 20/20, of course.
After the US coalition was in Iraq, it became obvious that a precipitous exit would indeed be a debacle for the US and the west. Staying in place, amid a bloody civil war between three distinct groupings was a bad choice, but not as bad a choice as a precipitous retreat would have been.
Iraq can only be called a fiasco in relation to some other similar action. Vietnam? No, compared to Vietnam, Iraq has been a roaring success. Only those with no knowledge of Vietnam would make the comparison with a straight face. Iraq would become a Vietnam, a true debacle, were the US coalition to choose a precipitous retreat at this time. Certainly Al Qaida celebrated recent US elections as preludes to a debacle in their favour. Muslim extremists and supremacists in general celebrated those elections, in hope of a coming debacle.
In the current clash of civilisations between primitivism (Islam) and modernism (the west), perceptions are crucial. A primitive society built on blood feuds, petty raids, and wars of conquest, is not impressed by opponents that run away from a fight. Osama and his cohorts were most encouraged by the Clinton retreat from Somalia. A similar retreat from Iraq would be even greater encouragement.
George W. Bush is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Nor is he the dullest. Many of his most vocal critics appear far duller.
What does Bush mean by "staying the course?" Probably something far different than what his critics mean. Of course, almost no one in the world really knows what "the course" means to Bush and his planners, though the critics think they know and feel free to hold Bush and his "course" in contempt.
I am taking a lot more into account, looking at a deeper game, than most Bush critics. History may very well hold Bush in the contempt that many ideologues and critics hold him in already. Or not. All I know is there is a lot more at stake than whether Bush is President or Cheney is Vice-President of the US. The future of Europe and the west is at stake. Anything that is done by the west at this time to give aid and encouragement to the jihadis and islamic supremacists is a knife in the back of western civilisation.
This post is not an endorsement of the Iraqi action, nor of US President Bush. Rather it is a suggestion that the surface "truth" is not the same as the deeper truth. That the way events are portrayed in the media may not represent the actual events in their entirety. Most people have no knowledge of military strategies, much less the treacherous interactions of civilisations in conflict. There is more going on here than you know.
posted by al fin at 2:13 pm
1 Comments:
Not quite as bad as Clinton's visit to Rwanda, where he spoke for a few minutes from the exit door of Air Force One, while the engines were revving. You could certainly tell that he felt the Rwandans' pain.
Vietnam is far more important in the history of the US than its present. I suspect Bush only went there just to say he had been.
Thanks for the comment.
Post a Comment
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell
<< Home