| Friday,
January 12, 2007 For anyone who missed
it, the print DOS from Vista problem is solved.
==========
I finished a long and key scene in Inferno 2 last night, and then went to
a LASFS meeting. The book is going very well.
======
Surging to Iraq
I am still trying to collect my thoughts on Bush's Iraq surge strategy.
My first thought is that 20,000 new troops will not be enough, particularly
with Congressional opposition to their use, and media attention to
casualties.
In 1972-73 we had won the Viet Nam war. Since the North was continuously
supplied by the USSR and would always invade the South when they accumulated
enough war material, the only way the South could stay independent would be
with US aid. Supplying the South cost us a lot less than supplying the North
cost the USSR, and US air support when there was actual combat didn't
produce more casualties than intensive training. Keeping the South
independent would be a continuing obligation, but it could be done at low
cost in blood and treasure. The civil war was long over; this was simple
protection of an ally from out and out invasion.
The Congress would not commit to that, and in 1975 South Viet Nam
accordingly fell.
My concern is that if we send in 20,000 more troops, and take the losses
in blood and treasure, it won't matter how successful they are. Iran will
still be there, organized and ready to invade (or "allow volunteers to enter
Iraq"). And the US will be gone because Pelosi will see to that.
I don't know if 20,000 troops will be enough to pacify Iraq, but suppose
they are? What then? Will the Democrats allow any continuing commitment?
Unlikely. And without US commitment, how long can an Iraqi government endure
against assaults like sovereign states?
Iran, Turkey, and Syria may partition Iraq; without US presence that's as
likely as any other outcome. Jordan may even get a piece. Would it be
realistic to seek that solution? That is certainly what the "bi-partisan"
Iraq Study Group seemed to imply although no one had the courage to state it
openly, hiding this under the heading of "negotiating cooperation" with the
regional powers including Syria and Iran. Is it time openly to talk about
partition of Iraq and having done with it.?
A realistic appraisal must take into account the historic reluctance of
the American people to stay committed to anything that takes years. A
realistic approach must take into account that the Democrats will control
Congress for at least two years. And perhaps that is what the Republicans
are thinking. Advocate sending 20,000 troops, let Congress sabotage that
effort, bug out, and blame the Democrats? The two parties can then spend the
next twenty years blaming each other.
========
I keep hearing "There is no military solution to Iraq." That may be true.
But we heard that about Viet Nam, although by 1972 it was PURELY a military
situation: North armed and ready to invade, South able to fight off
invasions but needing help to do that. It was a military situation, no
insurgency involved, but the Democrats, crying "there is no military
solution" forced us to bug out, producing the memorable scenes of people on
the roof of the embassy, helicopters being pushed into the sea, boat people
and reeducation camps, and the Killing Fields of Cambodia.
If the Democrats will bug out when there is a military solution while
crying "There is no military solution," you may be certain they will bug out
when the situation is considerably more complex.
==
As to what to do about Iraq? The only thing I know to do is what I
suggested from the beginning: recruit auxiliaries to use as constabulary in
Iraq. It is late to be doing this, but there does remain one option: hire
Gurkhas. Hire all those in service now, and pay the Brits to recruit and
train ten more regiments. Send them in long term. Continue to pay them.
Meanwhile, build an auxiliary army of constabulary to replace them.
It's not elegant but it might work.
=====
A recent email asks:
"The only thing I know to do is what I suggested
from the beginning: recruit auxiliaries to use as constabulary in Iraq."
Isn't that what we're already trying to do with the
Iraqi Army and Police Force?
and of course the answer is no. Our problem with Iraq native forces is
that there is no Iraq. There are Turkmen, Assyrians, Arabs, Sunni, Shia,
Kurds, and each of those groups are divided into tribes and clans. The
number of actual Iraqi's is very small -- and nearly off of those were
Baathists and part of Saddam Hussein's army. Saddam was closer to being an
Iraqi nationalist than most of those on the current scene. It is barely
possible that had we hired the Iraqi army back before the looting and total
disruption, it might have been used as constabulary with our Legions
standing as overwatch. Barely possible. But once that army was disbanded,
that was no longer an option.
There are no Iraqis to recruit, now. We are recruiting regiments of
tribal militiamen. I wish I had strong evidence to the contrary but almost
everything I learn confirms that conclusion.
For more on the Iraq surge, see
mail.
=================
I see that Bill Gates has decided to take a personal hand in examining
the investments of his Foundation. I suspect this isn't an optimum use of
his time. There is a solution: there exist Catholic investment funds.
Let them handle the investments. The returns won't be as high, but there is
considerable scrutiny of the effects of the investments.
Friday TOP
Current Mail
|
