Reply #87: This guy is a foreign policy pro

[teryang]

...therefore he extemporarizes well. However there were several errors he got away with. ( By the way I thought you did very well.)

A minor one was his characterization of the Korean war. American enthusiasm for that war lasted less than a year. Once the Chinese intervened successfully it became a very unpopular war. Men who had gotten their combat credentials in WWII were forced to fight again in very unfavorable circumstances. They didn't expect to have to fight again and they didn't like it. Neither did the public. We didn't win that war. We sued for an armistice. The terms of the armistice changed nothing.

Which brings me to my second point. The no exit strategy comment is virtually heresy. Wars are politics by other means. Political goals are readily defined. When they are achieved you leave. First we had to disarm Iraq. Of course that was a lie. Then the issue was regime change. We changed the regime, ( Actually based upon my studies of guerilla warfare I don't think we did change the regime it is still out there in the villages coordinating attacks and obtaining funding somehow) but now we don't know what we will get, so the goal or exit strategy becomes establishing a market economy in Iraq for American corporations and we'll call it democracy. This is what is being fought over now, allegedly. You can't have an exit strategy if you don't state what your goals are. The administration lied about it's goals and the attainment or failure of those goals and changes its goals like a chameleon. Following the no exit strategy stated policy you are not accountable to reason or to anyone. If there is not standard to judge effective accomplishment of goals, then it cannot be said whether one is succeeding or failing. If you follow the logic of undefined goals you can only leave until you achieved total submission of the occupied or until you have exhausted yourself in a fruitless struggle.

The former would be colonialism. Colonialism was completely discredited after the WWII. Vietnam was colonialism in drag. Iraq is colonialism in drag. Colonialism will not stand up to nationalism period. It is a discredited political policy and form of government.

This is why exit strategies are not wanted. They force you to define a political goal. Americans can't be honest about what the political goal in Iraq really is- subjugation.

Time is not on our side for two reasons. The remoteness of the battlefront from the base of embarkation imposes hugely disproportionate costs on our side. To deliver a clean lightweight uniform to soldier probably costs thousands if it can even be accomplished, when the organization and coordination of logistic factors is taken into account. The brouhaha over armor vests is a classic example of logistic failures. The most routine every day items are difficult to obtain in war zone so far away. Just getting clean water or a meal that won't make you sick is a big deal. To add to the burdens imposed by absurdly long lines of communication, is that the enemy is using assymetric guerilla warfare against us. He chooses the time and place of attack. Our effectiveness is very limited in countering this method of warfare. Finally, the extremely disproportionate effort results in only marginal effectiveness rather than "victory" and interminable costs that taxpayers and businessmen will not tolerate indefinitely. One starts looking at the purported goals of such military endeavors and wonders, what were they? Are they worth it?

Your comments about tet were right on. When one analogizes to Vietnam, it is the political dynamic not the superficial similarities or differences that matter. Your opponent stated that the Iraqis don't have substantial outside help from a superpower. Don't think so? This kind of foreign invasion into Arab land traditionally draws support from the entire Arab world, if not the entire muslim world. This phenomenon has been observed throughout the centuries. Particular groups or sects among the politically motivated gain their pan Arab credentials by fighting for a cause in a threatened Arab region. This is not Al Qaeda this is an Arab cultural tradition many centuries old. Some experts question whether Al Qaeda even exists. It is a legend really. Various guerilla groups exist sponsored by various powers as a regional defense strategy.

Was "Al Qaeda" weakened by fighting the Russians in Afghanistan or Chechnya or Serbs in Kosovo? This notion that some tactical advantage is sustained by fighting the enemy on the turf that favors him is complete nonsense. We don't know the language. We don't know the people. The people don't like us. The lines of communication are horrible. Yet fighting domestic and international resistance fighters in such an environment favors us? Wrong! Under such circumstances there is no way time is on our side. Such a posture assumes limitless resources. It is a political fallacy of the highest order.